"SOTOMAYOR: 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much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control.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. "
Wasn't the wise statement mentioned more than once, at different times, in speeches. A slipped statement is one thing. Repeating the statement is not the same thing to declare as a simple slip.
As for her statement above about policy made from the bench.
yeah yeah, she shouldn't have said it - but it's the truth so let it be.
Well, if a Congressman said he takes campaign contributions from organizations full knowing that its for his vote, well, nothing wrong with that. I mean, the Congressman wouldn't promote it or advocate it - we just know its true.
No one would take offense if a Congressman said it right?
She has the credentials for the Supreme Court. But, her own statements are racially toned and her comments of making policy from the bench, despite humor and such, it was said. And honest statement of actions taken that the Constitution doesn't allow for from a judge. To make policy.
