Pounding On The Judge
Written by: Tom Sawyer
Below you will find several comments from the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing for the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Obviously, they follow party lines – the Democrats normally say good things while the Republicans say bad things. Two things caught my attention when reading an article about the hearing:
1. How many times the word “prejudice” was used.
2. How many times the committee took the opportunity to say something about BHO.
They, the Republicans on the committee, are going out of their way to be careful not to talk negatively about Sotomayor as it relates to her race – they are avoiding bringing up the Hispanic element if possible. But the fact that they are avoiding it says something about what is really on their minds. It matters.
In addition to the race element, I find it funny, in a convenient way, that they would use this opportunity to take pot shots (in a political way) at BHO. Instead of talking about gender and race, they are talking about the president – they basically know Sotomayor will be confirmed so they are using this opportunity for other purposes.
Looking at some of the comments below and using a little common sense, it is easy to see a big deal is being made out of some things that shouldn’t be. Does it really make sense, common sense, to think that Sotomayor has progressed to this point without making sound judgements? Would she really use race/gender/upbringing/whatever to make decisions and still be in a position to become the next Supreme Court justice? Would the first President Bush have helped her career if she was as bad as some people make her out to be?
It just doesn’t pass the litmus test to me. I think she will be OK.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt.
“I would trust that all members of this committee here today will reject the efforts of partisans and outside pressure groups that sought to create a caricature of Judge Sotomayor while belittling her record and achievements, her intelligence. … Let no one demean this extraordinary woman.”
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala.
“I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.”
Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
“One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record because there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it.”
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa
“The Supreme Court is meant to be a legal institution, not a political one. But some individuals and groups don’t see it that way. They see the Supreme Court as ground zero for their political and social battles. They want justices to implement their political and social agenda through the judicial process.”
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
“We cannot simply brush aside her extra-judicial statements. Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority — the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from — to paraphrase President Obama — deciding cases based on her heartfelt views.”
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
“First, as we will hear in the next few days, Judge Sotomayor puts rule of law above everything else. Given her extensive and evenhanded record, I am not sure how any member of this panel can sit here today and seriously suggest that she comes to the bench with a personal agenda.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah
“There must be a vigorous debate about the kind of judge America needs, because nothing less than our liberty is at stake. Must judges set aside, or may judges consider, their personal feelings in deciding cases? Is judicial impartiality a duty or an option?”
Tags: "Prejudice" a word closely associated with Sotomayor confirmation, President Obama brought up during Sotomayor confirmation hearings, Sotomayor confirmation hearings, Sotomayor nominated for Supreme Court
July 14th, 2009 at 10:56 am
The reasons given by Republicans, who are against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, are ridiculous and here’s why: They say that legislation of the law should not be based on personal biases. Well, can you explain to me why people, who are convicted of crack cocaine crimes, are given higher sentences than people who are convicted of any other drug offense? I’ll tell you why – because it’s known as a Black drug and well, white men came up with this law, and there are some deep-rooted issues that white men have against Black men (based on history, you know) so……
America is supposed to be a Melting Pot. Why are people having such a hard time making the Supreme Court a Melting Pot? (And no, I didn’t forget about Clarence Thomas). He was the first Black, now add a Hispanic. If an Asian is then added, the Supreme Court would be a true Melting Pot, wouldn’t it?
July 14th, 2009 at 11:53 am
Kim, I didn’t know that about crack cocaine crimes but definitely believe it.
July 14th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Yep, and here are excerpts from 1995, regarding federal sentencing guidelines as it relates to crack cocaine. In 995, the U.S. Sentencing Commission had tried, unsuccessfully, to get these discrepancies overturned:
“Under current law, defendants convicted of trafficking 50 grams of crack
cocaine receives the same ten-year mandatory minimum penalty as defendants
convicted of trafficking 5,000 grams of powder cocaine. See 21 U.S.C.A. Sec.
841, 960. Conviction for trafficking a mere 5 grams of crack cocaine
carries the same five-year mandatory minimum sentence as a conviction for
trafficking 500 grams of powder cocaine. Id. For simple possession of more
than 5 grams of crack cocaine, a defendant must be sentenced to a minimum of
five years in federal prison while simple possession of any quantity of any
other substance–including powder cocaine–is a misdemeanor offense,
punishable by a maximum of one year in prison See 21 U.S.C.A. Sec. 844.”
“On September 12, 1995, the Republican majority on the House Judiciary
Committee had the opportunity to eliminate the disparity in sentences
between crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses. The Committee could have
eliminated blatantly discriminatory federal laws. Regrettably, the majority
opted instead to perpetuate these discriminatory laws by passing and
reporting out H.R. 2259, which disapproves the recommendations of the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to eliminate the disparities in federal sentencing for
crack cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.”
“…Chief Judge Strom became the first federal judge to refuse to impose a mandatory
minimum sentence in a crack case. In supporting this decision, he asserted
that since crack cocaine “is only minutes away from” powder cocaine, the
disparity in sentences for the two forms of the same drug cannot be
justified, particularly when the disparity has such an obvious
disproportionate impact upon African Americans.”
Here’s the actual link: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg15.htm
July 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
That is so wrong. Thank God for Chief Judge Strom.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@Kim Sawyer – Kim, I believe you’re missing the point. There is a major difference between a judge and a law/policy maker. Judges are responsible for interpreting law, not making laws. According to her own statements she believes court of appeals is where policy is made. The constitution has something to say about that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q
I’ll be honest with you though, Her appointment is one of the last things on my mind right now. From what I understand she’s replacing a fairly liberal judge anyway and she has more than enough experience whether I agree with her approach at law or not. My focus is on the Democrats who are in the midst of forcing the Health Care Reform through before their recess in two and a half weeks.
I’ve asked this before but I’ll ask it again. Do any of you have a problem with these bills being passed without them being read? We’re not talking about piddly little bills we’re talking about economy destroying kinds of bills.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
@Ryan Kazinec – Yeah, I understand what you’re saying, but my point really was, personal biases still come into play when they interpret the law. Just look at Clarence Thomas – he’s against affirmative action because he “feels” it doesn’t benefit Black people and he votes that way when anything is on the docket relating to affirmative action. If that’s not a personal bias, I don’t know what is!
Now, regarding Health Care Reform, I am concerned that bills are being passed without being read. I especially don’t like the new proposal that anyone making over $280,000 a year be taxed more to help pay for the reform. I’m sure there are other ways to make this happen without taxing one particular group of people.
May 5th, 2010 at 10:15 am
Your post is great. There are some issues here but don’t have the time right now. I’m bookmarking this and leave this post to check again later and update my primary comment (this one). By the way i found your blog post as i was quering for similar subjects in Google. What makes this blog even better is that it’s using WordPress which is my favorite blog solution too
June 29th, 2011 at 8:50 am
I definitely enjoyed every little bit of this,I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you blog post.
July 13th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I like your blog’s information and all and i like the threme structure also the visuals but probably it requires a new style, its been a long time, anyone have any suggestions?
December 1st, 2011 at 2:40 am
Kim, I didn’t know that about crack cocaine crimes but definitely believe it.