Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
JOHN YOO DOESN'T AGREE WITH JOHN YOO.
When not offering his endorsement of the power of the executive to crush the testicles of children in the name of national security, torture enthusiast John Yoo likes to parrot conservative talking points on legal issues. Here he is on Sonia Sotomayor:
Conservatives should defend the Supreme Court as a place where cases are decided by a faithful application of the Constitution, not personal politics, backgrounds, and feelings.
But Yoo, despite his abstract familiarity with waterboarding people and stuffing them in boxes, is unaware of our Internet traditions. Namely, the one where you point out to someone arguing a particular point that they were arguing the opposite point when the circumstances were reversed. Here's Yoo on the Newshour, talking about Sandra Day O'Connor in 2004:
JIM LEHRER: So that's what you think Justice O'Connor should be doing more of, in other words follow an ideology or follow a philosophy and be consistent with that and not switch back and forth, one time be with the conservatives and one time be with the liberals, is that what you're saying, John Yoo?When there was a Republican president, John Yoo believed that for Republican appointees like O'Connor anything other than acting in a narrow partisan interest wasn't "really being a judge." He believed that "personal politics," not interpreting the law, was what being a judge was about. Now that a Democrat is president, he's all about judicial independence. I only remember this quote because it was the first time I really became aware of Yoo, and this statement was particularly memorable.JOHN YOO: Yes, because if you're just switching back and forth all the time, if you're in the middle all the time, are you really being a judge - I mean, isn't that what we elect people to be legislators, is to cut compromises and to split the differences, not judges?
The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race. Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.
This is an utter fail as an approach. Latinos come from many different cultures and backgrounds. But if there's one thing that's likely to unite the entire Latino community, it's the GOP's argument that she was only picked "because of her race."
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (5)
Typical idiotic post, providing yet another example of the Dems trying to create racial discord in order to obtain power. Pointing out that she was clearly chosen in part due to her race is not an attack on that race, it's an attack on Dem racism.
Posted by: 24AheadDotCom | May 26, 2009 3:44 PM
"Conservatives should defend the Supreme Court as a place where cases are decided by a faithful application of the Constitution, not personal politics, backgrounds, and feelings."
Yep, the Constitution provides that judges must be insurance company executives !
Posted by: H-Bob | May 26, 2009 3:52 PM
Why would anyone care what an idiot like John Yoo (or 24AheadDotCom, for that matter) thinks?
Posted by: Curious George W. Bush | May 26, 2009 3:54 PM
... Typical idiotic post
What's idiotic about pointing out someone's glaring inconsistencies or that the same person noted Sotomayor's ethnicity as the primary reason she was selected?
Posted by: Drew in Sconnie | May 26, 2009 5:16 PM
A full and fair reading of the articles linked to makes it clear that this post is about trying to make Woo look bad rather than give his comments an honest treatment. Woo is clearly seeking more consistency in O'Connors *judicial*, not political philosophy. Her (according to Woo) tendency to "split the difference" between the other jurists is problematic because it's not grounded in in a judicial philosophy. It does perpetuate her role as the fulcrum of power, but it comes at the expense of intellectual rigor. If she does see her mission, as one of the other interviewees suggests, as that of "saving the legitimacy of the court," she undermines that very legitimacy by failing to maintain a clear and consistent vision of the role of a justice in applying the law.
Posted by: Freeven | May 27, 2009 11:53 AM