More Stupid Slogans About Souter And His (Possible) Successor

From the New York Times, we learn that Sonia Sotomayer:

Would not be reflexively liberal or "results-oriented" but would adhere to the law and the Constitution.

That's good.  Because I hate judges who don't adhere to the law and Constitution. 

Oh, and I'm also thrilled to hear that Justice Souter is committed to "core constitutional values."   Because the other justices are committed to more marginal constitutional values?  Or don't have any constitutional values at all?

Every sitting Justice believes he or she is adhering to the law and Constitution.  Every one is committed to his or her best understanding of core constitutional values.  Perhaps we should pick an originalist, or perhaps a pragmatist.  Perhaps a person who is most worried about the racialized history of America, or perhaps one concerned about our long anxiety over a strong central government. 

But if one of my students used vapid slogans lines like these on an exam ("Justice Scalia cares about rules, while Justice Souter cares about people")... he would be very dissatisfied with his grade.  The Times gets plenty of stuff right, and we all know that these phrases are designed to coat their own political commitments with the patina of objectivity, but pulease! 

How about: Souter was moderately liberal, particularly on certain civil liberties and civil rights issues,  and we hope the next person will be too. 

There.  Was that so hard?

Comments

[Kathy Stanchi]

Thanks for this interesting post calling out the Times on its penchant for euphemism. I stick with the Times, because it is better than most alternatives, but I admit that their use of language sometimes sets my teeth on edge (how's that for a visual?). Do you ever read Sunday's Public Editor column? Have you checked out the recent columns on the use of language related to the "CIA interrogation techniques"? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/26/opinion/26pubed.html

Pretty interesting. Given that some readers excoriated the Times for its use of the adjective "brutal" to describe the practice of bashing people against walls (I guess reasonable minds can differ!), I wouldn't hold out hope that the Times will openly call for the appointment of a liberal to replace Souter. I think the Times is too easily cowed by accusations of bias. But, hey, maybe they'll do it on the editorial page -- or get Frank Rich to do it.

Ok, I am done avoiding grading. Back to work.