I'm sure Obama's team has already found an explanation for that. It's a pretty easy find.
FoxNews doesn't seem to be hitting back to hard just yet. I imagine by the time we see BillO or Hanitty tonight we can expect YouTube videos, angry rants and the shaping of the conservative message.
Of course, I spoke too soon. Already pulled a quote where Sotomayor says a Hispanic woman would make better decisions than a white male.
Actually there is no need for elaborate explanation.
Just read Anonymous Liberal's post where he explains what Sotomayor meant:
http://www.anonymousliberal.com/2009/05/more-republican-judicial-clowning.html
(sighs) This is what now qualifies as a big-time litigator in a large law firm.
Look, both this genius and the soon-to-be SC justice are correct in a certain sense, but fail to appreciate the nuance between a corollary function and the necessary function of an Appeals court judge. Or at least that's what her statement originally failed to acknowledge.
The necessary function of an Appeals court judge is to review rulings and decisions mainly made by District Courts (and some other courts in certain situations, including bankruptcy courts, tax courts, even occasionally magistrate courts if the issue is a real live one, etc.). In reviewing these decisions, using whatever standard of review is applicable (usually under SC precedent), the Appeals court makes a decision
applying SC precedent strictly to the specific factual and legal issues at hand. In other words, at a literal level, the Appeals Court is merely empowered to the function to apply SC precedent in review of District Court rulings and decisions.
Now, as one could easily figure out, the situations where SC precedent and District Court rulings, decisions, etc. overlap are not that common (though more common than you might think). Henceforth, any decision where the application of SC precedent is not on point leaves open the use of policy to make a judgment (in addition to straightforward applications of law - such as with statutes). Invariably, all these decisions which do not "merely quote SC precedent and move along" form their own separate universe of interpretation within that Circuit, but fundamentally and most importantly at the theoretical level,
all of these decisions are made still strictly follow SC precedent. This occurs even when different Circuits reach different conclusions (based on different policy) regarding a legal issue.
Therefore, the use of policy in interpreting SC precedent not on point (not to mention Circuit precedent, but it presents less issues) is a function of an Appeals Court judge but it is a corollary function which derives from the necessary and basic function of an Appeals Court judge, as stated above.
