Sunday, June 07, 2009

Specious logic; no to Judge Sotomayor

A local letter writer, defending Israel, makes this argument:
"Every administration since Harry Truman's has backed Israel and will continue to do so in the future. They cannot all be wrong." Well, actually, yes, they could be. This is (I think) the classic argument from authority, the authority being the U.S. government. (I happen to be pro-Israeli, but that's beside the point).

Now, to my main point, Sonia Sotomayor should not be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice. It is not because she is a racist, as Rush Limbaugh, et al. have asserted. An unfortunate comment from thirty years ago should not disqualify someone. She should be rejected because she is an activist judge who will bend the law to her goals of a more progressive society. She champions identity politics over the rule of law.

I wish conservative opponents of Sotomayor would focus on that, rather than on the slim evidence of her "racism," an overused and abused term. She has explicitly said that judges make policy—it's her words, not mine. See this clip on Youtube!


Rod said...

i don't necessarily see why being *progressive* might be such a bad thing. are you talking about progressive ideas? which ones?

Jack Davis said...

My point was not that progressive ideas were ipso facto bad, but that they should be enacted through the democratic process. I do not want a judge perverting the law for the goal of a progressive society—or for a conservative society for that matter.

I apologize if I did not make that clear in the original post.