The American Pundit

What’s the problem? Er, judges aren’t supposed to have anyone’s back. They’re supposed to interpret the Constitution regardless of whether the outcome benefits someone they happen to like. I don’t care if you’re a strict interpreter or activist, a judge having someone’s back from the outset is a problem.

“I think what Biden said was foolish,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who is a prominent legal ethicist. “She’s not there to ‘have their back.’ She’s there to interpret the law as she sees fit. . .

“It’ll be embarrassing to her when she learns of it,” Gillers said. “Biden crosses the line when he starts representing to interest groups that she would be voting in their favor.”…

The president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, John Wesley Hall, complained that Biden’s comment made it sound like she would overlook police misconduct.

“To say that a judge ‘has your back’ is an activist judge,” Hall said. “They’re raising doubts for everybody who’s concerned about the Bill of Rights. . . .‘She’s got your back’ is just the worst possible thing he could have said.”

But another legal ethics specialist, Stephen Lubet of Northwestern, said he was not troubled by Biden’s remarks. “If Judge Sotomayor had said that, perhaps [it would be problematic], but the fact that her supporters think she’s more disposed toward law enforcement does not suggest bias. Everybody’s in favor of law enforcement, no one’s opposed to law enforcement,” Lubet said. “This lacks the sort of specificity that would suggest bias.”

Uh huh. Except that one would assume that Vice President Biden knows her ideology better than most, so he might just have some credibility on where she stands from the outset. Standing on the side of cops isn’t exactly the worst direction in which to be biased, but that doesn’t really matter. A Supreme Court justice shouldn’t be on anyone’s side from the get-go.

Head over to Hot Air for the video. Joe Biden is just the gift that keeps on giving.