Judge Sotomayor: Legal Bulldog or Judicial Bully?

Empathy over law and judicial activism aside, Newsmax reports that lawyers who have appeared before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor gave some pretty harsh reviews of hear courtroom demeanor in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, a guide to federal judges.

Among some of the terms used to describe her were  ”nasty,” “angry,” a “terror on the bench,” and a ”kind of a bully on the bench.”

Now, I’m sure some lawyers need to be smacked around a little.  After all, the garbage that passes for lawsuits these days is pretty pathetic.   But the almanac indicates Sotomayor received a singular level of negative comments.

From the Newsmax article:

“She does not suffer fools gladly,” said Kevin Russell, a partner for Howe & Russell P.C. who argued a case before Judge Sotomayor about respiratory ailments suffered by the men and women who cleaned up ground zero after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. “I guess it is predictable that some of those fools would then complain about it.”

People doing cleanup at the WTC after 911. Not exactly the whiner constituency we’ve come to see so much of in society today.  And the noxious fumes and chemicals in and around “ground zero” were widely reported in the days and months following 911.

This issue of temperament has apparently come up before with Judge Sotomayor:

Judge Sotomayor’s judicial temperament was raised during her 1997 confirmation hearing to the appeals court. Sen. Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who recently became the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, told Judge Sotomayor that she was out of bounds when she criticized mandatory minimum sentences from the bench during one sentencing proceeding.

“I do think that a judge, would you not agree, has to be careful in conducting themselves in a way that reflects respect for the law and the system,” Mr. Sessions said.

Judge Sotomayor said she probably should not have used the word “abomination” to describe the guidelines, but that her record showed she didn’t let her personal opinions affect her rulings.

Given President Obama’s accolades for “empathy” and personal background as a foundation for judicial qualification, one indeed has to wonder how much her feelings and personal opinions may affect her rulings.  After all, there was the Ricci v. Destefano case in which she ruled the reverse-discrimination against white firefighters was okay.

A legal bulldog is sometimes a good thing, especially with all the whining lawyers and clients who are out looking for a free lunch.

But someone who throws their weight around just for the sake of it, or allows their personal emotions and opinions to cloud their judgement and obscure the impartial application of the law is the last person we need on the nation’s highest court.

Note: Reader comments are reviewed before publishing, and only salient comments that add to the topic will be published. Profanity is absolutely not allowed and will be summarily deleted. Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will also be deleted.