Senators should oppose Sotomayor

politico.com ^ | June 4, 2009 | Edward Whelan

[neverdem]

The 67 senators who voted in 1998 to confirm President Bill Clinton’s controversial nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the 2nd Circuit included seven current Republican senators — Bob Bennett of Utah, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Orrin Hatch of Utah, Dick Lugar of Indiana and Olympia Snowe of Maine. Of the 29 senators who voted no, 11 are still in the Senate, including Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Republican Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona, Judiciary Committee ranking member Jeff Sessions of Alabama and John McCain of Arizona. What bearing, if any, should the positions of these senators in 1998 have on how they approach Sotomayor’s pending Supreme Court nomination? I’ll highlight four considerations. First, the standard for a Supreme Court nominee is higher than for an appeals court nominee, as senators on both sides of the aisle have routinely recognized. When an appellate judge casts the deciding vote in a case, the ruling is subject to correction both by the en banc court of appeals and by the Supreme Court. But a decisive vote by a Supreme Court justice provides the final disposition of a case and establishes precedent for the entire judicial system. When that ruling misconstrues a federal statute, it’s not easy to repair the damage. And when it misinterprets the Constitution, the damage is even more severe and difficult to reverse. Second, the current Supreme Court is sharply divided on many important issues. The person who replaces Justice David Souter may well end up providing the fifth vote to invent a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, to strip “under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance or to dilute constitutional protections of speech and religious liberty to comport with foreign practices. Under these circumstances, it would be a dereliction of duty for any senator not to scrutinize Sotomayor’s nomination with special care. Third, President Barack Obama’s so-called empathy criterion for Supreme Court justices — his demand for justices who will determine cases “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns ... and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy” — poses a radical threat to the rule of law. As the statutory oath of office reflects, justices (and other judges) are obligated to be dispassionate and impartial. They swear to “administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Fourth, there are ample new data on Sotomayor since 1998 — particularly her rulings and other writings. Those materials are the focus of ongoing intensive review and debate, a process that ought to continue throughout the confirmation process. Sotomayor’s defenders will vigorously try to make the case that the new data should reinforce the judgment of those who voted for Sotomayor’s 2nd Circuit nomination and change the minds of those who didn’t. But there are already many troubling signs that Sotomayor fits Obama’s misguided criterion. Take, for example, Sotomayor’s shenanigans in trying to bury the claims of white and Hispanic firefighters that they had been discriminated against — shenanigans that fellow Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes exposed in a blistering dissent. (The Supreme Court granted review of the case that Sotomayor treated so dismissively, and the court’s ruling will be issued in the coming weeks.) The Politico 44 Story Widget Requires Adobe Flash Player. Take also Sotomayor’s aggressive willingness to indulge her own values in deciding cases, reflected in her notorious assertion of her “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” And take Sotomayor’s confused celebration of the “importance of indefiniteness in the law” and of judges who “develop a novel approach” that “pushes the law in a new direction.” It’s too early to be sure, but my guess is that those senators who supported Sotomayor in 1998 will have ample basis to oppose her Supreme Court nomination. Edward Whelan is president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a contributor to National Review Online’s Bench Memos blog on judicial nominations and constitutional law.

© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC

[Kartographer]

VIVA the 'Brown Sheets'!

[Tzimisce]

Yeah they should.

But they won’t.

[sickoflibs]

What about the Hispanic vote? Millions of border babies conceived in Mexico, born here that will get mad at republicans ? (MSM message)

[nhwingut]

Bennett, Collins, Hatch, Lugar, Snowe... The usual suspects.

There DC dinner party pass remains in good standing.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "Senators should oppose Sotomayor"

Response: They should, but they won't.

[neverdem]

Yeah they should.

But they won’t.

Don't count on that. You're talking about a racist, sexist, gun grabber. Watch the rats. Voting for gun grabbing is now recognized by the rats as political suicide. How do you think they took back control of Congress? They moved to the right on social issues.

Bad On Guns (Sotomayor owes Americans an explanation on her view of the 2nd Amendment)

"Out of Context": Part III (Thomas Sowell)

Is Sotomayor Obama’s “Gift” to the GOP?

Sotomayor’s Mistake. The diversity mess. [Victor Davis Hanson]

Some noteworthy articles about politics, foreign or military affairs, IMHO, FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.

[Theodore R.]

These senators are too cowardly to take the right position of much of anything. They are an embarrassment to themselves.

[Theodore R.]

The earlier Bennett from UT was one of the good guys, but this one now is out to get a pat on the back from a liberal.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[ExSoldier]

You're talking about a racist, sexist, gun grabber. Watch the rats.

Yeah, watch the rats embrace her as one of their own. This is the party, remember, that gave rise to the KKK and clubbed blacks (via their storm trooper cops) all along that long road to Selma. This is the party that moved a former Grand Dragon of the KKK into a senior position of importance even after he used the nefarious "N" word as recently as a couple of years ago and maybe less. This is the party that giggled and winked after a young woman was abused with a cigar in the Oval Office. This is the party who savaged and attacked relentlessly another woman with the courage to run for the vice presidency with honor and courage and class. If they were really pro-woman they'd have celebrated her efforts instead of trying to wiper her off the planet, along with her family.