Site Meter

Judging Sonia Sotomayor?

You may also like...

9 Responses

  1. Publius says:

    Judge Sotomayor’s unflappability may be as much due to the Obama/Biden murder boards as her personality (notwithstanding Al Franken’s “the White House didn’t prepare you” for the Perry Mason question).

    This current crew seems much more effective than those who did not prepare Harriet Meiers for the conservative onslaught.

  2. Jaime says:

    Several of the Senators reminded me of the pro pers into court who come armed with passion but don’t quite get law. Similar to the good judges who look behind the pro per’s failings and try to salvage the point the unrepresented pro per is trying to make, she improved the character of the few ridiculous questions by refusing to sink to the veiled ad hominem attacks,answering only the serious, relevant matters. Bravo!

  3. humble law student says:

    You wrote that you couldn’t imagine a reference to the “arch-conservative group” the Federalist society. Umm, Alito and Roberts were both criticized for being part of the Federalist society.

  4. A.W. says:

    a racist has no place on the court. period.

  5. AYY says:

    Well you had me going there for a while, Dean Johnson

    You know Maryland Conservatarian usually comments on posts like the ones you’ve written. But he hasn’t commented on your posts. Interesting. And Alan Sokal–haven’t seen much of him lately either. Got me thinking that maybe they knew something I didn’t.

    What gave it away was when you called the Federalist Society “arch-conservative”, called Maldef et al “mainstream”, and the singlemindedness with which you pushed the Sotomayor-victimization agenda.

    Let me guess what happened. One day long ago after you had all your leftist credentials, you stumbled into a Federalist Society meeting. Maybe it was an accident. Or maybe it was a dame. No harm in that. Could have happened to the best of us.

    But then you went back. And you went back again, and again, and again. And you learned the secret handshake, and the secret code. Maybe they pried you with promises of being a substitute host on Rush Limbaugh. Maybe they gave you an all expense paid trip for a week to Hillsdale, Michigan. Maybe they had you read Instapundit or Volokh.

    Or maybe it was something else. But get to you they did. And one day you learned that instead of making three left turns you could get to the same place easier and faster by making one right turn. And then you were hooked.

    But you and they didn’t want anyone to know. So you, with their assistance, kept on with the guise of a leftist. And then there was the long awaited phone call from Concurring Opinions. It was all part of the plan for you to become
    THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY MOLE WHO HAS INFILTRATED CONCURRING OPINIONS SO THAT YOU CAN TURN THE LIBERALS INTO ARCH-CONSERVATIVES.

    Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    Well I certainly don’t plan on telling anyone. We can keep this to ourselves. But do try not to try so hard. Someone else is bound to pick up on it.

  6. Vigilante says:

    Yeah! Now that all the GOP’s cards have been played, those of us who laid down our bets years ago that 20th Century Dixiecrats would morph into 21st Century Republicants can collect our winnings and leave the table!

  7. JD says:

    It is pretty amusing that Dean Johnson describes very liberal organizations as “mainstream,” but the Federalist Society as “arch-conservative,” and he’s apparently unaware of how or why it’s amusing.

  8. “Judge Sotomayor is a judge in the mainstream of American judges. She judges by the book.”

    Based on my readings of Prof. Johnson,I believe that if he really thought that statement were true, he would not be such an enthusiastic supporter of Judge Sotomayor.

    “…or the Federalist Society, the arch-conservative group…”

    Perhaps for a future post, the Professor/Dean can outline just what it is about the Federalist Society that makes it an “arch-conservative” one…and for extra credit, how exactly Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy – as indicated by her testimony before the Senators (as opposed to her writings and speeches) – is a “mainstream” alternative to such “arch-conservative” thinking.

    [and actually AYY, I did comment on an earlier posting by Prof. Johnson (and I believe one of your's followed)]