LIVEBLOG: Sotomayor hearings, day 2
Post ID #986 | RSS comments feed for this post
It's the second day of confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor to be a Supreme Court Justice and today should be more interesting than yesterday as Senators will actually ask questions instead of reading statements.
CSPAN and CNN are streaming it live over the web.
CSPAN and CNN are streaming it live over the web.
Posted by brandonb at 7:28 AM on July 14th 2009
Leahy is laying out the rules: 30 minute rounds between Dems and Reps with Senators recognized on seniority.
Sotomayor looks noticeably more engaged today, for obvious reasons.
Sotomayor: Keep an open mind while listening and reaching a decision means listening to the parties while keeping the facts in mind in reference to what the law says.
She's taking notes and speaking carefully.
The Tarzan case was hard for her, since it brought home the senseless tragedy of violent death. The Tarzan guy sounds crazy, he use acrobatics to gain entry to apartments.
It also reminded her that as a prosecutor she must be sensitive to the case and it's presentation. There she goes being empathetic again!
She did a lot of research to tie the various crimes together, based on New York precedent, which helped her and the co-prosecutor make the case.
Leahy is pointing out that she had precedent on the case, and that people didn't like her ruling. He wants to know what she thinks of Supreme Court overturning the decision.
Sotomayor gets into the background of the case, touching on some of the murkier legal discussions (I'm not a lawyer), and defends her panel's decision to uphold the cities decision, citing precedent. She points out the Supreme Court used a different method and set precedent, Leahy asks that if she had to try the case again, would her options for ruling be more open based on the new Supreme Court ruling and Sotomayor says "Yes, absolutely".
Sotomayor: I was trying to inspire young Latino lawyers that the legal system would be better for their unique background. She makes clear that no ethnic group is better than any other and cites a belief in something Sandra Day O'Conner said about the ability of men and women to be fair judges. She then ads that hey, I've got 17 years on the bench, look at my record and you'll see I'm not prejudiced.
Sotomayor says she does have an open mind, a family member belongs to the NRA, she has friends who hunt and she never pre decides a legal decision anyway, so it's not a big deal.
Still he's going to challenge on some of her comments.
You said the Court of Appeals is where policy is made, but also that judges don't make law, so which is your real opinion.
Sotomayor: 17 years. Read'em and decide whether I'm fair or not. As to the comment, I was talking to students about what different types of judges do (circuit vs appellate), where one does indeed make policy. If you listen to more than the 1 1/2 YouTube clip, you'll get the full meaning.
Burn!
He asks a judge should allow their prejudices to help determine their decisions.
Sotomayor: Duh, of course not. Look life experiences affect a person, you have
Sesssion cuts her off, citing a statement where she supposedly said prejudices were ok. Sotomayor says no, and repeats that life experience is important to being a judge. Sessions says yeah, yeah. Sotomayor responds that the system is better when judges don't assume they're impartial and instead look at their feelings and try not let them interfere with legal thought. Sotomayor says no, that's not what I'm saying and repeats what she said before.
Sessions moves on to another comment Sotomayor said: "I wonder whether impartiality is possible at all, since men, women and races come from different places." Sotomayor says no, it's about life experiences, recognizing them and realizing where they can impact legal thought.
Sotomayor: Nope, I got a 17 year record. Check it out.
Sotomayor: In the wider context, life experiences influence what we see, sure, but that doesn't matter since you're reviewing all the facts.
Sessions: will you stand by that statement?
Sotomayor: No, I won't stand by the understanding of that statement.
Sessions: Well you've said it several times over the years. He cites another judge he says a wise man and woman should reach the same decision, which Sotomayor has disagreed with, so how can say you're impartial.
Sotomayor: Oh yeah, that judge is here and she's my friend and we look at law the same way. As to the statement, i was trying to play off something Sandra Day O'Conner said and it fell flat, no question. If you read the whole speech, you'll see the fuller meaning.
Sessions: I'm still troubled by these statements that you've repeatedly made over a decade, just so gosh darned troubled.
Sotomayor: Nope. It was a panel of three judges who came to the same conclusion and similar case had a similar conclusion. Whatever I felt or thought, we use precedent to come to our decision.
Leahy: is there a question here?
Sessions: hey, i'm just trying to get the facts clear since you got some of the facts wrong.
Leahy: Obviously I disagree, but move on.
Sessions: Ok, Sotomayor, would you follow the precendents on these similar cases in regards to this matter? (I'm mangling some of the legal thought here, shortening it I think)
Sotomayor: Two different cases, two different questions.
Sessions: But it's not that simple! A judge wanted to review your decision in the Ricci case and thought it was important, why didn't you allow that?
Sotomayor: Our decision was short because it relied about and referenced a 78 page decision and the majority of the court, not just my vote, but the majority decided we shouldn't look at the case again, instead leaving it to the Supreme Court.
Sotomayor: They had our sympathies and we expressed that in court, but they had the 78 precedent decision before them, which we cited.
Sessions closes and thanks her for the time, but points out that a judge contested her panel's decision and that's probalby how it made it to the Supreme court.
Senator Kohl is asking questions now...
Sotomayor: I'm not a clone and each brings special qualities I like. Plus if I pick one that implies that I disagree with others and I don't want to do that. However, if we talk about past Justices, I can pick one. She names Justice Cardoza and his great use of precedent.
Sotomayor: Looking at race is ok in these situations, and hopefully, like Justice O'Conner said, in 25 years we won't need it.
Sotomayor: My reaction as a sitting judge it not to criticize or question it. That type of case has only happen once in your history and whether you agree or disagree with, some good things come from it in the form of electro reform (I'm guessing she means how elections are conducted)
Sotomayor: It's precedent and I'm bound by it. Any cases that come up about it have to taken on its individual merits.
Sotomayor: I don't prejudge issues.
Sotomayor: Yes, the court has founded a right to privacy, based on the 4th and 14th amendmants.
Sotomayor: Yep.
Kohl: What about cameras in the Supreme courtroom?
Sotomayor: I've had positive experiences with cameras in the courtroom in the past. But when doing new things, I talk to those who have been in that situation to figure out what has gone on before and why and follow its traditions.
Kohl: Yeah, I get that if you can't convince them you'll drop it, but what do you really think, should cameras be in the court?
Sotomayor (laughing): We could talk about it.
Sotomayor: I'm not pro or anti business, I'm applying law, that's it. Can't comment on the Sherman Act ruling.
Kohl finishes and Leahy calls for "flexible" ten minute break.
Sotomayor says no, there were other issues at work in that particular case, and goes into deeper legal waters that I'm not allowed to go into.
Sotomayor: Once there's settled precedent, then well, it's settled and only the Supreme can change that.
Hatch: Is the 1st amendment a fundamental right?
Sotomayor: Yep, as the term fundamental is understood.
Hatch: and the 4th?
Sotomayor: Yes, the same thing.
Hatch says he's going over this because he thinks she applied the wrong legal reasoning in a particular case and asks for clarification. Sotomayor appears a bit over her head here.
Ah, Hatch is attempting to find that her decision in a case involving nunchucks, which Sotomayor ruled that the State could regulate, then isn't she saying that any state could regulate guns? Sotomayor says no, this was a very specific ruling which was based on 19th century case and not a more modern case. Hatch then counsels her to consider this before suddenly switching to the Ricci/New Haven case. He's smooth, that one.
Sotomayor: The underlying principles were the same, never mind the form of the.
Hatch: Ok, there was another case cited, that challenged the test administered was different from Ricci, right?
Sotomayor: Yes, but the underlying principles were the same, again.
Appearance wise, Sotomayor still seems like she's scrambling a bit as Hatch is using this a talking point and indirectly implying that Sotomayor is connected with all the negative aspects of this case.
Sessions breaks in to note that the Washington Post found that Sotomayor was a liberal judge. (what the hell?) and notes that Miguel Estrada was blocked by Democratic filibuster.
Senator Feinstein is up now.
Feinstein continues in this vein, rebutting various points Hatch was trying to make and is clearly pissed off about Hatch's portrayal of Sotomayor as an activist judge.
Sotomayor: Hard to say, it really depends on the individual case and what those multiple precedents are.
Sotomayor: Yes.
Sotomayor: Very broad question, I have to cautious in answering it, since Congress and courts are trying to figure this out. Generally, you do have to look at this situations where President claims certain rights, sure.
Grassley: Could you explain what your understanding is of 5th amendment rights and whether a person's home can be more easily taken via eminent domain because of the Kelo rulling.
Sotomayor; Hey Senator and it's nice to see you again. In a similar case in New York I ruled for the property owners against the state.
Grassley: Public use vs Public purpose, are they the same?
Sotomayor: They two inform each other
Grassley: Do you think the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in the Kelo case?
Sotomayor: The Supreme Court didn't think it was, so I have to accept that as precedent.
Grassley: Well, what's your understanding of government's authority to take private property?
Sotomayor: It's hard to comment on a hypothetical.
Sotomayor: The definition of taking depends.
Grassley: Would you strike down a taking that didn't compensate?
Sotomayor: If it violated the Constitution.
Sotomayer begins to answer than then...
...Another disturbance from a Pro Life protester
Leahy reminds everyone to knock it off and Sessions chimes in to agree with him.
Grassley is also complaining about the length of the written decision. Evidently there's a writing quota.
Sotomayor: Details matter. Here let me walk you through the case showing my legal thought.
That's where some of these questions go: You're wrong, now explain yourself damnit! Uh nuh, I'm not wrong if you look at all these various factors in this particular case.
(Seriously, this guy is a Senator?)
Sotomayor: Uh, no, that's not what happened there.
Sotomayor: Can't say, it's a pending case.
(Weird exchange there)
Sotomayor: It's continuing discussion among everyone. In the end, the Constitution protects certain rights and while we can disagree on the general ideas, so no, 9/11 didn't change my view on individual rights.
Sotomayor: A judge should never rule from fear.
Feingold: Some of greatest judges upheld that decision. How does a judge refrain from making such bad rulings
Sotomayor: With wisdom and understanding.
Feingold's turn ends and I'm off to run errands.
Soto: hell no, those poor people, but the law's the law.
Schumer: I know, right?
Soto: plus, then Congress fixed it anyway.
But more about "I apply the law"
Soto: I don't use labels. I apply the law
Graham-- are you a strict constructionist?
Soto: As I said, I don't use labels. I apply the law. I don't know what these labels mean.
Soto: defines it.
G- are you an originalist?
Soto: Let me say this in words of one syllable. I. Don't. Use. Labels. to define myself and my approach.
Soto-- yes. Yes, I am. The second circuit doesn't have time for nice.
He did not just ask her if she has a temperament problem, did he?
Oh god, he's trying "to impress upon her" the danger of such remarks.
The he asked her to recite the comment from memory when he couldn't find the printed quote, which had Sotomayor looking perplexed like "are you serious?"
Wow, he's really clueless on this. He's complaining that she could say that statement and still be a nominee on the Supreme Court, while he couldn't.
Sotomayor says she could understand how people would feel about a misquoted comment.
Sotomayor: It was bad and horrible.
Graham: Are you familiar with that group that did this?
Sotomayor: I read the newspapers.
Graham: How do you think they'd treat woman?
Sotomayor: They would not treat women equally.
This astonishingly patronizing.
Sotomayor pauses and says: Based on what I've read, yes.
Wow, just wow.
Sotomayor: About 12 years.
Graham: What about them using tax payer funds for abortions?
Sotomayor: I was board member. Perhaps I should explain what board and staff member does?
communist partyPuerto Rican Defense Fund?Sotomayor: It's broad, like the Constituation.
Graham: Was it the position of the Fund to support taxpayer funded abortions?
Sotomayor: Wasn't involved in that.
Graham: Well what do you think of that?
Sotomayor: My personal opinions don't matter.
Graham: Well, the Fund supported taxpayer funded abortions and that the death penalty was racist. What's your view on that?
Sotomayor: It's certainly legal.
Soto-- remember that part before where I said I follow the law? Yeah, that.
Leahy is out in the hall with few other Democratic Senators, doing a press conference. It's all rah-rah, she was awesome and noting how the Republicans suck, amirite?!
This seems like an incredible waste of time and a overreach in Senate power. Everyone knows it's not really about vetting the nominee, but rather pushing whatever agenda the individual Senators want to push. Ever since Robert Bork flamed out by actually answering questions, nominees have tried to say as little as possible, to avoid stirring up controversy. I've watched the hearings for two days now, and I haven't learned anything new, other than a reminder that Senators are overpaid and don't seem to do a lot work at hearings except proudly showcase their stupidity.
Anyway, Cardin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Kaufman, Specter, Franken, Cornyn and Coburn still have questions to ask, though not in that order. After that, there's a closed door session and then the second round of questions, limited to 20 minutes each. Then I think witnesses are called.
Marbury v. Madison
Day 3 of the hearing are starting right about now. I'll be in and out today. TPM has a live blog on the hearings by an appellate lawyer who's been touching more on the legal concepts and reasoning.
Which means, of course, that what they don't like is that she was appointed by a Democratic president.
God, I weep for Maryland.
Sotomayor: Uh, we don't do law for an audience?
Sotomayor: Sure, totally.
Sessions is busy equating what he thinks with the American people, despite the Democrats being voted into the majority.
It probably makes it harder to pass but I agree with him. I hate it when legislation about one thing gets tacked on to other things, on principle.
Franken thinks there's an ominous increases in "judicial activism". Whatever, Mr. "It's my 7th day on the job and I'm vetting a Supreme Court nominee".
Leahy is starting off round 2. Each Senator is limited to 20 minutes this time.
Sessions: Lets talk about the 2nd amendment.
Sotomayor: Didn't we already go over this?
They're in 15 minutes recess now. Sotoamayor made a point of going by the Senators and chatting a bit, especially with Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Graham is up now. He too seems interested in the Ricci case, surprise, surprise.
To be fair, Graham has said several times that he seems pleased that she has the ability to be a judge and not an activist. I guess that's progress.
Now Graham is bringing up a memo that she signed at the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund in 1981 that gives support for ending the death penalty and tries to tie it to her role as advocate and what that means to her role as a judge. she dances left, Graham dances right.
Sotomayor, in response to Graham asking what she would like to say to those offened by her wise latina remark. She says she regrets that some people are offended, but she hopes her nearly 20 years as judge shows it has nothing to with how she decides legal decisions.
Sotomayor: Look at my record for the past 17 years and you'll see personal views don't control how I decide legal questions. Oh and read the whole damn speech for context.
Maybe 'cause it's two different situations?
*Sighs*
She lazily hits the softball.
Sotomayor does so, except when American law uses foreign law. Heh.
Such a wise, wise man.
It's probably odd for Sotomayor, a judge, to be in this situation, where people have the power to cut off her testimony.
Sessions chimes in that a decision of Sotomayor's could allow states to ban firearms.
Leahy notes that Sessions' state of Alabama has more restrictive laws than his state of Vermont, so again, he's not too worried her decisions.
Sotomayor tells a story of when she was first nominated to be a judge. Her mom asked her various questions about her new job, whether she would make more money, travel more etc, etc. Sotomayor replied no and her mom asked her why she wanted her job. Mom's friend said "Oh come on, you know your daughter. She has a thing for public service." That, Sotomayor says is what it's all about, she has a passion for public service.
Franken yields his time and the third round begins, limited to 10 minutes each. Sessions speaks first.
He wants to know if Sotomayor is ok with the salary of judges. She's been living on it for 17 years, she'll do alright. Sessions notes it's 4 times higher than the average for a family, so if she can't live on that she probably shouldn't take the job. Good advice there, oh yes.
Now, back to the Ricci case...and CNN cuts away to the Florida case on the murdered couple. Heh, even CNN is bored.
Sessions is asking her whether she showed a lack of courage on some aspect of the Ricci case. Sotomayor unsurprisingly says "No" and repeats her defense of the decision.
He wants to know about the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund and her time with the group from 1980 to 1992. Wants to know about abortion cases the Fund was involved with, but he's swears he's not asking her how should she would on future cases or anything like that. Uh huh.
Rinse and repeat for other briefs the Fund filed. Uh, no Senator.
So here's the deal folks. She's a moderate judge apointed by a moderate president who approaches law conservatively and with all judicial restraint necessary. Shut the eff up and confirm. Can we please get back to health care now?
Anything patronizing question about whether she can understand someone who is worried about their gun rights.
Death Penalty, apparently a foreign law connection.
Points out that unlike other countries, this one has a unique relationship to the 2nd amendment. (Yeah, it's in our constitution. To those other countries it's, um, foreign law.)
He's now moved on to telling potential terrorist recruits "Go Ahead, Make My Day" Wish I could get the feed that shows her face.
"Judge if you get on this court and look at whether habeus should be applied to war time battlefield prisons, this is not the same as robbing a liquor store, these are dangerous people and Congress, the voice of the American people has a difficult assignment. Don't overstep onto our purview. Judges can't run the war."
Never lets her respond. Jesus.
Soto: I don't use terms like that. I regard each case on its merits and briefs.
Soto: I don't use terms like that. Didn't I just say that?
Senator: international and foreign law quote suggests that you consider foreign law to be more important than you've indicated here. (Good question)
Soto: No inconsistency, but speech was more specific than you are quoting. Explains semantics, misquoting, misinterpretation, and the dangers of using quotes out of context
Now she trots out her fabulousness-- I am an academic, I've taught at two law schools, I think about ideas, I shoot the bull with other judges. Sometimes we share ideas.
Soto: SCOTUS has said that there are limits to all powers and actors in the Constitution. The purpose of the Court is to determine if parties are acting within the limits of that document.
it's stupidbut gosh you do such a good job there, I'm totally going to dodge the whole ridiculous non question here. Charming laugh.I knew it, it's all the fault of liberal judges. Thank you for clearing that up. Nothing to do with crippling illegal wars, criminally unregulated banking or deceitful public policy. Whew!
Soto: complex legalese referring back to apparently specific case he's referring to.
Over my head.
Reviews past four days (no, please no), you are so awesome I totally want to have your children. Everyone's watching you on the internets (which by the way are NOT mentioned in the Constitution, just want to point that out/nax). You are wise and smart, I nominate you to be the head of Hogwarts, oh wait, wrong notes.
Recess. Gotta go back to work, someone take over.
We had a nice long talk, but ultimately I eated it.
CSPAN is on, but the sound isn't working on the computer for some reason now. Things seems much better that way.
It appears as though the third round is over and they're talking to outside witnesses.
Working on sound issue...
They're working on New York Mayor Bloomberg who's running late. They'll move along until he arrives.
Current itness is Dustin McDaniel, the Attorney General of Arkansas and Chairman of the national group of Attorney Generals. He's speaking in support of Sotomayor.
Frank Ricci, the firefighter in the Ricci case, is suppose to speak at some point. Not sure what he can add in terms of legal thought or Sotomayor's record.
Sessions' smirking is weird. I think it's supposed to be friendly, but it comes off as grandpa-with-a-knife, which on second thought, kinda explains Sessions' style in these hearings.
Sessions isn't having none of that foolishness, and points out how Supreme Court decisions can hang on a single vote.
Bloomberg has arrived and the entire panel/table of witnesses are sworn in.
He harks about Sotomayor's 3 panel decision, which was short and mentioned his dyslexia and was made to be about him instead of the test.
This isn't to say that Ricci is wrong, but his arguments, as articulated in his statement, aren't important to what Sotomayor was deciding on.
A description of the order of events, as pertaining to Sotomayor can be found on Wikipedia.
Cats gotta go to the vet, back later.
Kobuchar: Is Judge Sotomayor not the best judge eva?!!
Freeh: Totally, fer sure!!!
Anyway, Sessions is back. Points out that Bush's appointment of Sotomayor was basically a deal with another politician. Bush would appoint 3 and the other guy would get to pick one.
Now he's asking the President of the Americans United for Life on whether she, as a board member of organization, was familiar with what lawsuits the organization was filing. Essentially she calls Sotomayor a liar. Sessions totally agrees, you betcha.
Sandy Froman, former NRA President doesn't like Sotomayor and is worried by what she'd do against the 2nd Amendment.
He's now reeling off crime stats, after sharing the circumstances of the violent death of his brother by transients. Sotomayor is not to his liking for her perceived sympathy with criminals, such as when she apologized to a coke dealer for having to sentence him to the minimum of 5 years and saying he's a victim of economic circumstance.
The committee is going approve her to the full Senate, don't know why I'm still watching, but it's like a bad accident you can't tear your eyes from.
Either that or he wants to remind Leahy, who unilaterally made the decision to have the hearings before the August recess, that he won't be pushed around by no stinkin' timetable, no sir!