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.

Specter’s Spectacle

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

Senator Arlen Specter
Photo by Michael Ruhl

Senator Arlen Specter (Penn.) says that he left the Republican Party because they had stuck their nose into party affairs to the point of breeding extremism. Ironically the Democrats are doing the exact same thing to their newest member. Micromanaging from the highest level doesn’t seem to be exclusive to the Republicans.

Yesterday Specter walked away from the party he has been with for nearly four decades, because he felt they were ignoring moderate voice. Specter announced his decision to defect to the Democratic Party, only the twenty-first time that a Senator has done such a thing since 1890.

President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have both said they will fully support Specter in his 2010 election, but Congressman Joe Sestak (D-Penn.) was not sure that the party establishment should be backing Specter in this way.

“If decisions and candidates are being chosen in Washington, you may just reemphasize that divisive barrier that’s between the parties,” Sestak said. “I think we cannot afford to have a decision that is so important to Pennsylvanians be decided by the party establishment,” and that the voters should be the ones to choose their candidate.

Sestak is rumored to be considering running for the Pennsylvania Senate seat, and would come up against Specter in the Democratic primary. When asked directly, Sestak said he had not decided yet whether or not he would run. Another contender, Representative Allyson Schwartz (D-Penn.) said today that she would not run for the seat.

The republican response has ranged from anger to confusion. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steel likened Specter to Benedict Arnold.

“Clearly, this was an act based on political expediency by a craven politician desperate to keep his Washington power base - not the act of a statesman,” Steel said. “Arlen Specter handed Barack Obama and his band of radical leftists nearly absolute power in the United States Senate.”

Specter responded, “I have not represented the Republican Party, I have represented the people of Pennsylvania.” He was referencing the fact that in the past months there has been an exodus from the Republican Party in Pennsylvania, where over 100,000 individuals changed their party registration from Republican to Democrat.

Specter is defending his position as being one of riding with the tides of his constituency, instead of bowing to the will of a national political party. Critics see it as a survival move of a desperate politician.

Speaking today with President Barack Obama and Vice-President Joe Biden, Specter said that staying in the Senate would allow him to carry forward important initiatives for his constituents, speaking specifically about expanding medical research.

Specter would prove to be the 60 Democrat in the Senate, provided that comedian Al Franken prevails in his court case for the Minnesota Senate. Sixty votes, called a supermajority, is enough to override a Republican filibuster. Specter said previously, though, that he was not going to simply back the Democrats automatically, and President Obama acknowledged that, saying, “I don’t expect Arlen to be a rubber stamp.” According to Obama, he and Specter agree in the areas of health care, education, medical research

Breaking News: Arlen Specter Switches Parties (Update)

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

Senator Arlen Specter
Photo By Michael Ruhl

Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, a long-time Republican, is defecting to the Democratic Party. This switch potentially gives Democrats in the Senate more leverage in passing their legislation and overriding Republican filibusters, if Al Franken is found to win the Senate seat in Minnesota. It's also a crippling blow to the Republican Party, which has been struggling to have its voice heard since the beginning of the 111th Congress.

Specter, 79, is Pennsylvania's longest serving senator, elected in 1980

Specter said that the increasing "extremism" within the Republican Party over the past few years has put both him and his constituents in a difficult position.

"I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," Specter said. "I think it is very important to have a two party system, and a moderate wing of the two party system...The extremes in both parties are taking over."

He highlighted the partisanship which was amplified in Congress by the stimulus vote, saying, "it has become clear to me that the stimulus vote caused a schism which makes our differences irreconcilable."

Specter said that his defecting would not make him the "automatic sixtieth vote" for the Democrats, and that he would not be a "party-line voter" who is used to break filibusters.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said that he anticipates continued disagreements with Specter, but both of them hope to work together towards common causes. One area that Specter already said he would be opposed to most Democrats on is in reigning in executive power.

Although Specter will run as a Democrat in the 2010 election, he has not decided whether or not he will caucus with the Democrats immediately.

He informed Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) of his decision last night. He then released a written statement at noon today, sending shock waves through the halls of Congress. Specter said that he made the decision gradually over the past few months, and that numerous Democrats encouraged him to defect, including Reid, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell and Vice President Joe Biden. Reid said that he has been trying to convince other Republicans to switch party as well.

Reid said that both he and President Obama would personally campaign for Specter in his 2010 election after today's events. When President Obama found out, he reportedly telephoned Specter and welcomed him to the party. Specter was one of the few Republicans to vote for President Obama's stimulus package and budget.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Photo by Michael Ruhl

Commentators are already shouting down Specter's move as one of political strategy, as the Senator said that he would find a strong challenger in a Republican primary to be a big threat to his career. Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) called it "nothing more, nothing less, then political self-preservation." He continued by saying Specter's, "Own pollster told him that he could not win the Republican primary in Pennsylvania, so his only options were to leave the Senate or join the Democratic Party.”

“I’m not prepared to have my 29-year record in the United States Senate decided by the Pennsylvania Republican primary electorate, not prepared to have that record decided by that jury,” Specter said.

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Toomey was seen as a strong candidate who could possibly have defeated Specter in the Republican primary. Additionally, Toomey is widely acknowledged as the more conservative candidate, and Specter said he did not want his career ended in a primary by his own party. He said that the Republicans don't want moderates anymore, which is why he was being targeted. "There ought to be a rebellion, an uprising," Specter exclaimed.

Incumbents in Congress have a significant advantage in winning reelection, but Specter was concerned after seeing recent polls. He said that his full constituency does not turn out to vote because the Republican party breeds extremism. Specter said that there are plenty of his constituents who agree with his positions, "but they're non-participants."

McConnell called this a "threat to the country," because it would allow the majority to "have whatever it wants, without restraint, without a check or a balance."

Reid said that with Specter's seniority within Congress, it would be as if he were elected as a Democrat in 1980. Reid was careful to say, however, that committee assignments would only be changed voluntarily, and that Specter's presence on the Democratic side would not bump any other Senators off a particular committee.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), a longtime friend of Specter, doesn't believe that this is going to affect judicial confirmations or any potential Supreme Court vacancies that might surface in the near future.

Specter is "just as independent as ever," Leahy said.

Specter's said that in his time in the Senate, he has exercised "independent judgment to do what [he] thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation," and that it was not his party that defined him.

Updated 5:00pm EST

Carson: A more independent Pakistani judiciary means a weaker Taliban

By Suzia van Swol, University of New Mexico-Talk Radio News Service

Congressman Andre Carson (D-Ind.) delivered a statement today urging Pakistan to restore their judiciary system. “We were all awakened this morning to the disturbing news of activities taking place today in Pakistan. So us gathering here today is of significant importance. Because we gather not just to commemorate an event nor do we come here today to soley advocate for judicial reforms in Pakistan. Our activities today are bigger then any one event or cause. Because our cause for enhanced civil liberties in Pakistan are wrapped in a universal moment that collectively calls for increased freedoms and basic human rights everywhere.”

Carson said that although many are quick to point out that Pakistan is ground zero in the fight against terror, “history has shown us that one of the most effective ways to defeat terror is by enhancing our basic freedoms. By standing for freedom we are taking a stand against extremism,” stated Carson.

The Congressman said that he looks forward to working with his colleagues in the U.S. House because , “A stronger and more independent Pakistani judiciary means a weaker Taliban. So it is imperative that Congress and the administration act swiftly in promoting a more progressive Pakistan, and a Pakistan that is able to promote human rights and implement strong judicial reforms.” Carson stated that through an engaged and reciprocal democracy, hopefully we can create such a Pakistan.

Dr. Agha Saeed, Founder of Pakistani American National Alliance (PANA) said that Pakistan is going through a decisive struggle; “A stable and democratic Pakistan will be a gift to itself and its neighbors and the whole world.” PANA is calling on the Obama Administration to support Pakistan’s struggle for an independent judiciary system.

Whistleblowers Welcome

By Kayleigh Harvey - Talk Radio News Service

Deputy Director of the FBI, John Pistole, Special Inspector General for the Troubled Assets Relief Program, the Honorable Neil Barofsky and Acting Assistant Attorney General Rita Glavin from the Criminal division testified before a full room at a Senate Judiciary Hearing today, to discuss "The Need for Increased Fraud Enforcement in the Wake of the Economic Downturn."

Chairman of the Committee, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) said: "This is not a partisan issue...we want to strengthen fraud enforcement, the Justice Department, the FBI, the Office of the Inspector General, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and even the Postal Inspection Service."

"One thing I learned as a prosecutor...you can have all the laws of the world in the books but if you don't have the resources to enforce the laws, and actually go out there after people who have broken the laws, they are meaningless."

"We do know that banks and private mortgage companies relaxed their standards for loans, proving ever riskier mortgage and less and less due diligence, it's almost like open the door and saying, 'Hey, come on in fraud is welcome'," Senator Leahy continued.

Also discussed at the hearing were the measures on how to tackle fraud now and in the future in relation to the economic crisis, catching criminal activity, and the Madoff scandal.

With regard to whistleblowers there seemed to be a unanimous agreement by the witnesses, that whistleblowers are an important tool in tackling fraud.

John Pistole said: "Anybody who has credible information, that can help either predicate or enhance investigation we look forward to working with."

Rita Glavin stated that "The Department has enjoyed tremendous success from working with whistleblowers...we have obtained essentially $10 billion in the past 10 years...the Department believes that whistleblowers, who are often insiders, can serve a vital function in our law enforcement efforts in exposing potential fraud in connection with government programs."

Neil Barofsky announced at the hearing that the TARP program encourages people to contact their hotline which can be found on their website if they have any information on fraud. TARP has hired a lawyer to follow all hotline enquiry leads. Barofsky said he would rather they went through 99 false lines of enquiry in order to avoid missing that one real piece of information.

Asked by Senator Edward Kaufman (D-Del) what were the most obvious fraud cases that TARP would move on quickly in order to attempt to get the most number of prosecutions, Neil Barofsky said: "Going after licensed professionals...focussing on exclusively the gatekeepers; the lawyers, the appraisers, the licensed mortgage brokers...making examples of those and letting their colleagues know that criminal behavior in these types of mortgage frauds is unacceptable, because they have the most to lose."