Posted on 08/04/2009 4:55:27 AM PDT by DivaDelMar
When John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated to the Supreme Court, Republicans argued that they should be confirmed based on their impeccable qualifications and mainstream jurisprudence. Now, Democrats are in power, and the same standard should apply.
After listening to much of Sonia Sotomayor's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee and carefully examining her 17-year record as a federal appellate judge, I have come to two conclusions. First, her record is somewhat left of center, and I would likely disagree with many of her rulings if she were a Supreme Court Justice. Second, she is an extremely capable and qualified jurist.
If I were a U.S. senator, I would vote for her confirmation, because objective qualifications should matter more than ideology in the judicial confirmation process.
In determining whether a nominee is within the judicial mainstream, we should ask how he or she views the Constitution and whether he or she will administer justice impartially. Too many American judges are making up their own versions of the law rather than faithfully interpreting legal texts. Lawmaking must be reserved for the elected, politically accountable legislative and executive branches.
In general, though, Sotomayor's record does not show judicial activism. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service's analysis noted that her opinions reveal "a dislike for situations in which the court might be seen as overstepping its judicial role." In Hankins v. Lyght, she even criticized her appeals court colleagues for violating "a cardinal principle of judicial restraint" by needlessly considering a constitutional issue. During her confirmation hearings, she stressed her belief that "the task of a judge is not to make law; it is to apply the law."
Like many people, I was troubled by Sotomayor's decision in the Ricci case and her now infamous statement about a "wise Latina." I wondered whether they revealed a permanent bias and whether she is capable of approaching all cases impartially.
I found reassurance in her long judicial record, which shows no pattern of systematic bias. Of 96 race-related cases on which Sotomayor issued a decision, she found discrimination in only 10, and nine of those decisions were unanimous. Despite some objectionable comments in speeches, when it comes to deciding cases, Sotomayor's record overwhelmingly shows impartiality on racial issues.
That does not mean I am sanguine about the prospect of a new lifetime member of the Supreme Court making decisions with which I disagree. But judges' qualifications should matter more than ideology, as long as the ideology is within the mainstream.
Ideology is important when it comes to electing public officials. In a state such as Pennsylvania, where voters elect judges, ideology can play a legitimate role in judicial elections. But in our federal constitutional framework, judicial nominations are shielded from voters.
In the federal system, judicial ideology is dealt with when we elect a president. When a president of one party is elected, the proper role of the opposing party is not to go on politically charged ideological campaigns against judicial nominees. It should be limited to determining whether a nominee is well-qualified and within the legal mainstream.
As a former member of Congress, I observed the transformation of the confirmation process into the spectacle it has become in recent years. Judge Robert Bork's personal movie-rental records were examined. Alito was asked about a college student organization he participated in decades earlier. This sordid kind of questioning serves only one purpose: assassinating a nominee's character because of presumed ideological disagreements.
Throughout most of our history, Supreme Court confirmations were not like that. The change has harmed the country and undermined the public's crucial faith in the independence and integrity in the judiciary.
This disturbing trend must stop. The Supreme Court must not become just another political body in which partisanship and ideology rule.
We Republicans have long said that the role of the Senate with respect to judges is to provide "advice and consent," not to thoughtlessly veto based on ideology. Our principles have to apply whether we are in the majority or the minority.
Toomey has forgotten the words of Alexander Hamilton, from Federalist No. 78:
"...The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution, I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex-post-facto laws, and the like. Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing. ...
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ...
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.
If, then, the courts of justice are to be considered as the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments, this consideration will afford a strong argument for the permanent tenure of judicial offices, since nothing will contribute so much as this to that independent spirit in the judges which must be essential to the faithful performance of so arduous a duty...."
The Courts are to be an absolute bulwark against legislative encroachment and the Courts must not substitute their will for judgment. Sotomayor appears ready to substitute the will of a "wise latina," for judgment and Pat Toomey would vote to confirm her.
With "Conservatives" like this, who needs Democrats?
What a disappointment - another “Lindsey Light Shoes” pubbie.
Hey, we need to replace that RINO and turncoat Arlen Sphincter with someone who is only a RINO, not a turncoat. Yet.
OK. I’m sick of the GOP and their effing liberalism.
I’m more and more ready for a third party that is truly conservative.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor caught on tape
saying "Court is Where Policy is Made"
Link to YouTube video of her making the comment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
I am digusted with anybody who values the “mainstream”. All that “mainstream” means is all the other kids are doing it. Hardly a justification and the exact opposite of principle or virtue. In Germany in the first half of the 1940’s it was mainstream to slaughter Jews. So I guess today’s politicians and commentators have no problem with that.
Ideally, this should be true. But since the left long ago politicized the courts, and justices now feel comfortable openly “interpreting” the constitution based not on original content or intent, but on “international legal concensus”, their “conscience”, ouija boards, or whatever, republicans must play the game and stand against justices with leftist ideologies.
In any case, Sotomayor is either a blantent liar, or too stupid to function as a SCOTUS justice. Her answer to a question asking for her PERSONAL opinion as to whether humans have an inherant right to self-defense was to hem and haw, eveade the question, and state that she could not recall a SINGLE CASE where the Supreme Court EVER dealt with that issue. Apperently she never even HEARD of the Heller case, only one year ago. Not that that was even the question. When asked a second time, and pointing out that the question was about her PERSONAL opinion, not precedent, she simply repeated the same mantra. That answer alone should disqualify her.
I can only assume that Toomey is so worried about losing the “hispanic vote” he is willing to jetison principle to get it.
LLS
With Sotomayor getting through this easily, just think of the quality of the NEXT nominee.
Come quickly, LORD Jesus!
Orie is conservative when convenient as well. I don’t think the Republican Party can produce anything but a “conservative when convenient and politically expedient” candidate. Time for a third party.
awwwwwwww, Pat!!!! Why???!?!????
Damn.
Are there that many hispanic in PA that have to be pandered to?
This is a major disappointment.
Oh boy! Toomey pandering to the Scottish law voters.
He wants the “hispanic” vote.
This is Pennsylvania.
Orie is as conservative as she can be and still win her district.
Being a bit selfish here, I'd like to have a US senator from the western part of the state.
I don't disagree with your desire for a third party, but I think the new party would have to take hold in more conservative areas of the country first.
I thought Toomey was genuine but I guess he's spent too much time in Washington?
under classical standards of Constitutional Law, Mr. Toomey is correct. However, that ship sailed when the Democrats decided to Alinsky-ize the confirmation process in the 80’s. If we fail to respond in kind we are bringing a knife to a gunfight.
This is a pander to the Southeast, the left, the Democrats, not just the Hispanics. It’s the last straw for me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.