Sotomayor Backed By Civil Rights Organizations

By Courtney Ann Jackson-Talk Radio News Service

Civil rights organizations voiced their support of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor just one day after the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to confirm her nomination.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) joined representatives of various organizations in a press conference Wednesday to discuss the historic nomination and upcoming Senate vote.

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights President Wade Henderson said, “Her elevation to the Supreme Court would mark another advance on the road to equal opportunity that this nation has traveled from its founding; but, even more importantly, it would give Americans a Justice they can be confident will uphold their constitutional values, the rule of law and the principle of equal justice for all.”

Lillian Rodriguez Lopez of the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda spoke about Sotomayor from both a professional and a personal perspective. Lopez fought back tears as she explained that while she, too, is a Hispanic woman from New York, she could only “pray to possess” the qualities and skills that Sotomayor possesses.

“I hope that next week that the members of the entire Senate will send a message of resounding support for Judge Sotomayor to the American people, to the Hispanic American people, when they vote for her confirmation,” said Lopez.

Reid said he is currently trying to cut a deal with Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) regarding the floor debate, but isn't certain on how long the debate may last. He dismissed Republicans' concerns over Sotomayor, asking rhetorically, “How many times do we have to listen to the same speeches on the same brief statements she made, on the same case that she talked about?”

Reid added that the Senate will be working long hours to ensure that the confirmation vote is one of the last things they do before they leave for the August recess.

Sotomayor: How Little We've Learned

Going into the second day of questioning, it’s remarkable how little we’ve learned about Judge Sotomayor. Questions from senators have largely fallen into two categories: questions about her extra-judicial speeches and activities, and questions about specific issues. On the speeches, she has tried to explain herself, but Republican senators don’t seem to be buying it. On specific issues, like abortion, gun control, and the death penalty, she has replied to questions by either reciting Supreme Court precedents or refusing to answer, saying it is a policy question for Congress; these non-answers frustrate both Republican and Democratic senators alike. But almost no one has asked the questions that really matter: how exactly does she go about deciding cases?

Remember Justice John Roberts’s confirmation hearings? There were long discussions of the role of precedents—and “superprecedents,” a ridiculous term—and the method of judicial interpretation used by judges when interpreting statutes and the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor in her opening statement said her philosophy is simple: “fidelity to the law.” But that means almost nothing. She has said several times that judges apply the law to the facts in front of them, but the law is rarely clear, especially at the Supreme Court level. If the law can easily be applied to the facts, the lower courts can handle the case. The Supreme Court must take on cases where the law is unclear and can’t easily be applied to facts, and thus Sotomayor’s “judicial philosophy” assumes an intelligible, coherent “law” that she is likely to never see.

The closest we got was during Senator Graham’s questioning, when he asked Sotomayor if she would call herself a legal realist. She said she wouldn’t, and then she refused to label herself a strict constructionist or an orginalist, either. Instead of pursuing the line of questions, Senator Graham moved on to another topic. We can only hope someone returns to her judicial philosophy today.

Senate Begins Grilling Of Sonia Sotomayor

Republican senators today began their attacks on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominated to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court. On the first day of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Democratic senators praised Sotomayor’s record, saying it demonstrated “judicial modesty,” while Republicans expressed skepticism.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), now the ranking Republican on the committee, called Sotomayor’s comments on use of experience and background in judicial decisions “shocking and offensive” and distributed a thick stack of her past speeches to the media. The speeches were marked up to highlight passages where Sotomayor spoke about the differences her background would produce in her decisions. Sessions criticized the use of any factors outside of the facts and law of a case in making rulings.

Senators Sessions and John Cornyn (R-Texas) both said they planned to ask Sotomayor about her views on a range of issues, including abortion, property rights, the right to bear arms, and capital punishment. Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) as well said he was “deeply concerned by [Sotomayor]’s assertion that the law is uncertain.”

Speaking more generally, Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) criticized President Obama’s “empathy” standard used to select Sotomayor as his nominee. Graham went so far as to say that he would have to vote against Sotomayor under that standard, which he called “absurd” and “dangerous,” since it would encourage voting on the basis of agreement on issues and would therefore discourage potential nominees from expressing their opinions. He did, however, worry about Sotomayor’s speeches made while she has been a sitting judge, since those might cast doubt on her objectivity when deciding cases. Graham did recognize that “unless [Sotomayor has] a complete meltdown,” she would be confirmed, bringing laughter from audience.

Democrats generally supported the nominee by describing her record as centrist and reserved, and repeating her personal story of being raised by a poor, single mother and working to raise herself up to a federal judgeship. By the time it was Sotomayor’s chance to speak, the audience had heard the story several times.

A couple of Democrats took the opportunity to criticize the previous administration. Senator Specter (D-Pa.), a recent defector from the Republican party, spoke of President Bush’s wiretapping program, saying that a split among circuit courts in different areas of the country has prevented adjudication of the legality of those programs. He expressed hope that a new Supreme Court would resolve this disagreement and generally agree to hear more cases. Senator Feingold (D-Wisc.) lauded the Supreme Court’s role as a check on the president, offering as examples the Court’s rulings that Guantanamo detainees have rights to U.S. courts, and saying that an important quality in justices is a willingness to stand up to the president.

In Sotomayor’s short opening statement, she said that her judicial philosophy was simple: “fidelity to the law.” She said that her record would show that she applies the law according to Congress’s intent, applying relevant precedents. She finished by saying she looks forward to answering the senators’ questions.

Iraq ambassador/nominee dodges fire on the hill

By Michael Ruhl, University of New Mexico – Talk Radio News Service

The U.S. may be one step closer to sending a new ambassador to Iraq. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee convened on Wedneday to vet Ambassador Designate Christopher Hill. Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) recognized the importance of getting a new ambassador to the region with expedience, but certain Senators have expressed concerns about Hill’s past.

Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), who should be noted is not on the Committee, several weeks ago promised a fight in the Senate confirmation process because of actions that transpired while Hill was heading the six-party talks concerning North Korean nuclear disarmament. Brownback felt that Hill had misled Congress on his intentions to confront the issues of Human Rights with North Korea during the negotiations, since those issues ended up not being addressed.

Hill responded to Brownback’s concerns during the hearing today, and said that although he had agreed before Congress to address human rights, the process was stalled before the issue could be discussed. Human rights would have been on the table during the restoration of diplomatic ties with North Korea, Hill said, but that phase would have come only after the verification of North Korea's nuclear assets, and that verification never took place. Hill had planned on supporting initiatives from then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to put together a human rights program to tie progress in human rights reform to better diplomatic ties. Hill said today that America’s relationship with North Korea would not be normalized until North Korea completely did away with its nuclear stockpiles, and Hill could not fulfill his promise to Congress until the stockpiles had been eliminated.

It’s uncertain when the Senate confirmation vote will take place. There has been talk concerning delaying the vote until after the upcoming Congressional recess.