CommunityMy FDLSeminal

John Yoo Advises Senate on the ‘Faithful Application’ of the Constitution

Crossposted at The Grievance Project.

John Yoo interrupts his defense of torture and (presumably) himself, to weigh in on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, concluding with this:

But conservatives should not be pleased simply because Sotomayor is not a threat to the conservative revolution in constitutional law begun under the Reagan administration. 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. Republican senators will have to conduct thorough questioning in the confirmation hearings to make sure that she will not be a results-oriented voter, voting her emotions and politics rather than the law. One worrying sign is Sotomayor’s vote to uphold the affirmative action program in New Haven, CT, where the city threw out a written test for firefighter promotions when it did not pass the right number of blacks and Hispanics. Senators should ask her whether her vote in that case, which is under challenge right now in the Supreme Court (where I signed an amicus brief for the Claremont Center on Constitutional Jurisprudence), was the product of her “empathy” rather than the correct reading of the Constitution. [My emphasis.]

Since comments aren’t permitted on his post, I emailed Mr. Yoo this afternoon asking for a response to the following questions:

  • What are the criteria you use to determine if some is faithfully applying the Constitution?
  • What are the criteria you use to determine if someone is a "results-oriented voter?" Why do you use the term "vote" at all? Is this the term you normally use to refer to decisions rendered by appellate judges? Other than the case you cite, are there additional bases of which you’re aware to indicate that she will be a "results-oriented voter?"
  • When considering your advice, should Senators consider whether your authorship of the OLC ‘torture’ memoranda was the product of some emotion of yours rather than the correct reading of the Constitution? If so, which emotion of yours should they consider?

Don’t hold your breath but I’ll post any reply I receive from Mr. Yoo.

Crossposted at The Grievance Project.

H/t Josh Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo.

Previous post

Chronicling Swat Relief

Next post

The "Flood" of Drugs



I am a licensed attorney who’s tired of reading about the unethical conduct and actions of attorneys, including Alberto Gonzales, Kyle Sampson, Monica Goodling, Hans von Spakosky, Ted Stevens, Lisa Murkowski and many others, who work in and for our government. News accounts of their actions in the US Attorney firings, the voter fraud matters, the Alaskan bribery and land deals and other matters present instance after instance of ethical lapses that range from violations of laws to conflicts of interest. To my knowledge, there is no organized effort to address these violations as grievable offenses. The Grievance Project is my effort to do exactly that.