Thursday, 9 July 2009
 Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on The Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Monday, July 13, 2009 Hart Senate Office Building Room 216 10:00 a.m. There no Tennessee Senators on the Judiciary Committee.
We are asking our Tennessee Senators to oppose this nomination and support postponing the confirmation vote until after the August recess.
Go HERE to send your email.
For out-of-state subscribers, you can click HERE to see if your senator is on the committee
[Click on picture to follow the activities -- The Judicial Review.]
COMMENT: Not only do the past statements of nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court Sotomayor pose problems for those of us who actually believe in 'strict construction' and 'original intent' where the U.S. Constitution is concerned, reading the President's remarks perhaps demonstrates why she was chosen. It is NOT the job of a judge to 'stand in somebody's else's shoes'!! It is the job of the judge to look at the case in view of the constitution. Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell stated: ‘As we consider her nomination to the Supreme Court, my colleagues should ask themselves this important question: is she allowing her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and favor one group of individuals over another, irrespective of what the law says’
Below these articles is a compilation of her cases.
This confirmation is being rushed through the U.S. Senate. It appears to be an effort to prevent the American people from talking to their U. S. Senators over the August recess. This is a very important decision and Sotomayor's radical record MUST be explored thoroughly prior to a confirmation vote. The Senators and the American people have the right to learn as much as they can about this woman who could be on the court for the rest of her life. The vote can wait until September.
Obama seeks to quell Sotomayor dust-up
By Globe Staff | May 30, 2009
President Obama sought yesterday to douse the political firestorm over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's much-dissected 2001 remark that a "wise Latina woman" could often reach "better" judgments than a white judge.
After his spokesman said that Sotomayor had acknowledged a "poor" choice of words, Obama said yesterday that Sotomayor "would have restated" her comment. "She was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through [and] that will make her a good judge," the president said in an interview with NBC News.
"Part of the job of a justice on the Supreme Court, or any judge, is to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes, to be able to, you know, understand the nature of the case, and how it has an impact on people's ordinary day-to-day lives," he added.
The remark at issue was made during a speech at the University of California at Berkeley in which Sotomayor said "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." "I would 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," she said. Read more here
Court reverses Sotomayor decision on firefighters
The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly reversed a controversial decision written by President Obama’s nominee to join the body, giving conservative groups a chance to take issue with Judge Sonia Sotomayor even as her confirmation looks increasingly likely.
Justices reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case that has been at the heart of conservative opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination. Read more here
NRA Taking Aim in Supreme Court Battle
Two pieces of bad news for supporters of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. First former National Rifle Association (NRA) president, Sandy Froman (who apparently is no relation to the sausage king of Chicago), has a good piece out stating “Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.”
This was followed by current NRA Executive Director Chris Cox stating the organization has serious concerns over Ms. Sotomayor’s record on the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA opposes the Sotomayor nomination that would be the first serious dent in her nomination that we have seen – an NRA endorsement or non-endorsement carries a lot of weight with Democrats in rural and conservative areas. Read more here
Sotomayor Failed to Disclose to Senate Memo in Which She Argued Death Penalty is 'Racist'
The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) says Judge Sonia Sotomayor failed to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee a controversial document arguing that the death penalty is “racist” and a violation of the present “humanist” thinking of society.
The 1981 memo, they say, should have been disclosed as required under Question 12 (b) of the questionnaire that the Supreme Court nominee turned in Thursday. Read more here
REACHING ON RICCI
The United States Supreme Court Has Overturned Sotomayor Once Again In Ricci V. Destefano
SOTOMAYOR HAS NOW HAD SEVEN OF HER DECISIONS GO BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, AND THE COURT AGREED WITH HER REASONING ONLY ONCE
- Ricci v. Destefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - Reversed 5-4
- Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- Reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
- Knight v. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- Upheld, But Reasoning Was Unanimously Faulted
- Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- Reversed 8-0
- Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. Mcveigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) - Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
- Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- Reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
- Tasini Vs. New York Times, et al., 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- Reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer) ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)
SOTOMAYOR'S MENTOR ON COURT DISAGREED WITH RICCI RULING
Even Sotomayor's "Mentor" On 2nd Circuit Court Issued "Blistering Dissent" Of Ricci Ruling. "Now, those differences with her mentor are at the center of the debate over her confirmation because of Judge [Jose] Cabranes's blistering dissent from a ruling by Judge Sotomayor and two others." (David D. Kirkpatrick, "Judge's Mentor: Part Guide, Part Foil," The New York Times, 6/29/09)
- Judge Jose Cabranes Said That The Majority "Failed To Grapple With The Questions Of Exceptional Importance Raised In This Appeal." "Writing for the six dissenters, Cabranes said that the majority 'failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,' and he urged the Supreme Court to do so. He also raised the question of whether the case involved 'an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside.'" (Stuart Taylor, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear," The National Journal, 12/13/08)
- "Cabranes Stressed That Despite The Importance Of The Issues And The Unusually Long And Detailed Briefs, Arguments, And Factual Record, The Three-Judge Panel's 'Perfunctory Disposition' Oddly Contained 'No Reference Whatsoever To The Constitutional Claims At The Core Of This Case.'" (Stuart Taylor, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear," The National Journal, 12/13/08)
THE SUPREME COURT HAS CONTINUOUSLY QUESTIONED SOTOMAYOR'S LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS
In 2007, The Supreme Court Reversed Sotomayor's Opinion In Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA 6-3, Saying That Sotomayor's Interpretation Of An EPA Rule Was Too Narrow. "Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the 'best technology available' must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the 'best technology' regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the 'best technology' rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)
In 2006, The Supreme Court Upheld Sotomayor's Ruling In Knight v. Commissioner, But "Unanimously Rejected The Reasoning She Adopted, Saying That Her Approach 'Flies In The Face Of The Statutory Language.'" "Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach 'flies in the face of the statutory language.' Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)
In 2005, The Supreme Court Unanimously Overturned Sotomayor's Ruling In Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Saying That Sotomayor's Position "Could Give Rise To 'Wasteful, Duplicative Litigation.'" "Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to 'wasteful, duplicative litigation.' Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)
In 2000, The Supreme Court Overturned Sotomayor's Ruling In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., Saying That Sotomayor Has Inappropriately Expanded A Previous Decision To Cover The Current Case. "Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as 'Bivens,' which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases," www.cnn.com, 5/26/09)
In 1997, Sotomayor's Ruling As A District Court Judge In Tasini v. New York Times Was Overturned By The Appellate Court; The Supreme Court Upheld The Appellate Court's Reversal Of Sotomayor."Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databa ses and archives such as 'Lexis/Nexis' without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)"
Posted on 07/09/2009 9:20 AM by Bobbie Patray
|
