Tomorrow the Senate Judiciary Committe will commence confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor... tune in! The link below will bring you to a New York Times (a GREAT source!!!) article where seven legal experts pose questions they would like the nominee to answer. Read through them ... any thoughts?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/13/opinion/13sotomayor.html?_r=1
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Mrs.Wulfing~
ReplyDeleteCould you sum up what is going on with these hearings and such? I'm so lost! I was watching the hearings, but I have no idea what is happening. Can you please explain? Thank you!
~Shelby
Several questions that stood out.
ReplyDelete2. You have been criticized for your vote in the New Haven firefighters case. The case raised the crucial question of whether a city or state can use race-sensitive policies, short of quotas, to reduce racial inequality and tension. Do you see any moral or constitutional objection, in principle, to such policies?
— RONALD DWORKIN, a professor of law at New York University
A summary of that case is here.
The thing that this site does not mention is that the case did go to the Supreme Court and they overturned the previous decision, ruling in favor of the firefighters. (site might not have been updated recently)
Race should not be a factor considered when choosing employees. The ability to do a job should be based on merit and nothing else. A prime example of this is major league football; it doesn’t matter what color you are as long as you can run, pass, or catch the ball better than everyone else. Sotomayor’s brief dismissal of the case does not make her look good, especially now that she has been appointed for Supreme Court justice.
2. Do you believe that the Supreme Court has the constitutional authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional? Would you be in favor of a constitutional amendment establishing or rejecting once and for all the power of an unelected Supreme Court to veto acts of our elected Congress?
3. Throughout the court’s history, it has often lagged behind the times, as lifetime appointees adhered to outdated ideologies and attitudes. Would you be in favor of requiring justices to retire at the age of 70?
— JAMES MacGREGOR BURNS, the author of “Packing the Court: The Rise of Judicial Power and the Coming Crisis of the Supreme Court”
The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret laws. It can tell the President that his actions are not allowed by the Constitution. It can also tell Congress that a law it passed violated the U.S. Constitution and is, therefore, no longer a law. The government was organized this way so that the three branches of government would have a system of checks and balances over each other. This prevents one branch from becoming too powerful. To amend the Constitution in order to limit the power the Supreme Court has over Congress is absurd, as it overrides the fundamental system of checks and balances that has kept our country functioning. This answer to this question seems obvious.
The notion of this proposed age requirement is also ridiculous. Out of the nine current Supreme Court justices, five of them are 70 or older; this includes Kennedy, Stevens, Scalia, Breyer, and Ginsburg (Souter is also 70, but recently announced his retirement). The claim that 70 is just “too old”, is not feasible. Rather, the assessment to replace justices should be based on their competence and credentials. If it is apparent that a justice is not meeting the parameters of their job, they will be impeached by Congress. Age has nothing to do with the ability to interpret the law. There is nothing Sotomayor could gain from answering this question.
How does everyone feel about the following quotes from Sotomayor?
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they are looking for people with court of appeals experience because the court of appeals is where policy is made”
“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.”
I sense a bit of cynicism (This is going to be a FUN year!)... to make sure we are all on the same page ... What is the U.S. Court of Appeals? Why is it controversial to say that it is where policy is made?
ReplyDeleteHey Shelby regarding being lost ... don't worry. Try to find an analysis of the hearings that make sense to you. Otherwise, we will talk about Sotomayor's confirmation hearings when we meet. If you do not find a subject that you connect with, feel free to throw a source and subject of your choice! gw
ReplyDeleteRegarding Wiley's second Sotomayor quote, I feel her words were well intended but definitely worded in a way that would bring on serious controversy. I believe she was saying, solely because of life experience, a Latino judge may make a better decision than a white one in certain circumstances. This was not due to their RACE, but what they had LIVED THROUGH. Personally, I disagree, as I think interpretation of cases should be based more on the Constitution than life experience. But I see where she was coming from. Her choice of words was certainly poor, however, as opponents could argue reverse racism here. It sounds like she believes a white male judge would not gain any experiences to help his decision making; this accusation becomes even more potent with her quote out of context. Political persuasions aside here, I think Sotomayor meant no harm in her statement, but should have thought about the repurcussions before she said this.
ReplyDeleteNew York Times online-
ReplyDeleteSotomayor looks at american law and foreign law in a personal way and a diplomatic way. When she looked at American Law her reasoning toward it was more controversial. When interpreting the constitution using points from the foreign law has a good use to foreiners and 3rd world country citizens because then they can understand the laws that have been set down. It seems that Sotomayor is giving the foreigners a chance to gain some ground in America which is a future-forward move towards a better working place.The way she is interpreting foreign law may be starting to have similar rules to the constitution. (State Rights) are conservitive judical philosophical. (Blue)state rights are- progressive states seek to provide greater consumer, enviormental and antidiscrimnation protection than the federal government. It seems that Sotomayor has a strong passion for giving everyone equal chances. but it does seem is that she seems to think that she has a better understanding for the foreign laws because maybe of LIVING THE EXPERIENCE and working her way up to be respected as an important person of society. Everyone should get the same chances she has had. The people on the supereme court are asking Sotomayor very specifc questions about politics,the citizens and two different laws because they want to make sure she is the right (woman) for the job.
i like this particular article because Obama has a quote that describes the importance of Sotomayor's new found job...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/03/national/w142850D75.DTL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe site doesn’t like my hyperlinks. I suppose I will have to do it this way.
ReplyDeleteThis is the summary of firefighter case, which has now been updated.
http://www.adversity.net/newhavenfd/default.htm
Sotomayor quote, “where policy is made”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/where-policy-is-made-soto_n_207570.html