With President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to fill David Souter’s U.S. Supreme Court seat, the same tired chestnuts are being rolled out — “judicial activism,” “legislating from the bench,” and so on — joined this time by a competing buzzword: judicial “empathy.”
It’s high time to end to these silly linguistic games, which frustrate a meaningful examination of a judicial nominee’s suitability and teach Americans a false lesson about how the law works. If we as a nation are to speak honestly about what really matters in judging, the conversation must begin by recognizing two basic truths.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
