What this means in practical terms for Jane Q. Public is that, at the trial court level (aka district court in the federal judiciary system), a judge's ruling applies only to the individual(s) involved in the particular case on which the judge rules. However, at the appellate court level, the judges' ruling applies to everyone within the geographical boundaries of the appellate court's jurisdiction; the ruling thus becomes the law (on that particular issue) within the geographical boundaries of the appellate court's jurisdiction.
Merope | Beliefnet Community Manager Problems? Send a message to Beliefnet_community
Wgal, actually that was me paraphrasing the video of the remarks. Here's the full quote:
The saw is that if you're going into academia, you're going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is -- court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know -- and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. OK, I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it, I'm -- you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating -- its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you're on the district court, you're looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you're always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, "I don't care about the next step," and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, "We'll worry about that when we get to it" -- look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that's the differences -- the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
To translate for those who don't speak legalese (Wgal, I know you do): "When you make a decision in district court, it doesn't affect anything but when you make a decision in appellate court, you establish a policy, through the operation of precedent, on how that point of law is going to be treated in the future".
This isn't sinister, folks. This is perfectly normal, this is one of the bedrocks of our system of law. It's called normal operation of precedent and it's so blindingly obvious that it might as well be a lawyer's way of saying "In other news, sky still blue, water still wet, Pope still wearing a silly hat".
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31
Having seen the notorious "appelate courts make policy" remark in context, the judge is referring to the simple fact that courts make policy on how particular points of law are interpreted i.e. she's not talking about anything sinister, she's talking about the rule of precedent, one of the most important principles in our legal system.
Ebon--thanks to you of posting this actual QUOTATION from Sotomayor--instead of some R fanatasy about what they imagine she said.
My thanks also to all who have posted actual info here.
One notes the absence of some--like those who have spoken most vociferously against Sotomayor based on nothing more than what they heard someone else say.
I wonder how many of the fulminators have actually READ any of Sotomayor's cases/opinions?
And why none have mentioned that here--or even posted here.
Maybe Rush-Newt forgot to tell them what the opinions actually said?
The last time I asked one of the Sotomayor detractors to give their analysis of these cases/opinions and WHY they found Judge Sotomayor's legal opinions so "odious"--the answer came that they'd give their analysis AFTER I gave mine......
What great irony. The same people who were strongly arguing FOR the "Unitary Executive" concept of Cheney/Bush, a concept in absolute oppostion to established Constitutional principles, now are all ragged-edged about the Constitutional interpretation of a small, out-of-context quote.
What delicious fun.
Democrats think the glass is half full. Republicans think the glass is theirs. Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Having seen the notorious "appelate courts make policy" remark in context, the judge is referring to the simple fact that courts make policy on how particular points of law are interpreted i.e. she's not talking about anything sinister, she's talking about the rule of precedent, one of the most important principles in our legal system.
He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31
From what I've read .. until she comes clean regarding her position on Roe v Wade, she will remain in limbo. .... abortion being the most important issue for most on the left.
That would be flat out hilarious if Obama get's Souter'd on this deal, and actually appoints a conservative judge. LOL.
I wonder if single-minded anti-Roe robots understand how many other decisions have used the precedence of Roe as a basis for their decision.
It's as if they think Roe exists in some legal vacuum because all THEY can think about is abortion.
Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert
“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.
If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”
May 28: It appears that a lot of right wing attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are beginning to collapse. How are their attacks being debunked? Rachel Maddow is joined by NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg.
Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert
“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.
If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”
Facts are based in reality, and we all know reality has a liberal bias!!!
Any takers on who (which 'activist' judge) wrote the following?
'Not only do state-court judges possess the power to 'make' common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' consitutions as well.'
or this?
'...judges of inferior courts often 'make law', since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation...'
Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert
“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.
If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”
