Posted on 07/13/2009 1:56:32 PM PDT by packyhack
LIVEBLOGGING PART I
12:38 p.m. - Leahy announces lunch break. Liveblogging will continue in a new post when the hearing resumes.
12:36 p.m. - Durbin is the second Sotomayor supporter to bring up Gonzales v. Carhart, the decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban, attacking the Supreme Court for “disregarding a woman’s health.” (See AUL’s page on that case.)
12:34 p.m. - Durbin brings up the umpire analogy again, saying, as did other supporters of the nominee, that we don’t want an umpire. ( If there were a drinking game every time a Sotomayor supporter used that analogy, I’d be under the table now.) Again, this goes back to the Roberts hearings, when Roberts likened the judge’s role to that of an umpire. Sotomayor’s supporters oppose the analogy because an umpire role does not allow for feelings, empathy, etc.
12:33 p.m. - Another eruption: A young man in a red polo shirt shouts as Sen. Durbin (D-Ill.) begins his statement. He is removed from the courtroom. He is removed. Leahy repeats that no outbursts will be allowed.
12:27 p.m. - Coburn brings up Obama’s “empathy” standard. “I believe that standard is antithetical to the proper role of a judge,” he says; the American people expect all judges to treat people equally.
12:24 p.m. - Coburn continues critiquing Sotomayor’s past statements. “You’ve taken the oath already twice, and if confirmed, will take it again.” Reminds her of what the oath says — “I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties …” Notes that it doesn’t reference foreign law, whereas Sotomayor has said we should take foreign law into consideration.
12:23 p.m. - Coburn says concerns over Sotomayor’s past statements will guide his questioning. Is “deeply concerned” by Sotomayor’s saying the law is “uncertain” and her praise for an “unpredictable” system of justice. We want justice to be predictable, he says.
12:21 p.m. - Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), begins his statement and adds a response to Whitehouse’s critcism of Roberts, observing that the partial-birth abortion ban was a law passed by Congress that was upheld by the court.
12:19 p.m. - Whitehouse: ”The empathy that President Obama saw in you has a constitutionally proper place.”
12:10 p.m. - Sen. Whitehouse (D-R.I.) targets complaints re “activist judges.” Supporters of the nominee are very sensitive about this criticism. He is using practically the same words as Feinstein, arguing that a judge is not an umpire. In heated language, he takes the opportunity to criticize Chief Justice Roberts and other “right-wing” Supreme Court justices. Singles out for criticism the court’s upholding the partial-birth abortion ban in Gonzales v. Carhart, saying it’s the first Roe v. Wade ruling that “disregards women’s health and safety.” (See AUL’s page on that case.)
12:05 p.m. - The Supreme Court’s “pulling ideas from the ether” are pretty far from framers’ ideal, Cornyn says. Says there are two choices for the future: First, the Supreme Court could demonstrate renewed respect for our original plan of government, returning to the Constitution. Or, the court could veer off course once again and “follow its own star.” It could invent even more brand-new rights not rooted in the text. Says the purpose of this hearing is to determine the path on which Sotomayor would take us.
12:03 p.m. - Cornyn notes the Supreme Court has even intervened in defining rules of golf!
12:01 p.m. - Cornyn: “We have to ask ourselves … what is the proper direction of the Supreme Court. Notes that the Constitution’s framers gave judges a role that was intended to be self-restrained and limited. Judges’ role is not to invent new rights, he says — rather they are to support the Constitution’s text and leave lawmaking to the people. Says the Supreme Court has often veered off this course, inventing new rights, micromanaging the death penalty, for example.
12 noon - Hearing is resuming after a 20-minute break. Sen. Cornyn (R-Texas) begins his statement.
11:39 a.m. - Cardin goes into nominee’s family background. As with other supporters, he is touting her being a “real American success story.”
11:37 a.m - Cardin says the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be ”living documents.” That is a code phrase for an activist philosophy, AUL Counsel Mary Harned notes to me.
11:33 a.m. - Sen. Cardin (D-Md.) begins his statement. Whenever the camera pans to Sotomayor, her smile looks pained.
11:30 a.m. - Graham says he doesn’t know how he will vote, but will not oppose colleagues who think Sotomayor is “a bridge too far.”
11:29 a.m. - Graham says, “Generally speaking, the President has nominated someone of good character, someone who has lived a very full and fruitful life” … but says that when she gave those “wise Latina” speeches as a sitting judge, it disturbed him.
11:28 a.m. - Graham on Obama’s “empathy” standard: “If we start applying that to nominees, it will ruin the judiciary.” Notes that he has no idea what’s in Sotomayor’s heart.
11:26 a.m. - Graham says re “wise Latina” comment: ”If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over.” Says one shouldn’t say one’s life experience makes one “better” than anyone else.
11:24 a.m. - Graham is bringing up the PRLDEF briefs. Notes that the fund, on which Sotomayor was a board member, argued for taxpayer funding of abortions. (Much more on this at AUL’s Sotomayor411.com.)
11:24 a.m. - Sen. Graham (R-S.C.): “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re gonna get confirmed.”
11:19 a.m. - Schumer is citing the nominee’s past cases to argue that she judges based on the facts. He’s attempting to counter opponents’ allegations she brings her feelings and opinions into judging.
11:17 a.m. - Sen. Schumer (D-N.Y.) is splitting up his statement so that he may introduce Sotomayor’s statement. He’s giving a quick five-minute statement now.
11:16 a.m. - Kyl says the Supreme Court has reversed about 80 percent of Sotomayor’s opinions. For more on this, see AUL’s Sotomayor411.com.
11:13 a.m. - Kyl notes many of Sotomayor’s public statements, e.g. “wise Latina woman” quote, suggest she believes judges should allow personal opinion to guide them. He also notes that in the same lecture where she made that statement, Sotomayor said there is “no neutrality” for judges — neutrality is an “aspiration,” she said.
11:11 a.m. - Kyl quotes Obama’s statement re empathy. Says the problem arises when emotions in judge’s heart become critical ingredient to deciding a case.
11:08 a.m. - Sen. Kyl (R-Ariz.) begins his statement in direct contrast to Feingold, saying judges should be chosen on their merits, not on the basis of ethnicity.
11:06 a.m. - Feingold says Sotomayor is “living proof that this country is moving in the right direction” with regard to race. Her supporters make no secret that her race is a factor.
11:04 a.m. - Feingold urges viewers to be wary of the term “judicial activism.” Says it is used to describe judges who make decisions you don’t like. AUL Counsel Mary Harned notes to me that the nominees’ supporters are targeting the “judicial activism” label to try to defang GOP criticisms of Sotomayor’s record.
11:00 a.m. - Sen. Feingold (D-WI) is beginning his statement. Unlike Feinstein and Kohl, he begins by talking about the role of the Supreme Court rather than running down Sotomayor’s list of accomplishments. He is running down a list of times the court said “no” to Bush Administration decisions.
10:52 a.m. - Sen. Grassley says the “most critical qualification” is “the capacity to set aside one’s own feelings so that he or she can blindly and dispassionately administer” justice for all. So much for Obama’s beloved “empathy”!
10:51 a.m. - Sen. Grassley (R-Iowa) begins speaking. C-SPAN notes in graphic, as it did with Sessions, that he voted against Sotomayor’s Second Circuit nomination in 1998.
10:50 a.m. - Feinstein says Supreme Court justices are not merely umpires, but bring their own individual experiences and philosophies to the court. Odd for her to reject a baseball comparison, given how the Dems are playing up how Sotomayor “saved baseball.”
10:45 a.m. - Eruption! A man starts shouting as Feinstein acclaims Sotomayor’s “mainstream legal reasoning.” Judiciary chair Sen. Leahy calls for his removal and gives speech urging order. Says he will direct police to remove anyone who comes out either for or against the nominee or for or against any member of the committee.
10:41 a.m. - Sen. Feinstein (D-Calif.) begins statement, with the (to be expected) exuberance for Sotomayor’s life achievements.
10:39 a.m. - Hatch alludes to the smear campaign a group backing Sotomayor is waging against the plaintiff in the Ricci case. Says if it is true, it shows contempt for the dignity of the confirmation process.
10:36 a.m. - Hatch notes Obama today urges us to look at a judge’s empathy.
10:35 a.m. - Hatch is quoting Obama’s statements as a senator, when he said what kind of judge should be sought for the court. He said Obama called it “offensive and cynical” to suggest a nominee’s race or gender should be a factor.
10:32 a.m. - Sen. Hatch (R-Utah) says (1) Senate owes some deference to qualified nominees. (2) Qualifications include not only legal experience, but judicial philosophy. (3) This standard must be applied to a nominee’s entire record.
10:31 a.m. - Sen. Kohl (D-WI) is attempting to excuse Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment.
10:20 a.m. - Alabama Sen. Sessions, ranking GOP member of the Judiciary Committee, lists Sotomayor’s past actions that should be brought up in hearings, including her association with a group (the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education fund) that urged federal funding for abortion. (For more information on Judge Sotomayor’s PRLDEF ties, see Sotomayor411.com.) C-SPAN’s graphics note Sessions voted against Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Second Circuit in 1998.
LIVEBLOGGING PART II:
3:02 p.m. - The nominee ends her statement in less than the ten minutes she was allotted. Leahy calls a break in the hearing until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow morning. Liveblogging will resume then. In the meantime, check back at AUL for more commentary on the Sotomayor nomination and other life issues in the news today.
3:01 p.m. - Sotomayor speaks about how the Constitution made her family’s American dream possible. Between the lines, she is again attempting to address criticisms that she would not uphold the Constitution.
2:59 p.m. - [Back online after technical difficulties:] Sotomayor is giving her statement now: “In each case that I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.” This is her way of addressing accusations of judicial activism.
2:33 p.m. - Another eruption in the audience. Leahy requests that audience members creating a disturbance be removed. Several people are shown the door.
2:31 p.m. - Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) begins his statement. He seems to be making a great effort to look senatorial.
2:19 p.m. - Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) begins his statement by emphasizing the importance of diversity. For me, as an American, it is disturbing to see how much her race is brought front and center by her supporters. What happened to Obama’s claim during his presidential candidacy that our nation had to move beyond race?
2:15 p.m. - Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) takes aim at “empty code words like ‘judicial activist,’” echoing previous comments by senators supporting her. As I wrote earlier, supporters of the nominee realize that charges of her judicial activism are causing Americans to question her fitness for the court. AUL’s “Top Ten Questions for Judge Sotomayor” at AskSotomayor.com delineates why Sotomayor’s past support for judicial interference in the democratic process is a genuine concern.
2:05 p.m. - Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) highlights how Judiciary Committee members benefit from their “different background and perspectives.” Yet another example of how Sotomayor’s supporters are playing up her race and their belief that she has “empathy,” which is what Obama said was his main criteria for a Supreme Court judge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.