for themselves if he relates to Miss Soto…

“And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”

When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person”

Let us see if everyone agrees that Alito was describing empathy or was talking about the application of law? Notice the second paragraph everyone.

That’s ok…I will quote it with some bolding of my own and for context this was in response to Sen Corburn and it was a puff question about speaking from the heart:

I don’t come from an affluent background or a privileged background. My parents were both quite poor when they were growing up.

And I know about their experiences and I didn’t experience those things. I don’t take credit for anything that they did or anything that they overcame.

But I think that children learn a lot from their parents and they learn from what the parents say. But I think they learn a lot more from what the parents do and from what they take from the stories of their parents lives.

And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position.

And so it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result.

But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, “You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country.”

When I have cases involving children, I can’t help but think of my own children and think about my children being treated in the way that children may be treated in the case that’s before me.

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account. When I have a case involving someone who’s been subjected to discrimination because of disability, I have to think of people who I’ve known and admire very greatly who’ve had disabilities, and I’ve watched them struggle to overcome the barriers that society puts up often just because it doesn’t think of what it’s doing — the barriers that it puts up to them.

So those are some of the experiences that have shaped me as a person.

His point was that as a human he, naturally, has empathy and many experiences that have shaped him as a person, but as a Judge “it’s my job to apply the law. It’s not my job to change the law or to bend the law to achieve any result“.

See the difference a little context makes.

Try again.

but there is a good video of her… here you go

… to seeing her role as a judge to include that of being a policy maker - It’s right there on tape and thank goodness, YouTube. The fact that she later on calls it “interpretation” doesn’t change that.

Which probably explains why 6 out of the 7 decisions she’s written for the 2nd Circuit that were appealed up to the Supreme Court were reversed, and the 7th that made it through was only agreed to in its ruling while the reasoning behind it was rejected.

Face it; your Alito quote was beyond stupid - he was asked what experiences have shaped him as a person, and he answered the question. At no point did he say he would allow his judgment to be swayed due to the ethnicity or gender of the plaintiff or defendant.

Unlike Alito, Sotomayor’s speeches, writings and record as a judge shows that she believes in bending the law to favor the side she is sympathetic to based on gender and ethnicity, rather than applying the law as is without fear or favor.

---

 To me, “consensus” seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects … There are still people in my party who believe in “consensus” politics. I regard them as Quislings, as traitors … I mean it.
      - Margaret Thatcher
NOTE: “consensus” = “Bipartisanship™”/”Centrism™”