Biden to Law Enforcement Groups: Sotomayor Has Your Back

Wednesday, June 10th, 2009

It’s gut-check time for the left.

Vice President Joe Biden may have crossed the line when he assured national law enforcement groups Monday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor “has your back.”

The remark quickly stirred criticism in the legal world, since Biden was making a pledge that a fair and objective justice would not necessarily be able to keep.

Biden made the remark at an assembly of eight law enforcement groups after he detailed Sotomayor’s tough-on-crime record in the courtroom.

“There’s a part of her record that seems to be, up to now, been flying under the radar a bit. And that’s her tough stance on criminals and her unyielding commitment to finding justice for the victims of crime,” Biden said.

He then repeatedly said, “She gets it,” and sought to assure the law enforcement groups that she would be on their side.

“So you all are on the front lines. But as you do your job, know that Judge Sotomayor has your back as well,” Biden said.

Biden is of course known to shoot his mouth off. But he wouldn’t have said this unless he had some reason to believe it. It’ll be interesting to see if anyone on the left speaks up on this, or they’ll give her criminal justice record a pass and fall in line with the party.

Digg it |  reddit |  del.icio.us |  Fark

27 Responses to “Biden to Law Enforcement Groups: Sotomayor Has Your Back”

  1. #1 |  J sub D | 

    Joe Biden is an idiot. I see him as Dan Quayle, version 2.0.

  2. #2 |  SJE | 

    Biden is like a court jester, saying true things that everyone knows are true, but are afraid to say them. The emperor has no clothes!

  3. #3 |  Clark | 

    I remember when the GOP was the law & order, tough on crime party. Republicans spend (our) money like drunken sailors and the democrats screw our rights to protect us. Why do both parties now embrace the worst that the other has to offer.

  4. #4 |  Dan Mannville | 

    Watershed moment for the gent that runs this site, and for anyone that doesn’t doubt that we are now living in a police state.

  5. #5 |  Waste | 

    Quayle made some misstatements and has forever been known as an idiot. Biden makes them on a weekly basis and is known for his foreign policy experience.

    The double standard will apply here too. Biden and Sotomayor will get a pass. It will come out as a typical Biden gaffe and no serious questions will be asked of Sotomayor.

  6. #6 |  pam | 

    now I’m really agitated!

  7. #7 |  MacK | 

    This my post from JonathanTurley.org about the video.

    “In the same breath he says she is absolutely faithful to the constitution, but she allowed evidence from a warrant less search of a vehicle that another court had thrown out.

    What constitution is she faithful to again?”

  8. #8 |  dave smith | 

    You guys really thought (think) that the dems are different than the reps on this issue?

    Both parties are responding to a public that WANTS a low level police state.

    We’ve allowed ourselves to become so frightened by what our neighbors might be doing that we have handed our freedom to an institution that cannot become anything other than corrupt.

    All these pricks that are shooting dogs and other bad things would likely be big hits at your BBQ–really nice guys–but put them in a culture of the police force with no oversight and you get..well what we have.

  9. #9 |  max | 

    Given Biden’s history your last sentence is not true* and I would not put any credence to the idea that anyone told Biden that it was true. Mind you it isn’t that Sotomayor doesn’t have pro-state “credentials”, merely that it is likely Joe came up with this all on his own.

    *I don’t wish to rewrite but technically I am sure Biden has some reason for saying it. It is just that, given his record, it is completely possible that no one has said anything to Biden that a rational person would use to justify his statement.

  10. #10 |  SJE | 

    Of course, the court jester was also known as “the king’s fool”

  11. #11 |  Cappy | 

    Is there really any difference between law enforcement and the enforcers of the Mafia?

  12. #12 |  ktc2 | 

    Yes, the mafia enforcers are generally more polite and usually get the right guy cause if they don’t they get whacked.

  13. #13 |  ktc2 | 

    Not to mention that they’re extremely unlikely to be terrified of a five pound chihuahua.

  14. #14 |  Zargon | 

    #11
    Is there really any difference between law enforcement and the enforcers of the Mafia?

    The mafia won’t kidnap you after breaking a few bones to prove they’re on the side of justice.

  15. #15 |  Dave Krueger | 

    There will be no justice for the accused until they have a strong lobby and a big campaign war chest. That’s just the price of admission to get Washington to consider of your point of view. If you have the bucks, you don’t just get an occasional ear, you get a cabinet position dedicated specifically to your special interest.

    But, even if defendants had enough money (after government seizures) to support a lobby, don’t expect he name of the cabinet post to reflect the job it does. For example the Department of Justice, should really be called the Department of Prosecution. A real justice department that protects people’s rights would be called the Department of Defense which is taken. But really the Department of Defense should be called the Department of Invasion. You can see how this just continues to deteriorate the further you go with it…

  16. #16 |  ZappaCrappa | 

    So…at what point will someone have OUR backs? I think it won’t happen until we have another revolution to free ourselves from an oppressive government….

    Dear FBI…that is “ZAPPACRAPPA” Z-A-P-P-A-C-R-A-P-P-A….no need to make a new file…just add to the one you already have…

    Have I mentioned that I do a little happy dance everytime someone in law enforcement bites it “in the line of duty”????? Seriously….I do. I root for Bonnie and Clyde at this point : )

    Let the negative karma begin!!!! LOL

  17. #17 |  Nick T | 

    ” It’ll be interesting to see if anyone on the left speaks up on this, or they’ll give her criminal justice record a pass and fall in line with the party.”

    I rarely disagree with you, Radley, but no, no this will not be interesting. Spoiler alert: no one will care – at least not from the left establishment. Let’s just hope she’s decent on executive power.

  18. #18 |  KBCraig | 

    “No matter which party I vote for, the government always wins.”

    I think you nailed it a few days ago: it’s irrelevant whether Sotomayor is a racist, a sexist, or a judicial activist, when the most dangerous part is that she’s a statist.

  19. #19 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “The remark quickly stirred criticism in the legal world, since Biden was making a pledge that a fair and objective justice would not necessarily be able to keep.”

    There is no such thing as an objective justice. Justices are humans and as such have their own idiosyncratic and subjective opinions about everything. Further, the job of a justice is to interpret the meanings of words that have no objective meaning. Thus, all justices are subjective. This is covered very well in John Hasnas’ “The Myth of the Rule of Law.”

    The question then becomes not “fair, objective” justice vs. “biased, subjective” justice, but rather statist justice vs. individualist justice.

    Gee, I wonder which will prevail.

  20. #20 |  supercat | 

    I remember when the GOP was the law & order, tough on crime party.

    Unfortunately, most of the people who call themselves “law and order” nowadays are in reality totalitarian anarchists. A crook with a badge can do a lot more damage to society than a crook without one; anyone who actually favors law and order must favor the aggressive prosecution of criminals with badges, but I almost never hear the so-called “law-and-order” types advocating that.

    If the facts of the case are as they appear to be, many of the government agents involved in the Ryan Frederick invasion committed felony murder, and should be aggressively prosecuted for it. Prosecuting such agents would send a clear message that cops who break into people’s houses in patently unreasonable fashion do so without legal authority, and as such are burglars and/or robbers. If someone gets killed during their crime, they are murderers.

    While it is true that overreaching cops do sometimes catch other criminals, the harm done by the overreaching cops far exceeds the harm done by the few criminals who wouldn’t have been caught via other means.

  21. #21 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “Let the negative karma begin!!!! LOL”

    Dude. Seriously. Anyone with Zappa in their name will never get the down arrow from me. Lifetime pass.

  22. #22 |  supercat | 

    There is no such thing as an objective justice. Justices are humans and as such have their own idiosyncratic and subjective opinions about everything.

    That is in significant measure true, but a good judge must recognize that issues of empathy and such are supposed to be handled by legislatures, executives, and JURIES. There is sometimes a legitimate need for empathy in the courtroom, but it should be juries–not judges–who invoke it. Unfortunately, judges seem to do all they can to strip juries of their essential functions.

  23. #23 |  Cynical in CA | 

    All your subjective opinion, of course, supercat.

    All opinions are equal. But some are more equal than others.

  24. #24 |  Big Chief | 

    Radley, you accidently used “Biden” and “reason” in the same sentence.

  25. #25 |  Cynical in CA | 

    “Biden is of course known to shoot his mouth off. But he wouldn’t have said this unless he had some reason to believe it.”

    I know it’s none of my business Big Chief, but Radley used two sentences there. That makes it okay. Unless you want to ding him for the second actually being a sentence fragment by beginning with “But,” a grammatical no-no. So then we’d have to edit it back to one sentence, in which case you’re right.

    /douche

  26. #26 |  DaveG | 

    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/050607bidenadmits.htm

    Truthers getting bad press yesterday. Not that I think Biden was in on 9-11, he’s only a delusional minion of the Demiurge

  27. #27 |  A Good Day For Stupid Quotes « The NorLa Blog | 

    [...] lets cops suspend people’s rights, but because cops know judges like Sonia Sotomayor “have their back.” Explore posts in the same categories: [...]

Leave a Reply