The Sotomayor nomination

My earliest memories of the Supreme Court nomination process are when Senator Kennedy all but called Robert Bork a racist and when Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of placing a pubic hair on her can of cola. There are different people asking the probing questions now.

Anchorrising has some good questionsfor Senator Whitehouse to pose to Judge Sotomayor.

Given that Judge Sotomayor is being considered for a position on the Court which she has cited as the proper authority for modifying precedent on this issue, the public has a compelling interest in knowing…

1.  If Judge Sotomayor believes that the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and therefore cannot be infringed upon by the states, or if she believes that the Second Amendment is fundamentally different from most other Constitutional protections afforded to individual Americans in the Bill of Rights and is not incorporated…

2.  And, given her particular usage of the term “settled law”, if there are other areas where Judge Sotomayor believes that the Supreme Court might readily change what “settled law” currently says.

And our friends at the Judicial Confirmation Network shed light on what to expect with a Sotomayor appointment:

Judge Sotomayor’s two decades of speeches, law review articles, legal advocacy, and judicial decisions lead us to conclude that, if she is confirmed, Justice Sotomayor would be a supreme liberal judicial activist, outdoing the Justice she is replacing, David Souter, in this regard.  Her view that judges should rely on their own views, instead of the law as written, in deciding cases would take our nation a critical step further away from the Rule of Law and toward the Rule of Nine Lawyers.

Particularly disturbing was this nugget of information (empasis added):

We have reviewed the parts of her record that have been made available to the Senate and the public.  (Important parts of that record still have not been disclosed, such as what input she had into the legal strategies advancing racial quotas and abortion-on-demand that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund advanced during her years of leadership, for example.)

And ADF reports on the Federalist Society’s online debate :

In this installment of Originally Speaking, Thomas C. Goldstein, Wendy Long, Louis Michael Seidman, David Stras, and M. Edward Whelan III discuss how to approach Sotomayor’s nomination: what standard Senators should use to support or oppose the nomination, what deference should be given to the President, what weight should be given to the nominee’s views on issues, what questions the Committee should ask and which ones the nominee should answer.

And Curt Levey at the Committee for Justice is live blogging the nomination.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s