Blogs and Stories
Sonia Scores a KO
But Sessions was not done with his stumbling. In discussing the Ricci v. DeStefano case, Sessions asked Sotomayor, “Had you voted with Judge Cabranes, himself of Puerto Rican ancestry, had you voted with him, you could’ve changed that case.” The Ricci case, which dealt with the city of New Haven, Connecticut’s decision to throw out an exam for firemen after the results proved unfavorable for minority candidates, had been picked by Republicans as cover for discussion of affirmative action. Judge José Cabranes, a Clinton appointee to the federal appeals court, has been a strong critic of affirmative-action programs, and he spearheaded an effort to secure an review of Ricci, which, as Sessions noted, came close to succeeding. The Second Circuit’s decision was ultimately overturned in a 5-4 ruling by the Roberts Court. But Sessions’ attempt to hold Cabranes up as an alternate model again disclosed some shortcomings in his research. Sessions had tarred Sotomayor as a supporter of an “extreme” group based on her service as a director of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. “This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism,” he said. Yet Cabranes was one of the founders of the organization, which broadly follows the model of MALDEF and the NAACP.
Both Sessions and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) avoided the more-conventional approach of reviewing the judge’s decisions from a 17-year career on the bench, choosing instead to focus on a group of occasional speeches. The reason for that choice was obvious: They want to portray her as a “liberal activist” judge, but her decisions reflect nothing of the stereotype.
Aside from that point of focus, however, the hearings cover much of the same territory traversed in the recent hearings for Bush nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Sotomayor’s comment that the rule of Roe v. Wade was a “settled interpretation,” based on a 1992 case, set off murmurs and was viewed by some as significant, but in fact this formulation is not far from what either Roberts or Alito might have said. The real question, of course, is not whether the precedent is settled, but what circumstances and facts might lead the court to overturn it. The court, after all, reviews and overturns “settled law” from time to time. Still, Sotomayor’s comments appear to have been calculated to provide reassurance to the audience that the addition of a sixth Catholic judge to the bench would not reverse the current close majority limiting state prohibitions on abortion.
The judge’s record on national-security issues is something of a cipher because in her long career she had rarely written decisions on those issues. There’s nothing surprising about this, since national questions usually come up in the federal courts in Washington and Virginia. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) probed with limited success for her views about “secret law” and FISA, a federal statute that regulates the government’s surveillance activities. Sotomayor responded by saying that she would look to understand what limitations Congress intended to impose. But Feingold scored in asking her about the infamous Korematsu case, in which the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The case was wrongly decided, Sotomayor said, and she spotlighted how the court went astray. “A judge should never rule from fear. A judge should rule from law and the Constitution.”
Of all the questioners, former chairman Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) gave her the most comprehensive and professional grilling on questions of constitutional law and federal courts procedure. Hatch started by questioning Sotomayor’s views on gun control, drawing on a decision in which she participated that dealt with nunchucks—a martial-arts weapon from Asia. Was the right to bear arms a fundamental constitutional right, Hatch wanted to know? The question in the balance was simple and also potent for the gun-rights community—namely, whether it would be passed on to the states. It seemed clear from the exchange that Sotomayor did not share many of Hatch’s views, but also that the two were well-matched in scholarship and understanding of the issues.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Obama, the Un-decider
Lee Siegel has written about culture and politics and is the author of three books: Falling Upwards: Essays in Defense of the Imagination; Not Remotely Controlled: Notes on Television; and, most recently, Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob. In 2002, he received a National Magazine Award for reviews and criticism.
Torture Prosecution Turnaround?
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
Where Iran's Regime Learned Its Tricks
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
The Real Story Behind the CIA's Torture Policy
Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national security affairs for Harper's Magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
As a federal trial/appellate private practitioner for more than three decades, I support Sotomayor appointment based on her holding that government employees, including judges, are not above the law (see, John Malesko v. Correctional Services Corporation, 229 F.3rd. 374 (2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001)[Sotomayor affirmed right of individual to sue a private corporation working as an instrumentality of federal government for violations of constitutional rights]).
As an old long time Republican, I find that the "conservative Republican" Senators statements both surreal and hypocritical, based on my three decades of federal litigation. This experience confirms that the Rehnquist/Roberts Court has a policy of conspiring with government attorneys to deprive citizens rights under the Rule of Law and Constitution, i.e Justices Roberts, Stevens, Souter, Scalia, Thomas, et al., have held that they need not follow stare decisis; that both the Executive and Judicial Branch are absolutely immune from accountability for tortious and criminal acts, that the Bill of Rights is replaced by the Bill of Obligation; and that they can criminally affirm void orders issued in violation of federal statutory rights.
In this context because neither the Bush nor Obama White House, nor Congress, and nor the Virginia General Assembly have acted on my repeated petitions for an investigation of malfeasance of Federal and Virginia government attorneys, Beltway Lobbyist/Attorney Eric Holder, and judges, conspiracy obstructing my statutory right as a father and depriving me of my right to employment as a Virginia attorney (see, 2009 presentation to Northern VA Delegates, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAkEfjcA5sQ, and (http://www.liamsdad.org/others/isidoro.shtml), I just filed a criminal complaint for treason and obstruction of justice, misprision of felony, and business conspiracy in violation of Va. Code ยงยง 18.2-481, 482, and 499, by by Republican candidate for Governor, former Att. Gen Bob McDonnell, Virginia government attorney and judges (http://home.earthlink.net/~treason/).
Query, if I as an experienced federal litigator cannot protect myself and Son from the malfeasance by government attorneys and judges denying access to an impartial jury trial and court--what is a young attorney or laymen parent to do to protect his and his children rights?
Isidoro Rodriguez, Esq., Member in Good Standing of the Bar of the United States Supreme Court
This user is no longer registered.
As the monopoly on power enjoyed by Caucasian-Christian males over the last several centuries of Western Civilization continues to loosen, it's inevitable that many of them will not willingly give up "the good old days" when their rule was unquestioned and they could dole out crumbs to the "inferior" races and "weaker" sex as they wished.
To ease their sense of loss of entitlement and reduce the chance that they will react violently, it's therefore advisable for those in the forefront of the change to a more representative society be very "clean" (Biden's misspeak on Obama during the campaign actually spoke volumes), "nice", suitably respectful and unthreatening to the degree possible (of course their appearance alone makes them a threat). It seems analogous to the introduction of black players into Major League Baseball - one of the primary reasons Jackie Robinson was chosen to be first was because he was "clean" and could withstand the abuse from fans and some white players without losing his cool. And, he was an exceptional performer.
Whether or not Sodomayor is racist or a hothead are only convenient excuses for the GOP Caucasian-Christian males grilling her - if they couldn't hang those things on her they'd find something else, that's the way the game works. Her ultimate crime is that she symbolizes a future that scares them and their supporters, one in which they no longer dominate.
P.S. Just kidding.
why are you "just kidding" you just finished writing a very thoughtful piece re: the truth of this series of hearings from a historical perspective. I see no reason to put it down.
Think carefully, This is Just the Beginning of a new approach to power in the Western Civilization of this planet. Its time for people to wake up.
Sonia may score a KO, but the question is who will she knock out?
So let's see . . . today's Republican Party :
Screw empathy. Rich white males don't have time for your sob story, America. Get off your butts and get back to work. Work 4 part-time jobs without benefits, just quit your cryin' and complianin' and deal with it.
Women? Quit being so damn hysterical in the workplace. You might get a promotion if you just calm down and model OUR temperament. (See Exhibit A, Bill O'Reilly, for a model of moderate temperament. ) Don't like it? Vote for the Democratic Party then! Losers!
Latinos/Hispanics? You may be the fastest-growing demographic in America, but we're still going to employ half-century-old Ricky Ricardo stereotypes to mock you, even if you have a Yale law degree. Ha ha ha ! See you at the ballot box, insurgents!
Love it. Dry, droll and pithy. thanks, :-/
Wow! The "good old boys" turned quickly into a vicious pack of dogs. What are you guys afraid of, extinction? She's just a smart, well-educated woman that is not going to take any of your shit. No reason for alarm or stupid questions. http://newsy1.wordpress.com
Well, Newsy is half right. Ostensibly, she is well-educated. But if a Republican, on the witness stand had confused words "eminent" and "imminent"; (http://is.gd/1AeN1) and had trouble with "vagaries" and "vagrancies" ( http://is.gd/1As5w) well...we all know what Harriet Miers looked like. Double standard? For the s
So - before you denounce the "good old boys", let's take a look at the woman who has clearly received the benefits of affirmative action and will obviously vote to prolong those benefits for preferred races. Even though that fits in with the liberal mainstream, it doesn't fit in with the view of the rest of America. Looks like most of us are "good old boys" because we believe in merit over skin color and ethnicity.
"Merit over skin color"...really? What said you about Session's merit when he was nominated to the federal bench in 1986? Was he nominated for any reason other than his "good old boy" stature? What had he done to distinguish himself for that appointment? Easy answer...nothing, and thank goodness he was rejected because of his history of racially insensitive remarks and poor civil rights record. Thank goodness that even in 1986 there existed some senators who took offense to Sessions affection for the KKK, and affinity for calling black men "boys." That you ignore the irony in Sessions appointing himself Sottomayor's chief inquisitor speaks volumes about your view of "mainstream America." You sir are one of the "good old boys" and to pretend otherwise merely makes you a "bad old liar."
I was very impressed with how deliberate (and boring) judge Sotomayor was in the hearings. Every question posed to her was answered in an almost clinical leagalese that would give valium a run for it's money. What a snooze fest! And THAT is precisely the detatched and objective legal mindset we should have in a Supreme Court Justice.
The attempts by the right to get her to express her "personal" or "philosophical" views were invariably met with reference to legal precedent or simply, "I can't answer that in that way".
Well done, Sonja.
...and she didn't even have to smoke crack with Jeff Sessions to win him over.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.