The Two Faces of Sonia

How to reconcile Judge Sonia Sotoymayor's opening statement today regarding judicial impartiality with her previous remarks to a group of women lawyers?

In her prepared statement for the Senate Judiciary, Sotomayor said "I seek to strengthen both the rule of law and faith in the impartiality of our justice system.” So far, so good.

But consider what Sotayor said on April 30, 1999 to the Women’s Bar Association Of The State Of New York:

[T]here is ‘no objective stance but only a series of perspectives… [N]o neutrality, no escape from choice’… in judging, I further accept that our experiences as women will in some way affect our decisions. In short ... ‘th[e] aspiration to impartiality … is just that an aspiration rather than a description because it may suppress the inevitable existence of a perspective…’”

That's moral relativist double-speak for the judge gets to do whatever she wants.

So much for impartiality and the rule of law.

Dems Try to Railroad Sotomayor Hearings

The networks reported last night that the the Senate judiciary hearings on the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor are scheduled to start July 13. But what ABC, at least, neglected to note is that Democrats set the date without even the courtesy of running the schedule by their Republican counterparts. (Classy!)

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell noted that the scheduling move diminishes bipartisan collegiality and threatens the confirmation process itself, by making the hearings less informative: According to McConnell, Democrats'

decision to rush Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing is puzzling. It risks resulting in a less-informed hearing, and it breaks with years of tradition in which bipartisan agreements were reached and honored over the scheduling of hearings for Supreme Court nominees. And it damages the cordiality and good will the Senate relies on to do its business. These kinds of partisan maneuvers have always come with consequences.”

McConnell also contrasted the Democrats' rush to confirm Sotomayor with the Democrats' careful, studied, meticulous review of the records of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

Justice Sotomayor has been prolific: Yet Democrats propose to allow senators only 48 days to review Judge Sotomayor’s 3,625 cases. At that pace, Senators would need to analyze 76 Sotomayor cases per day. Note that Democrats, in contrast, took the leisurely pace of reviewing just six cases per day for the Roberts hearings.

What is it about Sotomayor's record that Democrats are trying to hide? If she's this fabulous nominee of which they claim to be so proud, then why not use her confirmation hearings to showcase her "Latina wisdom" and her "empathy"? It could be a love-fest for identity politics; it's shocking that the Democrats wouldn't want to savor every minute -- rather than cutting it short.

Sotomayor Stumbles

Literally. Judge Sonia Sotomayor broke her ankle this morning at LaGuardia Airport, according to Breitbart. She was heading to Washington for meetings with U.S. Senators regarding her nomination to the Supreme Court.

Sotomayor stopped at the White House before going to get an x-ray. (To find out just when the President plans to tank our health care system?)

Sotomayor will continue her senatorial courtesy calls on crutches, thereby demonstrating that by virture of her life experience, this "wise Latina woman" can "empathize" with at least one white male: Tiny Tim.

We wish the judge a speedy recovery, as ankle injuries are no fun.

GOP Response: Sesssions on Sotomayor

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) gave the Republican address this morning, and crystallized the danger of nominating judges based on empathy (or their status as a "wise Latina woman," like Judge Sonia Sotomayor):

“If a judge is allowed to let his or her feelings for one party in the case sway his decision, hasn’t that judge then demonstrated a bias against the other party?

“And, if a judge is allowed to inject his personal views into the interpretation of the law, does he not then have a license to rewrite the laws to fit his own preferences?

“I fear that this ‘empathy standard’ is another step down the path to a cynical, relativistic, results-oriented world:

-- Where words and laws have no fixed meaning;
-- Where unelected judges set policy;
-- And where Constitutional limits on government power are ignored when they are inconvenient to the powerful.

“This standard is deeply troubling because it is so contradictory to our country’s long heritage of a faithful and impartial adherence to the rule of law.

Well said, Sen. Sessions.

Wise Woman or Broken Record?

It turns out that Judge Sonia Sotomayor did not strut out her status as a "wise Latina woman" just once; it was not, as the Obama administration tried to spin it, an awkward turn of phrase that Sotomayor would express differently, given a chance.

No, the "wise woman" theme is actually Sotomayor's theme song, -- one she has replayed between 1994 and 2003, according to CQ Politics (via Instapundit):

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

The inescapable conclusion is that Sotomayor did not misspeak: she actually believes that she is wiser by virtue of her ethnicity and ovaries. Don't look for this Judge to show much "empathy" to white males. To keep repeating herself over and over demonstrats that Sotomayor is not so wise as she thinks. And she needs a new writer.

On Judges, Hypocrites and Limp Wrists

We heard lots of righteous indignation last year when Sen. David Williams described now Leut. Gov. Dan Mongiardo as "limp-wristed." That's a code that's no longer a code.

Williams's remark crossed the line from disagreement about political philosophy and public policy -- entirely appropriate for debate -- to casting aspersions based on personal attributes and vague hints of a sexual nature -- not appropriate against anyone.

Yet the Lexington Herald-Leader reprinted a similar allegation that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is "limp-wristed" in his opposition to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. In the past, the Herald-Leader correctly denounced the "limp-wristed" label as applied to Mongiardo, but not as to McConnell. (Indeed, the H-L magnified the aspersion by reprinting it.)

On the merits, it is laughable to assert that McConnell's advocacy against judicial activism has been "limp-wristed" as regards Sotomayor or any other nominee. McConnell has stood for judicial restraint and the rule of law more than any other member of the Senate. When other Republicans were preoccupied with running for President, McConnell was a constant presence at Federalist Society meetings (both local and national) where he demanded an up or down vote for all nominees, whether or not they get confirmed in the end. McConnell has been criticized for his relentless focus on the need for judicial restraint and the proper role of unelected Federal judges, an issue that he addressed recently at the University of Louisville's law school graduation.

McConnell will ensure that Sotomayor's record is given the same scrutiny that then Senator Barack Obama demanded for the confirmation hearings of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. As a former district court and now appellate judge with a propensity for inflammatory speeches, Sotomayor's record provides much to scrutinize -- including more than 3,000 judicial opinions.

A filibuster would be necessary and appropriate only if Republicans were denied the opportunity to explore the Judge's vast record. Absent a move to railroad her confirmation, however, no filibuster is necessary.

Once the nominee's opinions have been reviewed and the committee testimony taken, McConnell knows that all nominees deserve and up or down vote, including Judge Sotomayor. Perhaps McConnell will vote "nay," as he did when Sotomayor was elevated to the Second Circuit. Or perhaps not: Sotomayor would replace Justice David Souter, simply swapping one liberal with another liberal.

The problem is not that McConnell is not conservative enough, not aggressive enough on activist judges (or anything else for that matter). The problem is that he doesn't have enough troops in the Senate. That's one more reminder for Kentuckians: we cannot afford to let Sen. Jim Bunnings persist in his losing campaign.

McConnell on Sotomayor

Here's Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's reaction to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court:

“Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.

“Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a ‘rubber stamp.’ Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications.”

Judge Sotomayor To Be Named As Supreme Court Nominee

Several media outlets are reporting that President Obama will announce shortly that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is his nominee to replace Justice Souter. If she is selected, Judge Sotomayer would be an intriguing choice. Currently serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor was originally appointed to the bench in 1992 as a District Judge by President George H.W. Bush. President Clinton elevated her to the appellate court in 1997.

Given her connection to the first President Bush, one is tempted to believe that Judge Sotomayer will at least be open-minded to notions of judicial restraint. But then again, Bush appointed Justice Souter also, and we all know how that turned out.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.