The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

Erick Erickson at RedState reads Sonia Sotomayor's written response to the judiciary committee's questions about the use of foreign law as amending her oral testimony to the point of reversing its meaning. I actually don't think it reverses her position so much as drains it of any meaningful content.

Sotomayor's statement that "[r]eading the decisions of foreign courts for ideas, however, does not constitute 'using' those decisions to decide cases" reminds me of the debate Justices Scalia and Breyer had on this topic a few years ago. "I'm not preventing you from reading [foreign] cases," Scalia quipped. "I mean, just indulge your curiosity! Just don't put it in your opinions!" Would Sotomayor cite foreign caselaw in her opinions? I suspect so, but her written and oral testimony, taken together, don't really answer the question one way or the other.

About the Author

John Tabin is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator online.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/07/22/it-depends-on-what-the-meaning

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

Special Feature

Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:

A Time for Choosing

James Piereson

The Road from Serfdom

Stephen Moore and Peter Ferrara

FLASHBACK TO: 1984

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT