The process of judging is enhanced when the arguments and concerns of the parties to the litigation are
understood and acknowledged. That is why I generally structure my opinions by setting out what the law requires and then by explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected. That is how I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system. My personal and professional experiences help me listen and understand, with the law always commanding the result in every case.
From Sotomayor’s opening Statement provided by Politico with some commentary here.
In her low-key and relatively brief opening statement, Sotomayor acknowledged no pain at being branded by some prominent Republican as a “Latina racist” In fact, she made no explicit mention of a fact ubiquitous in news accounts of her nomination: she would be the first Hispanic woman on the court
Instead, Sotomayor offered an understated defense of her experience as contributing to her judicial wisdom, and not dictating a result in favor of one side or another.
(Live Web coverage at CSpan here. Warning there are explicitly stupid senators on this feed.)
According to the WSJ, the GOP has 20 ‘NO’ votes. However, there appears to be no significant momentum to block her nomination. They also report that Sen Lindsey (the la-la) Graham says he’s likely to vote for her confirmation.
Opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court suggested they would consider it a victory if more than half of the Senate’s 40 Republicans voted against her in this week’s confirmation hearing, as the GOP grapples with how aggressively to challenge the nominee.
Many Republicans said they viewed 23 “no” votes as a benchmark, because that would be one more than Chief Justice John Roberts received in 2005 and would reflect a significant protest vote.
Others said that if the Senate GOP were to split roughly in half, that would signal support to conservatives who oppose Judge Sotomayor without angering Hispanic voters with a wholesale dismissal of her nomination.
Some Sotomayor critics hold out hope that a handful of conservative Democrats could vote against her. The National Rifle Association recently issued a letter expressing concerns over her record on gun-rights issues — though stopped short of urging her defeat — a move that could influence Democrats from conservative states.
Republicans have little hope of blocking the confirmation. They are outnumbered on the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate, and nothing damaging in Judge Sotomayor’s background has emerged. If confirmed, she would represent one of nine votes on a closely divided court, and at 54 years old, would likely be on the court for decades.
From my perusal of links, Sotomayor appears to be on her way to SCOTUS. Let’s just hope her approach is what we would expect of a democratic appointment. However, I’ve been disappointed before and I’m bound to be disappointed again. No breathholding on my part.
Digg!!! Share!!! Tweet!!!
Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine
Filed under: Supreme Court | Tagged: Senate Oversight Hearings, Sonia Sotomayor
Help air this ad – DenunciaRush.com – calling out Republican attacks on Judge Sotomayor
I only watched part of today’s confirmation hearing and they said tomorrow was going to be the start of the not too pleasant attack on Sotomayor. Senators Schumer and Gillibrand, gave a very touching introduction to Judge Sotomayor and Schumer appeared to choke up at one point. I was surprised that they didn’t allow Gillibrand more time to finish her introduction as I would have liked to have heard the complete statement.
Over all I thought it went well today, but tomorrow is another day.
Senator Whitehouse gave the most impressive speech of the day.
she will be confirmed.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3959
Transcripts of all committee member statements are on this one website.
Ruh-roh. Tweety is getting thrills up you know where…
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/13/chris-matthews-im-getting_n_230951.html
Huffington Post, Chris Matthews, Rush Limbaugh…etc, etc, etc.
I fear as long as reasonably fair and intelligent Americans continue to watch and quote and point others to these moronic media figures, we are hopeless to begin the long climb back to a government that is of, by and for the people. These people are distractions, they are barriers to progress, and they need to be ignored completely.
He should seek medical help. He might have restless leg syndrome. LOL
To offer my own personal impressions of Sotomayor’s opening remarks — yes, they were very low-key. The moment where she thanked her mother with the camera panning to her mother was very touching, it spoke a 1000 words.
I’m sorry, but this isn’t a Hallmark matter – it’s the Supreme Court, remember? I don’t care if Sotormayor is Hispanic, I don’t care if she didn’t grow up licking a silver spoon, I care about the depth and extent of her wisdom and her ability to be a jurist of integrity above all.
me too. I am probably one of the few who think her remarks about a “wise latina woman” were reason for 2nd thought. I am also not thrilled that Obama thinks compassion has anything to do with being on the SCOTUS. I want reason and understanding of the law, period.
Did you read that speech? I linked to it here some weeks ago.
It was actually a very sensitive and great speech a bunch desperate people are trying to hang on to in order to disqualify her. That’s going to fail miserably.
Who said it was a Hallmark matter? It was a nice moment. Barring some unlikely development in the next few days, Sotomayor will be confirmed. Only time will tell whether this was a good appointment or not, but for this moment I am moved by the historical significance of a barrier being broken and Sotomayor crediting it all to her mother’s support and example.
We just elected a deplorable president on the strength of his “historical significance”, his so-called “dreams from his father”, in other words, his ability to wring brownie points from his ethnicity. We don’t need to repeat this mistake with the Supreme Court. Sotormayor should be approved, or not, on the strength of her ability to be a sound jurist. There’s no denying that her Hispanic background has everything to do with her nomination – Obama does nothing without an eye to the 2012 election. This shouldn’t disqualify her, but the Hallmark factor is becoming more than a little annoying.
As a woman and a feminist, I appreciate someone thanking their mother for helping them become who they are. I’m not sure yet how I feel about Sotomayor, and I realize that emotions were used to manipulate people to vote for Obama, but I don’t think it’s necessary to dismiss and label an acknowledgment of something good Sotomayor did with “Hallmark moment”. Can’t we acknowledge the good as well as the bad……?
Oh boy, Supreme Court kabuki where we all get excited with a foregone conclusion. Boredom on ice, with no twist.
However, if this is what the Dems in Congress are so upset about, then I really don’t how upset I can get about it either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/13/cheney-cia-al-qaida-assassinations/print
Well, tomorrow we get to hear the questions and her answers. Might be boring, but the senators need to be watched…if they treat her differently, or avoid asking certain questions, the people who have those Senators on their ballots need to put a tick in either the Yea or Nay columns for the next election.
Is Ted Kennedy coming back to the Senate? How long can they be away before they HAVE to allow a replacement in there to represent their voters??
that means hour after hour of, I may have to rule on that, so I really can’t answer that question …
Robert Byrd has been gone longer than Ted Kennedy.
The Sotomayor thing is over except for Senatorial posturing. ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzz
I think it’s a riot that all the Repubs are up in arms about the notion of a judge having empathy (different from compassion). In the first place, Obama said that, not Sotomayor. She seems pretty conservative actually, but the court is already super-conservative and nothing is going to change that in my lifetime, unfortunately.
If Republicans disapprove of empathy, why did they vote for Sam Alito?
I don’t feel overly invested in Sotomayer’s confirmation one way or another. She’s female but she seems more conservative to me than who she is replacing. I’m gonna miss Souter and the apoplectic fits he caused the conservatives.
I don’t care either way. I think she’s going to turn out to be fairly conservative. But that doesn’t mean I enjoy listening to the idiotic arguments of Senators Grassley, Graham, and worst of all, Sessions.
I get the impression that they are opposing her for the sake of opposing her. Wouldn’t want the masses to believe both parties are the same or any such bother don’t you know. I have little to no doubt had she been offered up by one of their own they’d be cheering her. At least that is the impression I would get based on her decisions.
I like her, and think she will be a very middle-of-the-road judge. Looking at her decisions (not her personal feelings as sometimes expressed in speeches, etc) she seems pretty fair.
The Repubs are all having cows that she is going to start finding discrimination under every rock, when in truth she ruled that no discrimination was found in 70-something of the 90-something discrimination cases that came before her. (I don’t remember the exact numbers.) That’s no “activist”.
Yes, she’s Liberal, but she’s no moonbat extremist. That’s just silly.
Or maybe it was 70% of the time, not 70 cases. Anyway, the point is that the vast majority of the time, she found no discrimination. That is a far cry from an “activist” judge who is going to have so much empathy that she rules for the racial minority every time, which is the fearmongering they are using.
Aucch – spamy’s beating on me again – it is my belief that this is O’s way of doing in Roe vs. Wade – she is his weapon – she will pull SCOTUS more to the right – just putting another woman on the bench doesn’t guarantee Roe vs. Wade will be safe. After reading her direction in the past I feel very uneasy about it.
She’s replacing a liberal. We really didn’t need a middle of the road when the court already leans right imo. Then again this is probably the best we were gonna get from a man who reveres all Reagan.
If she weren’t confirmed, we’d probably get someone from U. of Chicago. Anyway, she looks like a shoo-in. The Republicans don’t have the votes to block her.
I see her as middle but leans Liberal, which is fine with me. I just find it hilarious that the RW is trying to paint her as a frothing-at-the-mouth entitlement loving, the poor can NEVER be guilty, “corporations are evil, complete radical. LOL! She’s likely more conservative than most real lefties want, in truth.
And BTW, in my experience those who grew up poor have a very solid grasp of law and order, and little sympathy for true crimes. It’s the whiny fauxgressive Ivy Leaguers who are so often obsessed with sympathy for criminals to the point of ridiculousness. Poor people, who have actually had to LIVE in neighborhoods with criminals, want fairness, to be sure. But they have no rose-colored glasses on when it comes to scumbags, and do not give them a pass just because they had a tough life.
it is my belief that this is O’s way of doing in Roe vs. Wade – she is his weapon – she will pull SCOTUS more to the right – just putting another woman on the bench doesn’t guarantee Roe vs. Wade will be safe. After reading her direction in the past I feel very uneasy about it.
I don’t think she’s all that liberal
They already have enough votes to get rid of Roe.
I doubt Roe is going anywhere. Both sides like to use it to fire up their base too much.
I’m sure she will be utilized though to wear down the edges though at one time or another and erode a women’s right to choose considering her position is the governmkent is entitled to take the anti choice position.
I agree – and yes you’re right about Roe vs Wade being used to keep us in line.
I remember us at one time having a strategy discussion and we talked about primaries and discussed the merits of open primaries for those that had become newly independant, so we could potentially sway either party in their choice of a nominee.
With that in mind I want to share this link for those inclined.
http://www.openprimaries.org/donate
Evidently Pennsylvannia has open primaries on thier ballot the money will be utilized to help get it passed.
OT, but Hillaryis44 says evidently Ed Schultz gave one of his spittle-flecked rants and referred to Sarah Palin as “an empty pantsuit”.
Pantsuit? Pantsuit? Hmmm. When has anyone EVER seen Palin in a pantsuit. Never. I doubt she even owns one.
Which sort of makes one wonder why that particular phrase came so handily to mind. Because we all know that the hatred of Palin is purely truth-and-policy based, and has NOTHING to do with her gender, or with any displaced fury and hate for Hillary.
Who cares what Schultz says? Not me, I stopped listening to the gasbags opining a long long time ago and am much happier for doing so.
Now, if we could just get everyone else to stop listening to the gasbags…
Denuncia Rush
This comes from Presente.org (via Daily Kos)
I don’t know much about Sotomayor. However if Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia were confirmed, then I don’t see why a “wise Latina” woman shouldn’t also be confirmed. I don’t want her to go down only to get another man in her place. Women are grossly underrepresented on the court. We need more. I know she is qualified, so why not?
Does anyone know anything about this woman. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/13/AR2009071301377.html
I don’t see why we can’t have a flat out liberal as the nominee when “our” party has the authority to nominate and the votes to confirm. When the GOP is in charge, it doesn’t hesitate to put straight-up, idealogical conservatives on the court. But our presidents feel compelled to nominate “moderates” or persons, like the current nominee,without clear records.
Identity politics aside, and RW BS aside too, what do we really know about this nominee? To me, what’s salient is that she went to Catholic schools, worked for the DA’s office, and worked for an “intellectual property” (ie overblown, overreaching, corporate interests) law firms. As a judge, her record is pretty much straight down the middle.
Not a catastrophe, but, since we can do better, why don’t we? How about an ACLU litigator for the Supreme Court bench? Or a Legal Aid or Legal Services attorney? Or a poverty law attorney? Or an environmental ist group or labor union attorney? Or an attorney who has worked for reproductive freedom? How about a criminal defense attorney of some kind? As far as I can tell, the last SCOTUS justice who ever represented a criminal defendent in court was Thurgood Marshall. Why don’t we change that?
Frankly, I don’t much like DA’s, or assistant DA’s. I’m suspicious of attorneys, like Sotomayer, who had any number of options, but chose to work for “the Man,” putting mostly brown-and black skinned members of the underclass in prison for a living. Or hot shot attorneys, again, like Sotomayer, who get their kicks by persecuting little schmucks for seling knock-off “Fendi” handbags. Again, why is this the best we can do?
Why not a flat-out, and proud,liberal nominee? Why not someone who we can be sure will vote consistently with what we, as liberals, see as the correct constitutional and other doctrines? To repeat, the other side has no compunction about putting extremists on the court (Scalia, Thomas, etc.). But we can’t even put mainstream liberals there. No, we have to be “non partisan” and appoint “moderates.”
I say f—- that!
Aren’t there any level-headed good eggs with enough judicial experience to warrant a second look?
Most likely quite a few. But good eggs do not often seek the spotlight and very few good eggs would want to be beholden to O and gang. I think this nomination comes with a very high price tag.
Plus true good eggs have a bad habit of making decisions based on what is best – not necessarily on what is expected of them.