Sotomayor confirmation hearings continued

with Susan Low Bloch and Walter Dellinger
in Current Affairs
on Monday, July 13, 2009 * * * * *

Sorry, this video isn’t available at the moment; please check back soon.

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

Continued discussion about the Sotomayor confirmation hearings with Walter Dellinger of Duke University andSusan Low Bloch of Georgetown University

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
Obama
Supreme Court
Sotomayor

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/10469

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 3
    Post new comment
    1. writersblock25  11/12/2011 03:04 PM Report

      Thank you for posting this, Charlie Rose, LLC.

    2. rondeevous  07/18/2009 03:47 AM Report

      Why is the argument of spirit of the law versus letter of the law an issue here is this not the judges responsibility to up hold the integrity of the law. How else do we know the spirit of integrity except through metaphysical experiences, and for the letter she is (or seems) well prepared.

      I mean: J. S. Mill's theories of liberty and utilitarianism seem great until the reality of the situation hits then we have to judge our moral by-products in relation to the actions taken (moral thoughts)- meaning the spirit of those theories in relation to their words of meaning. Where does individual's salvation lies within Mill's theories? At the heart those theories but the words take on their own meaning when out of content.

      The integrity of the metaphysic's spirit is always a problem in philosophy's theories (or law) because of the relation of reality's now in view of our ethics through our morals. The only things we have to go on is the histories of these thoughts in action. Question her again and again if she the one she will answers.

    3. REMant  07/14/2009 12:06 PM Report

      Assuming she joins the Court we will have two weird women on it, five or six nutty men, and six Roman Catholics. Reminds me of The Dirty Dozen. All but one of them was at one time or another a law professor. And they were all Federal district and/or circuit court judges, most for the DC Circuit.

      Never mind that she has experience as a judge, she simply has no experience in life, her comment about Latina women notwithstanding. Being a minority does not give one experience; being a wife and mother, laborer or manager, or even an attorney in private practice, does. A glance at the resumes of the current justices will reveal that several of them have had more varied experience than she has had.

      Not so long ago presidents were not afraid to nominate ppl from different backgrounds, but no one has been nominated with Congressional experience in 60 yrs: Sherman Minton. With only state court experience not since O'Connor, the first woman, but before that Brennan in 1956 - a rare Catholic to that time, 53 yrs ago - tho JFK nominees White and Goldberg, LBJ nominee Fortas, and Nixon nominees Burger, Powell and Rehnquist had no experience as a judge at all. Obviously, the presidents who made these appointments had something other than judging in mind. Life experience these days is not supposed to influence decisions anyway, so perhaps it is a good thing, if you can believe lawyers are objective. Everyone ironically seems to want to be a Bork, but Bork's understanding of the Constitution is not markedly superior to Black's, which was singularly ignorant. Perhaps they should put Rakove on the bench.

      It is not enough to talk about not making law if by that you mean following court precedent instead. Law is either made by a monarch or legislature, or it is not law. It is not custom, and if it were it would not therefore be law, anymore than one can assume the marketplace to be. The so-called common law is a myth, tho law, if it is made, should no doubt not be without reason. Much of what the Federal courts get involved in is none of their business at all, just as the anti-Federalists warned of, which in fact, cannot be resolved without someone making new law, and is rather the business of the states or the Congress. Rather than doing the job the country has abandoned it to the judges, just as they've surrendered the economy to the bankers and regulators (which, BTW, they want now to combine in one pkg). I am not sure it makes sense to be "a nation of laws" anyway. Law implies a lack of innovation, discipline and improvement, which ppl can only do for themselves.

      Lastly, there is ample precedent for not believing a word these nominees say in their hearings.