Es bueno confirmar que lo que uno piensa --respecto de la falsedad de algunas 'filosofías' jurídicas expuestas en las audiencias de Sotomayor- sea confirmado por gente top top top top top.
Dice Dershowitz:
The Sotomayor hearings are worse than most. Senators pretend to be outraged by the thought that a judge might be influenced by ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation or other such factors. The nominee pretends that she misspoke, or was misunderstood, when she acknowledged, in a moment of candor, that her Latina background might put her in a better position to understand certain legal or constitutional issues.
Por su parte, Gerken...
I have always believed in confirmation hearings. The Constitution belongs to all Americans, and confirmation hearings offer dramatic proof of that fact. The problem is that what appears to be emerging from the hearings is a depiction of judging that is unrecognizable to lawyers of any jurisprudential stripe.
(...)
The inexorable logic of politics has led both senators and nominees to depict judging as an either/or choice: either the law involves the technocratic application of rules to fact, or it involves free-form democratic engineering. But there is a vast space between those two positions, and somewhere in that space lies the reality of judging. It’s too bad that Americans watching the hearing will never catch a glimpse of that reality.
Dice Dershowitz:
The Sotomayor hearings are worse than most. Senators pretend to be outraged by the thought that a judge might be influenced by ethnicity, gender, religion, political affiliation or other such factors. The nominee pretends that she misspoke, or was misunderstood, when she acknowledged, in a moment of candor, that her Latina background might put her in a better position to understand certain legal or constitutional issues.
Por su parte, Gerken...
I have always believed in confirmation hearings. The Constitution belongs to all Americans, and confirmation hearings offer dramatic proof of that fact. The problem is that what appears to be emerging from the hearings is a depiction of judging that is unrecognizable to lawyers of any jurisprudential stripe.
(...)
The inexorable logic of politics has led both senators and nominees to depict judging as an either/or choice: either the law involves the technocratic application of rules to fact, or it involves free-form democratic engineering. But there is a vast space between those two positions, and somewhere in that space lies the reality of judging. It’s too bad that Americans watching the hearing will never catch a glimpse of that reality.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario