Everyone is asking Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor questions about her views on the constitution, but there is one question I would like to ask every Senator that will vote for her confirmation. If a white male nominee said the following “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a black or Hispanic female who hasn’t lived that life”, would you confirm this judge? Their answer would obviously be no as it should be. Any Senator who votes to confirm Sotomayor is exhibiting a double standard. It is one that builds barriers instead of breaking them. But that question will not be asked so we have to look at her record and her answers to some critical questions. The only problem is that her answers during this hearing directly contradict her previous answers and displayed beliefs. Here are a few examples.
On incorporating foreign law:
Then “international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our own legal system…unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world.”
Now “I have actually agreed with Justice Scalia and Thomas on the point that one has to be very cautious even in using foreign law with respect to the things American law permits you to.
On bias and empathy (besides her infamous comments)
Then “Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society. The number of minorities and the poor executed or awaiting execution is out of proportion to their numbers in the population.”
Now “I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”
On judicial activism
Then”All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is–Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law.’”
Then”Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”
Now “The Constitution is a document that is immutable to the sense that it’s lasted 200 years. The Constitution has not changed except by amendment. It is a process, an amendment process that is set forth in the document. It doesn’t live other than to be timeless by the expression of what it says.”
At every opportunity she has rebuked her own past positions on topics and has not once tried to defend her liberal philosophy that is evident in many of her decisions. If the Senators take her for her word, then she probably would not be confirmed by a tally of 40-60. But I think liberal law professor Mike Seidman said it best.
“I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified.”
{ 1 trackback }
Comments on this entry are closed.