Showing posts with label sotomayor confirmation hearing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sotomayor confirmation hearing. Show all posts
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Support for Sotomayor Grows on Both Sides of the Aisle
Yesterday, Judiciary Committee member Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) took to the floor to express his support for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. He has joined other fair-minded Republican colleagues, including Senators Lugar, Snowe, Collins and Martinez, in setting aside politically-motivated opposition in favor of integrity and bipartisanship. Though Senator Graham was one of Judge Sotomayor's most aggressive questioners, he has risen above partisanship to recognize that this highly qualified and historic nominee deserves swift confirmation.
Friday, July 17, 2009
In a League of Her Own
After four grueling days of testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proven that she has the intellect, the discipline, and the temperament, not to mention the grit and the stamina, to merit her place on the U.S. Supreme Court. She graciously and patiently responded to repetitive questioning on the same issues from Republican senators through three rounds of questioning. Throughout, she validated the comments of one of her earliest champions, New York Prosecuting Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who described her as always “a step ahead.” Judge Sotomayor proved herself to be a thoughtful, engaged witness who will be a welcome addition to the Supreme Court and should be confirmed without delay.
By contrast, Republican senators showed themselves to be far less interested in Judge Sotomayor’s qualification for the bench than her willingness to adopt a far-right agenda – perhaps believing the two are one and the same. Instead of questioning Judge Sotomayor on her seventeen year record on the bench, Republican senators virtually ignored the thousands of decisions in which she joined to focus narrowly on issues representative of their political agenda.
Throughout the questioning, Republicans questioned Judge Sotomayor aggressively on the Ricci v DeStefano decision, the challenge by white firefighters to the City of New Haven’s voluntary attempt to avoid discriminating against minority firefighters, suggesting that Judge Sotomayor’s own history as a Latina affected her ruling. They even trotted out Mr. Ricci himself as a witness at the end of the fourth day, who could not opine on the legal basis for the court’s decision. Judge Sotomayor, however, stood by the decision, and her panel’s belief that it followed well established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. Judge Sotomayor also noted that not only was her panel unanimous, but that a majority of her colleagues on the Second Circuit agreed with the panel. Even the Supreme Court was divided on the case as a bare 5-4 majority voted to overturn. Far from denting the good faith of the Second Circuit panel, Republicans only managed to highlight to the degree to which the current Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has veered to the right, and jettisoned long-held understandings of the law. Even Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared to concede the good faith of the lower courts, including Judge Sotomayor, urging Mr. Ricci to remember that “not so very long ago, the test was rigged a different way.”
Republicans also used the hearings to promote gun ownership – and their close relationship with gun advocates. Not only did they question Judge Sotomayor at length and over all four days about a single case in which she heard a challenge to a New York weapons’ restriction, they invited gun advocates, including a representative of the NRA, to testify after Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor resisted efforts to force her to opine on the legality of certain state restrictions on gun ownership that were the subject of challenges likely to come before the Supreme Court in the near future, but consistently pointed out that the case she decided fell squarely within both Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, and that as a Second Circuit judge, it was not her place to reverse the Supreme Court. In so doing, she exhibited the sort of judicial deference and restraint that Republicans so often say they look for in judicial nominees.
Although the hearings focused little attention on Judge Sotomayor’s legal record, Republicans turned again and again to speeches she gave at law schools around the country, and her Board work on behalf of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDEF), a nonprofit based in New York which is dedicated to protecting and advancing civil rights. One Republican witness, Linda Chavez, a Reagan appointee, even turned to Judge Sotomayor’s college thesis to support her personal challenge to Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications for the Supreme Court. In the end, however, Judge Sotomayor firmly and unwaveringly affirmed her commitment both to her own heritage as a source of inspiration, and the rule of law as a guiding principle in her jurisprudence. In a statement during her first day of testimony, Judge Sotomayor was unequivocal: “I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.” She never wavered from this principle in her testimony, nor is there any evidence in her lengthy jurisprudence that Judge Sotomayor has ever allowed her personal beliefs or her heritage to guide her legal decision-making.
Robert Morgenthau, a founding board member of PRLDEF, offered perhaps the most resounding defense of Judge Sotomayor’s statements, history and legal record when he noted: “it is to her credit that she remembers where she came from.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has the legal acumen, intellect and judgment needed for a seat on the nation’s highest court. As a woman who has dedicated long hours to reaching back and inspiring students, women and people of color to pursue their dreams and take pride in the legal profession, and who “remembers where she came from,” she will bring a much needed perspective. We look forward to seeing her take her well-deserved place on the Supreme Court.
By contrast, Republican senators showed themselves to be far less interested in Judge Sotomayor’s qualification for the bench than her willingness to adopt a far-right agenda – perhaps believing the two are one and the same. Instead of questioning Judge Sotomayor on her seventeen year record on the bench, Republican senators virtually ignored the thousands of decisions in which she joined to focus narrowly on issues representative of their political agenda.
Throughout the questioning, Republicans questioned Judge Sotomayor aggressively on the Ricci v DeStefano decision, the challenge by white firefighters to the City of New Haven’s voluntary attempt to avoid discriminating against minority firefighters, suggesting that Judge Sotomayor’s own history as a Latina affected her ruling. They even trotted out Mr. Ricci himself as a witness at the end of the fourth day, who could not opine on the legal basis for the court’s decision. Judge Sotomayor, however, stood by the decision, and her panel’s belief that it followed well established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent. Judge Sotomayor also noted that not only was her panel unanimous, but that a majority of her colleagues on the Second Circuit agreed with the panel. Even the Supreme Court was divided on the case as a bare 5-4 majority voted to overturn. Far from denting the good faith of the Second Circuit panel, Republicans only managed to highlight to the degree to which the current Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts has veered to the right, and jettisoned long-held understandings of the law. Even Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) appeared to concede the good faith of the lower courts, including Judge Sotomayor, urging Mr. Ricci to remember that “not so very long ago, the test was rigged a different way.”
Republicans also used the hearings to promote gun ownership – and their close relationship with gun advocates. Not only did they question Judge Sotomayor at length and over all four days about a single case in which she heard a challenge to a New York weapons’ restriction, they invited gun advocates, including a representative of the NRA, to testify after Judge Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor resisted efforts to force her to opine on the legality of certain state restrictions on gun ownership that were the subject of challenges likely to come before the Supreme Court in the near future, but consistently pointed out that the case she decided fell squarely within both Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent, and that as a Second Circuit judge, it was not her place to reverse the Supreme Court. In so doing, she exhibited the sort of judicial deference and restraint that Republicans so often say they look for in judicial nominees.
Although the hearings focused little attention on Judge Sotomayor’s legal record, Republicans turned again and again to speeches she gave at law schools around the country, and her Board work on behalf of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDEF), a nonprofit based in New York which is dedicated to protecting and advancing civil rights. One Republican witness, Linda Chavez, a Reagan appointee, even turned to Judge Sotomayor’s college thesis to support her personal challenge to Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications for the Supreme Court. In the end, however, Judge Sotomayor firmly and unwaveringly affirmed her commitment both to her own heritage as a source of inspiration, and the rule of law as a guiding principle in her jurisprudence. In a statement during her first day of testimony, Judge Sotomayor was unequivocal: “I do not believe that any ethnic, racial, or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experiences.” She never wavered from this principle in her testimony, nor is there any evidence in her lengthy jurisprudence that Judge Sotomayor has ever allowed her personal beliefs or her heritage to guide her legal decision-making.
Robert Morgenthau, a founding board member of PRLDEF, offered perhaps the most resounding defense of Judge Sotomayor’s statements, history and legal record when he noted: “it is to her credit that she remembers where she came from.”
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has the legal acumen, intellect and judgment needed for a seat on the nation’s highest court. As a woman who has dedicated long hours to reaching back and inspiring students, women and people of color to pursue their dreams and take pride in the legal profession, and who “remembers where she came from,” she will bring a much needed perspective. We look forward to seeing her take her well-deserved place on the Supreme Court.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Sotomayor Completes Testimony with Grace
Today was the fourth and final day of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court. The day began with only four Senate Republicans and approximately eight Senate Democrats remaining in the second round of questioning. However, at the request of committee Republicans, Senator Leahy graciously allowed each member another ten minutes during a third round of questioning. By the end, Judge Sotomayor had sat before the committee for over twenty four hours.
The themes of the previous days’ questioning continued, with Republicans aggressively questioning Sotomayor about her views on the Second Amendment, international law, her involvement in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and her decision in Ricci v DeStefano. Senate Democrats emphasized her impeccable qualifications, inspiring life story, and solid judicial record.
Senator Kyl was particularly tough in his approach. He grilled her on her decision in Ricci, but Sotomayor held her ground, contending that precedent dictated the result of the three judge panel, and that the Supreme Court had created a new legal standard in its decision to overrule the Second Circuit. Senator Kyl mistakenly concluded that all nine Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Second Circuit’s decision, a point that both Sotomayor and other commentators have noted is incorrect. In fact, four justices of the Supreme Court made very clear that they would have affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision.
Senator Graham’s questioning of Sotomayor was also striking, as it seemed to lay the groundwork for a vote in favor of the nominee. He remarked that she was “broadminded” and agreed that her “wise Latina” comment was not meant to encourage race or gender discrimination or preferences. Graham also stated that he did not think Judge Sotomayor was a “judicial activist,” a worn-out buzz word used by the right to waylay nominees. Ironically, while Senator Coburn decried the use of foreign law to interpret the Constitution or laws of the United States, he encouraged judges to look to the rest of the world when it came to a woman’s right to choose, claiming that 80% of the rest of the world doesn’t allow abortions after twelve weeks.
At the conclusion of committee questioning, a number of witness panels appeared before the members. The American Bar Association testified on behalf of Judge Sotomayor, giving her their highest rating of “well qualified.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomburg, New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, and Wade Henderson President of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights also testified and spoke to her character, competence, and suitability for the Court. Additionally, witnesses for the minority testified, including Frank Ricci and Benjamin Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department (Ricci plaintiffs), Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and conservative commentator Linda Chavez. It was clear that the Ricci plaintiffs elicited empathy from Republican Senators for the burden the suit had placed on their families and the unsatisfying result they received in both the district court and the Second Circuit. Indeed, it appears the Republicans believe there is a place for empathy in our judicial system after all, as long as the result is one with which they agree.
The themes of the previous days’ questioning continued, with Republicans aggressively questioning Sotomayor about her views on the Second Amendment, international law, her involvement in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and her decision in Ricci v DeStefano. Senate Democrats emphasized her impeccable qualifications, inspiring life story, and solid judicial record.
Senator Kyl was particularly tough in his approach. He grilled her on her decision in Ricci, but Sotomayor held her ground, contending that precedent dictated the result of the three judge panel, and that the Supreme Court had created a new legal standard in its decision to overrule the Second Circuit. Senator Kyl mistakenly concluded that all nine Supreme Court justices disagreed with the Second Circuit’s decision, a point that both Sotomayor and other commentators have noted is incorrect. In fact, four justices of the Supreme Court made very clear that they would have affirmed the Second Circuit’s decision.
Senator Graham’s questioning of Sotomayor was also striking, as it seemed to lay the groundwork for a vote in favor of the nominee. He remarked that she was “broadminded” and agreed that her “wise Latina” comment was not meant to encourage race or gender discrimination or preferences. Graham also stated that he did not think Judge Sotomayor was a “judicial activist,” a worn-out buzz word used by the right to waylay nominees. Ironically, while Senator Coburn decried the use of foreign law to interpret the Constitution or laws of the United States, he encouraged judges to look to the rest of the world when it came to a woman’s right to choose, claiming that 80% of the rest of the world doesn’t allow abortions after twelve weeks.
At the conclusion of committee questioning, a number of witness panels appeared before the members. The American Bar Association testified on behalf of Judge Sotomayor, giving her their highest rating of “well qualified.” New York City Mayor Michael Bloomburg, New York County District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel, and Wade Henderson President of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights also testified and spoke to her character, competence, and suitability for the Court. Additionally, witnesses for the minority testified, including Frank Ricci and Benjamin Vargas of the New Haven Fire Department (Ricci plaintiffs), Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, and conservative commentator Linda Chavez. It was clear that the Ricci plaintiffs elicited empathy from Republican Senators for the burden the suit had placed on their families and the unsatisfying result they received in both the district court and the Second Circuit. Indeed, it appears the Republicans believe there is a place for empathy in our judicial system after all, as long as the result is one with which they agree.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Theme of Day Three of Sotomayor Hearings is "Asked and Answered"
Day three of the Judiciary Committee hearings saw more of the same from the Senate Republicans. In stark contrast to the kid gloves they used with Justices Alito and Roberts during their confirmation hearings, Republicans aggressively questioned Judge Sotomayor. Nonetheless, she handled herself with the poise and patience she has exhibited throughout the hearings. Although she was careful not to prejudge issues that might come before the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor continued to answer the senators’ questions with candor and insight.
The Committee finished the first round of questioning with Senators Coburn (R-OK) , Cardin (D-MD) , Klobuchar (D-MN) , Kaufman (D-DE) , Specter (D-PA) and Franken (D-MN) taking their turns to question Judge Sotomayor. Senator Coburn was particularly hostile in questioning Judge Sotomayor about gun rights and whether there is a constitutional right to self-defense. Judge Sotomayor asserted that to her knowledge, the Supreme Court had never recognized a constitutional self-defense right, but that most states do allow people to defend themselves when necessary. Late in the session, Judge Sotomayor’s love of the Perry Mason television program was a topic of questioning and we learned that Senator Franken is also a Perry Mason fan, though both Judge Sotomayor and Senator Franken were stumped on the name of the episode in which Perry lost a case. (It was "The Case of the Deadly Verdict," by the way.)
After a break for a closed door session the hearing resumed with the beginning of the second round of questioning. So far, the second round has been more of the same from the Republicans on the Committee. Senators Sessions (R-AL) and Hatch (R-UT) continued to question Judge Sotomayor on her “wise Latina” comment. Judge Sotomayor patiently reiterated that it was a remark that “fell flat” and was intended to inspire a group of students. She continued to recognize that it might be misunderstood and sought to correct the impression of those who took her comment the wrong way.
Day four will continue with the second round of questioning of Judge Sotomayor before the Committee moves on to testimony from witnesses including members of the American Bar Association's judicial rating panel and Frank Ricci, one of the litigants in this term's "New Haven firefighter" case. Perhaps we'll hear something new from Senate Republicans tomorrow.
The Committee finished the first round of questioning with Senators Coburn (R-OK) , Cardin (D-MD) , Klobuchar (D-MN) , Kaufman (D-DE) , Specter (D-PA) and Franken (D-MN) taking their turns to question Judge Sotomayor. Senator Coburn was particularly hostile in questioning Judge Sotomayor about gun rights and whether there is a constitutional right to self-defense. Judge Sotomayor asserted that to her knowledge, the Supreme Court had never recognized a constitutional self-defense right, but that most states do allow people to defend themselves when necessary. Late in the session, Judge Sotomayor’s love of the Perry Mason television program was a topic of questioning and we learned that Senator Franken is also a Perry Mason fan, though both Judge Sotomayor and Senator Franken were stumped on the name of the episode in which Perry lost a case. (It was "The Case of the Deadly Verdict," by the way.)
After a break for a closed door session the hearing resumed with the beginning of the second round of questioning. So far, the second round has been more of the same from the Republicans on the Committee. Senators Sessions (R-AL) and Hatch (R-UT) continued to question Judge Sotomayor on her “wise Latina” comment. Judge Sotomayor patiently reiterated that it was a remark that “fell flat” and was intended to inspire a group of students. She continued to recognize that it might be misunderstood and sought to correct the impression of those who took her comment the wrong way.
Day four will continue with the second round of questioning of Judge Sotomayor before the Committee moves on to testimony from witnesses including members of the American Bar Association's judicial rating panel and Frank Ricci, one of the litigants in this term's "New Haven firefighter" case. Perhaps we'll hear something new from Senate Republicans tomorrow.
Letter of endorsement signed by 1,200 Law Professors
Last Wednesday we wrote about a letter in support of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court that had been signed by “almost 1,200” law professors from across the country. Today, during the Sotomayor confirmation hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy introduced the letter into the record with 1,200 signatures. An impressive number that shows clear support of Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation.
Day 3 of the Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing
Today, day three of the hearing starts at 9:30 a.m. Senators Cornyn, Cardin, Coburn, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Specter and Franken still need to question Judge Sotomayor to finish round one of the questioning. Once the first round of questions is complete, the Committee will break and hold a closed session with Judge Sotomayor. The closed session is routine procedure for Supreme Court nominees and will involve questions about her FBI background check. The hearing will reconvene following the closed session and lunch break in the afternoon to start the second round of questions when senators are permitted up to 20 minutes of questioning. At the end of the day yesterday, however, Chairman Leahy politely asked senators who do not need their full 20 minutes for questions to be brief so that the hearing does not drag on.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Sotomayor Hearing Wrap-Up: Day 2
Today was the first day that Judge Sotomayor answered questions from the Senate. The questions, ranging from the relevant to the wildly inane, covered many topics including Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record, speeches, and her background with PRLDEF. The main focus of today’s hearing was the Ricci case, the Judge’s remarks that she hoped a wise Latina would come to a better legal conclusion than a wise old man, and the Maloney 2nd Amendment case.
Much of the day focused on her per curiam opinion in Ricci and the now infamous “wise Latina” comment she made in a few speeches. While most Republican Senators tried to paint Judge Sotomayor as a judge with an agenda, the back-and-forth volleys showed something entirely different. Judge Sotomayor clearly showed that the Second Circuit’s decision in Ricci followed established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, and that the comment in her speeches have been taken out of context. In discussing Ricci, Judge Sotomayor confirmed that the Second Circuit panel had carefully reviewed and adopted a “very thorough 78 page decision from the district court” that thoroughly discussed both Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent the panel was required to follow. She emphasized that Ricci was “not a quota case,…not an affirmative action case, this was a challenge to a test that everybody agreed had a very wide difference between the pass rate of a variety of different groups.” It was the Supreme Court that announced a completely new standard by which to judge Title VII cases. With respect to her speeches, Judge Sotomayor clarified that each was made to students and that her comments reflected her desire to inspire and encourage them to recognize that “their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”
Senators Kyl and Hatch among others questioned Judge Sotomayor at length about her understanding of the Second Amendment, the foundations for the right to privacy in the Constitution, and her views of stare decisis. In response to each question, Judge Sotomayor was reasonable, authoritative, and extremely forthcoming. In short, she demonstrated precisely the intelligence and temperament that will serve her well as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Stay tuned for more updates tomorrow as the senators finish their first round of questioning.
Much of the day focused on her per curiam opinion in Ricci and the now infamous “wise Latina” comment she made in a few speeches. While most Republican Senators tried to paint Judge Sotomayor as a judge with an agenda, the back-and-forth volleys showed something entirely different. Judge Sotomayor clearly showed that the Second Circuit’s decision in Ricci followed established Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent, and that the comment in her speeches have been taken out of context. In discussing Ricci, Judge Sotomayor confirmed that the Second Circuit panel had carefully reviewed and adopted a “very thorough 78 page decision from the district court” that thoroughly discussed both Second Circuit and Supreme Court precedent the panel was required to follow. She emphasized that Ricci was “not a quota case,…not an affirmative action case, this was a challenge to a test that everybody agreed had a very wide difference between the pass rate of a variety of different groups.” It was the Supreme Court that announced a completely new standard by which to judge Title VII cases. With respect to her speeches, Judge Sotomayor clarified that each was made to students and that her comments reflected her desire to inspire and encourage them to recognize that “their life experiences would enrich the legal system.”
Senators Kyl and Hatch among others questioned Judge Sotomayor at length about her understanding of the Second Amendment, the foundations for the right to privacy in the Constitution, and her views of stare decisis. In response to each question, Judge Sotomayor was reasonable, authoritative, and extremely forthcoming. In short, she demonstrated precisely the intelligence and temperament that will serve her well as a Justice on the Supreme Court.
Stay tuned for more updates tomorrow as the senators finish their first round of questioning.
Can Baseball Survive the Supreme Court Confirmation Process?
From AFJ Legal Director Bill Yeomans on Huffington Post:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor may be hailed as the woman who saved baseball, but her hearings, along with those of John Roberts and Samuel Alito are threatening real damage to the sport. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor's hearings will explore many hot-button issues, including abortion, the taking of property, guns, and Jeff Sessions' view that our civil rights laws were enacted to redress this nation's long history of oppression of the white race. But, so far no topic has received more mention than baseball - our Great National Past Time, the perfect game that is deeply embedded in our national DNA. Before it is too late, we need to declare a moratorium on baseball analogies applied to the courts.
The mess started with John Roberts' inaccurate and disingenuous description during his confirmation hearing of a good judge as a baseball umpire, whose job is simply to call balls and strikes as he or she sees them. As others have pointed out, the comparison was simplistic and flawed in many ways, but we have now entered a new danger zone. Republicans seem to be wedded to the analogy, particularly as used by John Roberts.
But, even a cursory look at the chief justice's record shows that every pitch thrown on behalf of business and against consumers is a strike. Every pitch thrown by a prosecutor splits the strike zone, but every pitch thrown by a criminal defendant bounces off the backstop. Every pitch thrown by a minority civil rights claimant bounces in the dirt, but pitches thrown by white civil rights plaintiffs all go right down the middle. Gun owners have unerring aim when targeting John Roberts' strike zone, but environmentalists, despite wearing out their arms, have yet to get one over the plate. And the amazing thing is that observers know how John Roberts will call pitches before they are even thrown. So, the logical conclusion to draw from Republicans' repeated invocation of the John Roberts-as-umpire analogy is that baseball umpires no longer need to look at pitches; they merely need to know who is pitching.
Indeed, Roberts and his cronies on the right have decided to revise the rules of baseball to fix the game even more. The Court's last act of the past term was to schedule reargument in Citizens United v. FEC, a case presenting the question whether a 90-minute film slamming Hillary Clinton was subject to federal campaign finance disclosure and disclaimer requirements. The conservatives on the Court ordered the parties to brief a much broader issue, designed to give the Court a vehicle to strike down federal restrictions on commercial corporate money flowing to candidates - an outcome that will prove particularly beneficial to Republicans who, for the first time in memory, find themselves trailing Democrats in campaign money.
The Court's action strips away any suggestion that the so-called conservatives on the Court are anything other than overt judicial activists who are trying to reshape the Court's docket to allow them to decide the issues they want to reach, whether they are presented by the parties or not. They have abandoned the traditional conservative view of the Court as a passive institution that takes the cases as they come and decides the case before it. In other words, the conservative members of the Court now appear to think that an umpire can tell the pitcher what pitch to throw if he wants it called a strike. It's time to stop the baseball analogies now. If we don't quickly divorce baseball from this Court, it will ruin baseball.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor may be hailed as the woman who saved baseball, but her hearings, along with those of John Roberts and Samuel Alito are threatening real damage to the sport. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor's hearings will explore many hot-button issues, including abortion, the taking of property, guns, and Jeff Sessions' view that our civil rights laws were enacted to redress this nation's long history of oppression of the white race. But, so far no topic has received more mention than baseball - our Great National Past Time, the perfect game that is deeply embedded in our national DNA. Before it is too late, we need to declare a moratorium on baseball analogies applied to the courts.
The mess started with John Roberts' inaccurate and disingenuous description during his confirmation hearing of a good judge as a baseball umpire, whose job is simply to call balls and strikes as he or she sees them. As others have pointed out, the comparison was simplistic and flawed in many ways, but we have now entered a new danger zone. Republicans seem to be wedded to the analogy, particularly as used by John Roberts.
But, even a cursory look at the chief justice's record shows that every pitch thrown on behalf of business and against consumers is a strike. Every pitch thrown by a prosecutor splits the strike zone, but every pitch thrown by a criminal defendant bounces off the backstop. Every pitch thrown by a minority civil rights claimant bounces in the dirt, but pitches thrown by white civil rights plaintiffs all go right down the middle. Gun owners have unerring aim when targeting John Roberts' strike zone, but environmentalists, despite wearing out their arms, have yet to get one over the plate. And the amazing thing is that observers know how John Roberts will call pitches before they are even thrown. So, the logical conclusion to draw from Republicans' repeated invocation of the John Roberts-as-umpire analogy is that baseball umpires no longer need to look at pitches; they merely need to know who is pitching.
Indeed, Roberts and his cronies on the right have decided to revise the rules of baseball to fix the game even more. The Court's last act of the past term was to schedule reargument in Citizens United v. FEC, a case presenting the question whether a 90-minute film slamming Hillary Clinton was subject to federal campaign finance disclosure and disclaimer requirements. The conservatives on the Court ordered the parties to brief a much broader issue, designed to give the Court a vehicle to strike down federal restrictions on commercial corporate money flowing to candidates - an outcome that will prove particularly beneficial to Republicans who, for the first time in memory, find themselves trailing Democrats in campaign money.
The Court's action strips away any suggestion that the so-called conservatives on the Court are anything other than overt judicial activists who are trying to reshape the Court's docket to allow them to decide the issues they want to reach, whether they are presented by the parties or not. They have abandoned the traditional conservative view of the Court as a passive institution that takes the cases as they come and decides the case before it. In other words, the conservative members of the Court now appear to think that an umpire can tell the pitcher what pitch to throw if he wants it called a strike. It's time to stop the baseball analogies now. If we don't quickly divorce baseball from this Court, it will ruin baseball.
Sotomayor Hearing Day 2
Today we start day two of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing, and it promises to be a more energetic day with the back and forth of questioning. Each senator will get 30 minutes of questioning ; like yesterday, order is determined by committee seniority. We expect Judge Sotomayor to field questions from Republican senators about her ability to be an unbiased judge, a question she touched on yesterday in her opening statement when she pledged “fidelity to the law.” In our recently released fact sheet on Race and the Law regarding this very issue, we observe :
“There is no evidence of any racial bias in any of the hundreds of decisions Judge Sotomayor has written. To the contrary, her jurisprudence in cases involving claims of racial discrimination is very much like her jurisprudence in other areas of the law. She is deliberate, measured, and adheres closely to precedent.”
Stay tuned as we will be releasing more fact sheets on our website as issues arise throughout the hearing.
“There is no evidence of any racial bias in any of the hundreds of decisions Judge Sotomayor has written. To the contrary, her jurisprudence in cases involving claims of racial discrimination is very much like her jurisprudence in other areas of the law. She is deliberate, measured, and adheres closely to precedent.”
Stay tuned as we will be releasing more fact sheets on our website as issues arise throughout the hearing.
Monday, July 13, 2009
AFJ Releases Fact Sheets on Issues Raised During Sotomayor Hearing
Today, we at AFJ are releasing fact sheets on our website discussing various issues that have been raised during senators’ opening statements at today’s confirmation hearing. If you want to learn more about the issues at hand check out the recently released fact sheets on international law, the takings clause, and original intent. We will add more fact sheets as the hearing progresses, so if there is anything in particular you want to know more about, let us know and we’ll be sure to address it. In case you missed it, last week we posted our analysis of the Ricci case on Huffington Post.
The hearing will resume at 2pm today and we'll get to hear from Senator Franken as he makes his debut on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
The hearing will resume at 2pm today and we'll get to hear from Senator Franken as he makes his debut on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)