More Revelations about Sotomayor

Until the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings occur, we will continue to learn more about Sonia Sotomayor.  Here are a few new items of interest:

1. She served in a policy-making position on the board of a Puerto Rican legal defense fund.  This particular organization filed legal briefs in six prominent court cases in favor of "abortion rights".  She was reported to be an "involved and ardent supporter" of these efforts.

2. She gave a political speech a couple of months ago that is described below:

Just about two months ago, this sitting federal judge, who is supposed to be above politics, told the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association that "The power of working together was, this past November, resoundingly proven."

"On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences," she said, hailing Obama's election.

She added, "What is our challenge today: Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence. We have to continue to work together for our common goal of bringing the promise of America's greatness and fairness to all members of our society."

Notice how she referred to herself as a "citizen of the world," not as a citizen of the United States. This takes on significance in her case because she wrote a foreword to a book called The International Judge. Does she believe in American sovereignty?

Calling for more "change," she said, "It is the message of service that President Obama is trying to trumpet and it is a clarion call we are obligated to heed. We must devote ourselves to bettering the lives of all the needy of our society and we must do it together."

She is openly advocating using the courts to push Obama's political agenda.

Based on these comments, which violate the Code of Conduct for United States Judges,Sotomayor should not only be forced to withdraw her nomination for the Supreme Court, she should be impeached.  

Canon 7 says a judge should refrain from political activity. It explains that she should NOT "make speeches for a political organization or candidate or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office..."

The fact that her speech occurred after the election should not affect the severity of the offense. It sent the message that she is a liberal judge who will legislate for Obama from the bench. No wonder she got the nomination. She seemed to be auditioning for it. 

3. The New York Times reports that she was highlighted in a video indicating that she would never have been admitted to the Ivy League institutions she attended were it not for affirmative action.

Comments

[Brenda Bowers]

Where are our Congressmen? Surely there are some honorable Democrats who can join with the Republicans to take some actions against Obama's open power grabs? Have the mobs descended on Washington and threatened the life of anyone who dares to question Obama? Nothing like this has ever happened in American history that I am aware of. Sotomayer is going to be put on the SC regardless of all her blatant and illegal radical actions and political activity. She was appointed as a political crumb to the women and Latino crowd, which makes it clear politicians should watch what "crumbs" they toss out!

Now the Inspector General disaster, or coup would be the more appropriate word! At least with Sotomayer there are 11 other judges to keep her in place, but if Obama get the office of Inspector General than the jig is up. BB

[Joe Guarino]

Brenda, the Inspector General situation is, indeed, very worrisome, particularly after what happened to the Chrysler bondholders.

Sotomayor appears to be a bad choice. I don't know what will happen with the nomination; but this is another great example of the costs associated with Obama having been elected.

[jaycee]

A-C-T-I-V-I-S-T

[Joe Guarino]

Yes, Jaycee, unfortunately. There is no other possible conclusion.

[Bubba]

....and a racist, in addition.

But according to the implied message sent by Leonard (the) Pitts, Jr in this morning's column in the N&R, that makes us part of a "hate group".

[Joe Guarino]

Now, Bubba, she is not a racist. She is a "wise Latina".:)

[Roch101]

"This takes on significance in her case because she wrote a foreword to a book called The International Judge."

Good God, talk about knee jerk. Shallow, silly, ignorable.

[Stormy]

THINK! Try it for a change, Roch.

[Stormy]

Shallow, silly, ignorable. Yep, that's our Roch.

[Bubba]

And yet another of the almost daily proclamations from this character that can be labeled absurd.

[Joe Guarino]

I think one of the legitimate concerns about Sotomayor is the extent to which she would undermine American sovereignty by giving too much weight or credence to international law when making decisions. I have not emphasized that topic in my posts, but it is being discussed at length among interested parties.

[Roch101]

"I think one of the legitimate concerns about Sotomayor is the extent to which she would undermine American sovereignty by giving too much weight or credence to international law when making decisions."

And you find evidence of this in the title of a book that I'd wager 100 to 1 you have not read.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

I generally try to analyze things from a systemic or structural perspective, and not with a goal in mind as to what I personally want or value. If systems are to remain strong, and maintain integrity, it does not matter whether they work for you or your interests at a static point in time. It's intellectually dishonest to accept something when it works for you, and then challenge it when it doesn't. That degrades the system.

Why do we really care about the philosophy of a potential justice? (1) Whoever it is is only 1 of 9. (2) The other 8 were appointed by various other Presidents with differing philosophies. (3) Very few appellate cases actually reach the highest court in the land. It is very difficult to have the court grant certiorari, or perceive a conflict between the Circuit Courts. (4) Presidents on both sides of the aisle have the opportunity to submit their nominees, and thus arguably, the pendulum swings both ways over time from a long term perspective.

The notion that legal doctrine can be maintained at any static position, or pursued in a dynamic fashion, is a manipulation of the system, and depending on one's appreciation of the system, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. But that's exactly my point. It should not be a good or bad thing, but a neutral thing.

The mood of a country changes over time. In theory, we do not want our High Court to be subject to societal whims and swings. Seems to me that the citizenry (even with the Electoral College complication) picks the President of the political philosophy acceptable to them, which arguably is reflected in his nominees. Each one has that opportunity.

As long as the nominee has not engaged in any criminal or inappropriate activity for a jurist, we ought to look at the big picture over hundreds of years, and not just the short term.

Partisanship ought be eliminated from the whole decision process, no matter which side of the aisle on which one sits. Unless there is reason to think that they should not sit as a judge at all, then the nomination of ANY President ought be confirmed.

[Stormy]

Reggie,

If that is true, then Obama should have not opposed the nominations of Sam Alito and John Roberts on teh basis of partisan reasons, if he didn't want his nominations opposed based upon partisan reasons.

[Joe Guarino]

Roch, my statement was based on articles I have read online, including but not limited to posts at the Bench Memos blog.

Reggie, I appreciate your thoughtful post. At one time, I agreed entirely with the premise you are advancing. The problem is that distortion occurs when one side politicizes the judiciary, and routinely seeks to block nominees, over a prolonged period of time; and the other side usually does not. That, unfortunately, cannot persist over a long period of time, or the long-term "big picture" of balance between the two sides to which you refer becomes distorted.

And if one side succeeds in changing the law incrementally through the judiciary over a period of time, then the ballgame is lost.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

In my view, somewhat in response to Stormy, the issue is not about individuals, but the integrity of the system and its structure. Just because one individual, in this case Sen. Obama, did not take the high ground stance, does not degrade the concept to any degree. It bears on your perception of him, not the "proper" non-partisan approach to the process.

[Reggie Greene / The Logistician]

Is all fair in the battle, if the other side fights dirty?