Frothy Paradise

needtherapy:

milquetoastintolerant: thesmarttart:

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas: “You’ve also said that the Supreme Court decisions that a lot of us believe made law actually were an interpretation of the law. So I’m — I would like for you to clarify that. If the Supreme Court in the next few years holds that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, would that be making the law? Or would that be interpreting the law?”

Sotomayor: “Senator, that question is so embedded with its answer, isn’t it? Meaning if the court rules one way and I say that’s making law, then it forecasts that I have a particular view of whatever arguments may be made on this issue, suggesting that it’s interpreting the Constitution. … This is the type of situation where even the characterizing of whatever the court may do as one way or another suggests that I have both prejudged an issue and that I come to that issue with my own personal views suggesting an outcome. And neither is true.”

Ha, good for her!