Note: This blog's templates will be updated this afternoon to a responsive design bringing it in line with MiamiHerald.com.

At that time, we will also change to the Facebook commenting system. You will need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment.

« Sitting guv, would-be guv reach out to seniors | Main | Martinez on Sotomayor: "Great pride" »

Jeb Bush associates on Sotomayor

Here's what former Florida Supreme Court justice Raoul Cantero, former Gov. Jeb Bush's pick for the Florida Supreme Court says of Obama's SCOTUS selection:

"President Barack Obama has nominated Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court. In announcing her nomination, President Obama expressed three factors that he believe make a good judge. First, he said, was intellectual rigor—the qualifications of a judge. I’m sure everyone agrees. The second was recognition of the limits of the judicial role and commitment to impartial justice. This is a refreshing statement and perhaps reflects his legal background. The third repeated his prior statements about 'heart' and 'empathy.' The problem will soon arise, as it inevitably does for any judge in a court of last resort, of what happens in a particular case when the second factor of limited judicial role impartiality conflicts with empathy? When push comes to shove, will a Justice Sotomayor favor individuals over institutions, employees over corporations, the poor over the rich? My hope is that she will recognize that a judge is supposed to be objective, impartial, free from bias.When it comes to judging, impartiality must trump empathy.”

And from Raquel Rodriguez, who served as Bush's general counsel for four years, and participated in the governor’s appointment of nearly 300 judges throughout Florida’s court system:

"In exercising its constitutional confirmation authority, the Senate should consider whether Judge Sotomayor possesses the humility and appreciation for our Constitution to understand that the role of the Justice is to interpret the law, not make the law. In examining her body of work, including prior judicial opinions, the Senate should evaluate whether those opinions demonstrated respect for the separate roles of our three co-equal branches. While it is laudable and desirable to have a Supreme Court that reflects a diversity of views and backgrounds, Justices must check these at the Supreme Court door. Personal views must be surrendered in favor of applying the law.”

Comments