Sen. Lindsey Graham Says He'll Vote "Yes" For Sotomayor

Annie Berman - Talk Radio News Service

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced today that he would vote in favor of Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a decision that goes against many of his Republican colleagues.

“While I’m not bound to vote for Judge Sotomayor, it would be the path to least political resistance for me...We’re talking about one of the most qualified nominees to be selected for the Supreme Court in decades. She has 17 years of judicial experience, 12 of those years she was on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. I’ve looked at her record closely. I believe that she follows precedent,” said Graham.

Graham also addressed the controversial speeches, particularly the now famous “wise Latina” comments, that many of Sotomayor’s opposers continue to use as a reason to vote against her. Those who oppose Sotomayor claim that those comments indicate that she is a racist and that she will be an “activist” judge who bases her decisions on her feelings rather than the law.

“To my colleagues who vote ‘no’, I understand your concerns and there are things about this nominee that are troubling. The speeches. The speeches that she has given in the past are troubling because I think they embrace identity politics. Something I don’t embrace. The ‘wise Latina’ comment...we had a long discussion about how that does not sit well with most Americans and that is not what we want to be expressed by people trying to become Supreme Court nominees.”

Graham also took the time to say that though he may strongly disagree with a decision she has made here and there, it doesn’t matter to him, just as long as Sotomayor is qualified for the position.

“The advocacy role of a lawyer is unique. I have represented people who I disagree with. I have represented people who were accused of child molesting. I have been a criminal defense lawyer. There’s nothing more noble in our system in making the government prove their case regardless of how you feel about the defendant,” said Graham.

“I didn’t choose her, but I understand why President Obama did choose her and I am happy to vote for her,” said Graham.

The Sotomayor Hearing Saga

The Senate judiciary hearing room in the Hart building is a monument to power in our democracy.

In a series of seats fashioned like a horseshoe, senators sit with their aides behind them. Each seat has a microphone, and the Democratic chair sits in the middle with the Republican ranking senator sitting beside the chair. Next come the still photographers, then the witness table. Behind the witness sits their family members and sometimes their advisers. In back of them are a few more rows of seats and then long tables for the press to write longhand or type directly into their computers. In back of them sit the general public.

Unlike the older Senate hearing rooms, the Hart building has special balcony-type places for the radio and television journalists so they can do their reporting while looking down on the hearing room. With all of these delicately designed ways of holding hearings you would expect more from our democracy. In fact, we got a whole lot less this week.

I am referring to the Sotomayor hearings for Supreme Court justice. This is something that the American public has been part of for years, with much of the hearing the time being boring beyond comprehension. Sure there was the Clarence Thomas hearings and Anita Hill, but, in general, the hearings are a snore. This week was no exception to the snore rule.

Our Constitution provides for "advice and consent" by the Senate (Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2) of Supreme Court judges. This provision was a compromise between the founders who wanted a strong federal government and those who wanted a stronger legislative branch. It has become a place to address the folks at home and enrich the political platform upon which many senators operate. In fact, if you were going to teach high school civics, it would be shameful to show a video tape of the "questions" that were asked by many senators. The Republicans used the hearings this week as place to make the Democrats agenda look radical, and the Democrats used their questions as a kiss up opportunity. Our Supreme Court reporter, Jay Tamboli, a lawyer by training, just shook his head at the missed opportunity for having a real discussion about law and justice.

I was in the hearing room during the last day of the Sotomayor testimony and was pretty horrified that intelligent people were asking such dumb questions. Much of the concern from the Republican senators focused on personal experience of a judge and if it should influence decisions from the bench. They acted as if it never happens in true justice. It was hard to sit there and not laugh. A grade school child could tell you that the Supreme Court is filled with ideologies that impact on final decisions. If they had only had some basic interviewing skills, the Republican senators would have asked more probing questions that were designed to really get information. They could have asked questions like, "Tell me a time that you made a decision based on law but that you personally disagreed with the outcome." Instead they harped time and time again to her speeches which they felt showed she would be biased in her judgments.

Then JAG military lawyer Sen. Lindsey Graham used his time to deliver a long speech about Guantanamo justice and why people who don't play by the rules should get more trial rights than those who do. He was referring to captured fighters who do not wear a uniform of country and thereby do not fully come under the Geneva Conventions. After several minutes of Sen. Graham's monologue, I began to wonder where is the question and what does he expect Judge Sotomayer to answer.

The point is that no one knows what a judge will do when they get on the court. Ever since Ruth Bader Ginsburg played it safe by not commenting on "hypothetical" cases, no one has been able to make headway with a potential judge. They can hide behind the fact that something might come up before the court in the future.

So, what can be done? There is no law that says there needs to be four days of hearings. If they know they have the votes to confirm, then they should hold shorter hearings and the chairman should limit it to real questions and stop the speeches.

They should put all the pro and con letters up on the Internet and let the American public call their senators with their comments. Senators should stop playing to their base with hostile or kiss-up questions. Everyone knows they accomplish nothing. Finally, we should treat this process as something that allows us to discuss important questions of the day, which could include the influence of foreign law on ours, the impact of current science on legal decisions etc. We missed an opportunity to make these hearings relevant and interesting. They turned out to be boring and dull, a missed opportunity to engage Americans in a meaningful and important process.

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.

Female Senators Show Support For Sotomayor

By Courtney Costello- Talk Radio News Service

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) explained their support Thursday for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in relation to the nominee's gender.

“[Sotomayor’s nomination is] important because we want our [government] institutions in this country...to reflect the diversity of our country, and the majority of the people in this country are women and we need to be represented. It doesn’t mean women are better but we are equal,” said Boxer.

The Senators described how Sotomayor’s 17 years of experience as a judge is more than any other nominee to the Supreme Court in the past hundred years.

In addition to gaining the backing of law enforcement organizations, The American Bar Association and the National Association of Women Lawyers found Sotoymayor to be very qualified, said Klobuchar.

Boxer stressed that Sotomayor deserves a fair process without any foul play.

“This woman, this excellent judge deserves to be treated fairly and equal to those who came before her,” said Boxer.

Sonia Sotomayor’s will begin confirmation hearings on Monday July 13th by the Senate Judiciary Committee.