The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Sotomayor Final Wrap-Up

Text Size

Sotomayor Final Wrap-Up

By Hope Hodge on 7.17.09 @ 11:09AM

Thursday wrapped Senate questioning in the Sotomayor hearings and brought the much-anticipated testimony of New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci.

Sen. Kyl began the morning's questions, dwelling heavily on the Ricci case and refusing to accept the diplomatic non-answers that Sotomayor has been so carefully counseled to give. Kyl called the bluff on her claim that she was bound by Supreme Court precedent in the case, demonstrating that cases did not exist on which to base such precedent. When she skirted the question and recited the facts of the case instead, he took a page from her "tough judge" playbook: "that's all fine and dandy, counsel, but answer the question."

Much later in the day, the testimony of Ricci himself was less forceful, but moving nonetheless, as he recounted the hours of study he spent away from his family for the exam that Sotomayor's court tossed out, and reminded the Senate that "the very reason we have civil service rules is to root out politics, discrimination and nepotism." Yet he and fellow firefighter Ben Vargas were less adamant about the judicial merit (or lack thereof) in the ruling under cross-examination, and the drama that some were expecting from the event failed to materialize.

Other notable moments: Sen. Lindsey Graham, while frankly declaring some of Sotomayor's statements troubling, seemed to warm up to her today, complimenting her on her judicial record and leading some to speculate that she may have won his confirmation vote.

Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life delivered a moving plea on behalf of the unborn, citing Sotomayor's association with PRLDEF, which opposes even parental notification restrictions on abortion, and challenging Sotomayor's statement from Monday that all cases decided by the Supreme Court become "settled law." Roe v. Wade, Yoest said, represents "precedent on shaky ground."

The testimony of Cato's Ilya Somin described with clarity Sotomayor's failure to follow judicial precedent in rulings on property rights and incorporation of the 2nd Amendment.

And sometimes, what is not said is just as significant as what is. One issue that has not come up during the hearing cycle is Sotomayor's membership in the women-only private club Belizean Grove. Last month, TAS' Jeffrey Lord wrote about how membership in a similar men's club had become a dealbreaker for Sen. Pat Leahy and others in the confirmation of Bush Third Circuit Court nominee D. Brooks Smith. Leahy's silence on the issue during this cycle of hearings speaks loudly.

Transcripts from yesterday's hearings and those of the past three days are thoughtfully compiled here on the LATimes Web site.

View all comments (20) | Leave a comment

Siegfried X| 7.17.09 @ 11:33AM

Republican Senator Lugar just announced that he will vote for Sotomayor. He is the first of many, unfortunately. She will get 80 to 90 votes, proving that there is little difference between the two parties.

The NY Times reported what was obvious to anyone following the story, that Republicans gave up long ago on blocking the Sotomayor nomination and were just going through the motions to try and fool their own voters.

"One of the aides, all of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Republicans had for some time given up any hope of derailing the Sotomayor nomination."

ncatty| 7.17.09 @ 12:29PM

Jeff Lord's article which is linked above is TAS at its best. More proof of Leahy's astounding and shameless hypocrisy. But his "distinguished colleagues" on the Republican side don't care or lack the guts to do anything about it. Back to the cloakroom for a convivial drink.

Siegfried X| 7.17.09 @ 1:38PM

Martinez is the second Republican announcing for Soto.

Bob| 7.17.09 @ 1:57PM

If your primary goal is ideology, you'd vote against Sotomayor. But if you value integrity, you have to vote for her. Why? Because most Republican Senators said that it was wrong when Obama voted against Alito on the basis of ideology. If they now change their beliefs, they are hypocrites. They cannot filibuster the nomination because they railed against Democrats who wanted to do the same against them. And the fact remains, that ALL of the non-partisan lawyer groups gave her the highest ratings -- higher than Thomas. Besides, those who have significant Hispanic populations will not be reelected if they vote against a qualified Hispanic candidate.

You ideologues might not like her, but to social libertarians like me who value education and achievement, she's just fine.

Siegfried X| 7.17.09 @ 2:15PM

Next election all those Republican senators will say we should vote for them because of the Court, in order to block Democratic nominations, just like they promised last election.

Spicy Joker| 7.17.09 @ 2:40PM

The Repukelickers are all a bunch of sorry losers who need to be defeated and replaced with REAL conservatives who will not tolerate a liberal Supreme Court nominee who will vote to abolish the death penalty, outlaw guns, and help illegal aliens pig out on social programs.

Interested Conservative| 7.17.09 @ 2:51PM

Bob - your comments seem to wander a bit. Voting yes due to hispanic constituents is the exact opposite of voting for ideology. As for integrity, Sen. Obama's statement is all well and good, and an entirely different category of decisionmaking available.

If anything, I have far less ideological concerns about Judge S. than her most recent predecessor democratic nominees.

The distinction between her and Justices Alito and Roberts seems much more tenable on grounds of intellectual and judicial capacity. Regardless of the Miers affair, Pres. Bush (W)'s greatest legacy may be those appointments. They may rival Scalia and Breyer, and should exceed most of the remainder for the past 50-75 years.

I don't see Judge S in that category, but still lean toward her, and expect the vote will be overwhelming, as it should, and as it should have been for Alito and Roberts.

For the POTUS, though, this may be just another OK personnel move, but positive by comparison with the many, many initial missteps. Not too surprisingly, Gates and Clinton seem to be his best moves so far, and I doubt this will rise to that level.

Bob| 7.17.09 @ 3:18PM

Interested -- I certainly agree that voting for Hispanic constituents is the opposite of voting for ideology. I thought I said that, but my verbiage must not have been clear.

Furthermore, I agree that Roberts had more intellectual and judicial capacity. I believe he got 89 Senators to vote for him. He is more ideological than I thought he'd be, but he is certainly more than qualified. I'm not convinced that Alito has any more capacity than Sotomayor, however. Furthermore, I think Sotomayor will turn out more centrist that people think.

I do not agree with Obama on voting based on ideology like he did with Alito.

Obama's next nomination will most likely be Elena Kagan. She is an intellectual powerhouse that will run over Roberts and take on Scalia. The Republicans will fight that one, but she is so qualified -- more than Sotomayor, that they will lose.

Re: Bob| 7.17.09 @ 4:37PM

Bob, Bob,Bob. It was wrong for Dems to vote against Alito and Roberts because of "ideology", because Alito and Roberts had the correct interpretation of the constitution. It IS RIGHT to vote against Sotomayor's idealogy because it is Anti-american(LaRaza), and she believes in race centered victimology and this affects her decisions. She is affirmative action first, rule of law last. When one's "ideology" is counter to the intent of the original framers of the constitution- candidate should lose. She shouldn't even have been chosen as a candidate. She should have been considered on the basis of her activism,speaches and record (and found unsuitable), NOT the pretty speeches, non-answers and Lies at the hearings. Does anyone beleive that "once she became a judge, she ceased being an activist"? Look at her rulings, or dismissal from considerations with no reason given.

Re: Bob| 7.17.09 @ 4:40PM

Bob--What about Estrada??? No one has ever given an intelligent, non-partisan reason to block him. I bet Sotomayor hasn't hired very many minority clerks or aids. She likes to encourage them, and inspire them, JUST NOT HIRE THEM.

Re: Bob| 7.17.09 @ 4:45PM

Bob--There is so much to reply to in your comments. Integrity???? Sotomayor lied throughout the hearings. She said the opposite of what she said before, she twisted meanings, took things out of context and hid behind her race. Her most honest moment appears to be when she was caught on tape chuckling about how "ya, I know, I can't say we make law here (appeals)".
Not honest, shame on Republicans and Democrats for doing the right thing.

Bob| 7.18.09 @ 9:48AM

There is NO evidence in the 17 years that Sotomayor has been on the bench of ANY bias in her decisions. If Roberts and Alito were minorities, we would have seen them in organizations like Sotomayor. To believe otherwise is just white bias. Geraldo Rivera belongs to the same Puerto Rican organization.

Regarding Estrada, he surely seemed competent and should have been confirmed. But just like you are doing with Sotomayor, he was blocked on ideological terms.

You guys use the word "liar" a great deal. Again, with 17 years on the bench, there is no EVIDENCE that Sotomayor is biased in her decisions. Her actions are much more of an indicator of her behavior than any speeches.

Re: Bob| 7.18.09 @ 12:06PM

Bob-Sotomayor flunks Obama's test. He wanted a judge who would use empathy to come to her decisions, therefor he selected this candidate. Up until the hearings, anyone and every level headed, rational, impartial person would have gotten this impression from her. That is not what she testified to at the hearings. Yes, saying the opposite of what you said before is lying, either before (hardly likely) or now.

Bob| 7.18.09 @ 12:14PM

Again, I look at what people actually do. EVERYONE agrees that she has been a centrist, non-ideological judge for the past 17 years. That is not lying. When she puts on the robes she forgets her ideology and FOLLOWS THE LAW -- that is PROVEN. I could make the argument that Roberts is a liar as well. He said ideology would not affect him but he has voted on a straight right wing vote even when he actually was on the activist side.

You want to call all people you disagree with "liars". That is a problem you must face if you want Republicans to win again.

Basil Plumley| 7.18.09 @ 5:04PM

Bob

What you use is not verbiage, it is more like garbage or good old fashioned horse manure.

Integrity?
Please explain what precedent she used in Ricci. Perhaps, you can explain to the class how the 2nd Court of Appeals heard this case en banc?

A hint: she used a little judicial trick to ensure the rest of the court did not know of the decision. Another judge on the court read about it in the local newspaper and made the en banc motion. The plaintiff's attorney had already filed to the Supreme Court. Stuart Taylor has an excellent write up on this matter at National Journal.

This woman is not only dishonest but incompetent. No wonder you think she has "integrity", you can identify one of your own.
You will have the next 17 years to discuss her "integrity" on the Supreme Court bench.

For you to discuss integrity is akin to discussing the odius stink of the manure you are shoveling.

Bob| 7.19.09 @ 1:18PM

Well, Basil, it looks like the your lead in the uneducated brigade is leading the charge. Do you have any original thought or do you just get your talking points from Hannity? Besides, you are a prime example of a social conservative -- calling someone "manure" who you disagree with.

Let me be straight on this, I am not a lawyer. I must listen to both sides and come to an objective position -- unlike you who refuses to learn. For legal issues I refer to Scotusblog that does a good job of being fair and non-political. Here is an article from Scotusblog from someone far more knowledgeable about these issues than me:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/what-ricci-says-about-the-supreme-courts-views-of-judge-sotomayor/

Now if you want to say Sotomayor is wrong because of a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court, it show your lack of intellectual competence. Under any legal review, the Ricci decision was an activist decision because it changed precedent. The court should not decide right from wrong, it should follow the law. If you want to change the law, go to Congress.

When you understand the meaning of integrity, let me know.

Basil Plumley| 7.19.09 @ 1:55PM

Bob,

Answer the darn question. What exactly was the precedent used by Sotomayor?
You were the one who initially said she did and when I ask, you direct me to the Scotus blog.
Gee Bob, can you ever answer a direct question without obfuscation.
Ironically, when Kyl asked Sotomayer the same question, she hemmed and hawed and no answer resulted. Perhaps, she (like you) should have just told Kyl to look it up at the Scotus blog.

It should also be noted (if the ScotusBlog were honest, they would mention this salient fact) that the Ricci case was a 9-0 decision against Sotomayor's holding. The majority said she was wrong in the result and reasoning while the minority said she was wrong as to her reasoning.

Tell us again Herr Genius, what precedent was she using that all 9 Supremes said she was wrong?

Speaking of uneducated ...... did you actually read your first sentence before you hit the submit button?
By the way, besides ScotusBlog, what other sources did you use to get "the views of the other side"?
My guess, none. You did some google search and found something that came close to helping your butt out of a sling. You still are the king of intellectual dishonesty and laziness. No amount of manure shoveling on your part will change that.

Matching wits with you Bob makes me wonder how Hahvard accepted a dolt like you. Someone more deserving and with more on the ball was passed over. Ah, the fate of cosmic justice.

Bob| 7.19.09 @ 4:25PM

Ahh... Basil the undereducated strikes again. I'm sure you received the 9-0 line from Rush and Fox. And by the way, are you saying that Scotusblog is not objective?

I don't wonder about people like you, Basil, who are not interested in either facts or education. By the way, were you just waiting for my response? Don't you have more important things to do?

And by the way, if I wanted to just present the other side, I would not have used Scotusblog. But then again, an undereducated individual like you wouldn't understand argument and discourse.

Basil Plumley| 7.19.09 @ 8:50PM

By all means Bob, it's all about you.
Argument and discourse? You are the guy who can't answer a simple question. You readily cite a blog but you can't quite squeeze off the answer.

Good Heavens Bobby, did they not give you the answer? Having a tough time reading again. Anyway, no problem. I doubt you will ever answer the question.
Bob, it is really unbecoming hiding behind a blog. Do you still hide behind your wife's apron whenever you see big bad Basil Plumley or Ran or Angel respond to your posts? We, and many others continually embarrass you on this board. Yet, you plod on.

Yes sir, you are one hell of a warrior. How did/do we ever manage without you?