Skip to comments.
Orrin G. Hatch: What Kind of Judge? We need to know how Sonia Sotomayor views the role of the...
National Review Online ^
| May 27, 2009
| Orrin G. Hatch
Posted on 05/27/2009 2:15:47 PM PDT by neverdem
May 27, 2009, 4:00 a.m.
What Kind of Judge? We need to know how Sonia Sotomayor views the role of the Supreme Court.
By Orrin G. Hatch
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter puts the judicial-selection ball in the Senate’s court. We can serve America well by focusing on whether she is the kind of justice America needs, in a process that is both thorough and fair.
The Constitution gives the power to nominate and appoint judges to the president, not to the Senate. The appointment power is discussed in Article II, not in Article I. The election of a Democratic president has no doubt produced an epiphany on this point among Senate Democrats, who argued under a Republican president that the Senate has an independent and coequal role in the process. But the Constitution labels the Senate’s role in checking the president’s appointment power as “advice and consent.” The Senate must advise whether the president should appoint his nominees by giving or withholding consent.
The basis for that decision is whether Sotomayor is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Qualifications fall into two general categories: a nominee’s experience and character, and her judicial philosophy. The latter is the most important and the most challenging to determine. “Judicial philosophy” refers to a nominee’s understanding of the power and role of judges in our system of government. In other words, what kind of judge will she be?
The clues for answering this question must come from Sotomayor’s record, which includes her speeches, articles, and written opinions, as well as the responses she will provide during the coming weeks. Many analysts, reporters, and grassroots advocates act as if a judge’s philosophy can be determined with a calculator: They look at which side won, or which political interest benefited, and label the decision and the judge accordingly. That is the wrong standard. Politics is about winners and losers, and it is appropriate to characterize politicians as being pro-this or anti-that. But judging is about the process of reaching results — about whether the law or the judge determines winners and losers, no matter the issues or the parties involved. In their oath of office, in fact, judges swear to administer justice “without respect to persons” and to perform their duties impartially.
In the Senate, on the campaign trail, and during his first months in office, President Obama has suggested that he thinks judges should do something quite different. He has said judges should decide cases based on their personal values, or what is in their hearts. He has not only promised to appoint judges who have personal empathy toward certain groups, but also said that such personal feelings are essential for arriving at just decisions. Empathy is an admirable quality, but the question is not whether judges have empathy, but what they do with it — whether they use it instead of the law to make decisions. If so, then President Obama’s criteria are simply code for good old-fashioned judicial activism. If that is what he means, he should defend it. If that is not what he means, he should explain it.
It would be appropriate to assume that Judge Sotomayor at least generally fits the president’s criteria. And she has made statements of her own that raise similar concerns. In a 1996 article, she endorsed a legal system in which judges are “constantly overhauling the law.” In a 2002 speech, she doubted whether judges can transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices “even in most cases” and questioned whether they should do so at all. At a 2005 conference, she stated flatly that “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” The confirmation process is an opportunity to determine what these and other clues about Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy mean, and what they say about her qualifications to join the Supreme Court. — Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, of Utah, is a current member and former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
|
|
TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: empathy; hatch; inspiring; lifestory; orrinhatch; scotus; soniasotomayor; sotomayor; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
1
posted on
05/27/2009 2:15:48 PM PDT
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Need to know? NEED TO KNOW???? I think we already know....it’s just whether the RINO’s have the B*lls to publicly state it!!!
2
posted on
05/27/2009 2:16:56 PM PDT
by
goodnesswins
(WE have a REPUBLIC.....IF we can KEEP IT!!!)
To: neverdem
Hatch voted to confirm her appointment to the 2d Circuit.
To: goodnesswins
Six paragraphs of gobbleteegook.
"Wanting to learn more" is code word for, "we probably will not oppose her".
4
posted on
05/27/2009 2:19:22 PM PDT
by
lormand
(...hoping THIS post isn't pulled because someone thinks its racist or sexist)
To: neverdem
Ya she’s totally going to pull a Bond Villian at the hearings and reveal all her evil plots. Good luck.
5
posted on
05/27/2009 2:19:43 PM PDT
by
exist
To: goodnesswins
Hey, Republicans, take the gloves off and fight as though you care what happens to this country. If our troops fought our enemies like the Republicans in office, we would have lost in 1776.
To: neverdem
The dems kicked our a$$ when bush was in and now are doing it again with zero in.
Time to turn the tables isn’t it?
How did I ever get involved with such losers?
We lose when in power and when out of power.
Phhhht!
7
posted on
05/27/2009 2:22:55 PM PDT
by
devistate one four
(Back by popular demand: America love or leave it (GTFOOMC) TET68)
To: ExTexasRedhead
8
posted on
05/27/2009 2:23:57 PM PDT
by
rahbert
To: TheLawyerFormerlyKnownAsAl
"Hatch voted to confirm her appointment to the 2d Circuit."
... and is now trying to cover his ass with the base, because he's probably going to vote for her again.
To: neverdem
Ole Orrin VOTED FOR MS LA RAZA for her last appointment...
More lip service when the cameras are rolling.
Time for retirement for this one.
10
posted on
05/27/2009 2:25:04 PM PDT
by
Fred
(Proud Member of the Obama Enemies List)
To: neverdem
Booby Hatch is a castrati.
He will be the first one to vote to approve this loser.
He always makes a lot of noise, and then he votes like he is told to.
Someone has embarassing pictures of this guy somewhere.
11
posted on
05/27/2009 2:25:15 PM PDT
by
exit82
(The Obama Cabinet: There was more brainpower on Gilligan's Island.)
To: neverdem
A “Hatch” is also a door they use to remove the spine.
12
posted on
05/27/2009 2:27:17 PM PDT
by
King Moonracer
(Bad lighting and cheap fabric, that's how you sell clothing.)
To: neverdem
Question 2: We need to know how Sonia Sotomayor views the role of the Supreme Court.
Answer: Why ask!
Question 1 was: “We need to know how Hussein Obama views the role of the Presidency.”
Answer: We found out -— “to promote Communism!” And he was still elected!
13
posted on
05/27/2009 2:29:19 PM PDT
by
TRY ONE
(NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
To: neverdem
What kind of idiot is this guy? We know and we know you know. Kiss your seat goodbye. You are gone from Congress; you coward.
14
posted on
05/27/2009 2:40:35 PM PDT
by
freekitty
(Give me back my conservative vote.)
To: neverdem
What a pathetic old fool that man is.
15
posted on
05/27/2009 2:42:50 PM PDT
by
samadams2000
(Someone important make......The Call!)
To: neverdem
16
posted on
05/27/2009 2:49:46 PM PDT
by
Nateman
(If liberals aren't screaming you're doing it wrong.)
To: All
Ricci v. DeStefano - How a Little Case Out of New Haven Has Become A "Big Deal"; And Should It Be One?Posted on May 27, 2009 by Daniel Schwartz
Over the last 24 hours, much virtual ink has been spilled on a case pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, Ricci v. DeStefano, because Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- one of the judges handling the case at the Court of Appeals -- has been nominated to the Court. (I've covered the case in various posts here.) From a Connecticut perspective, the Hartford Courant does its own recap here.
The question, frankly, is why such a fuss?
Back in September 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Janet Arterton issued a lengthy opinion in which she dismissed the firefighters reverse discrimination claims and found for the city of New Haven. Judge Arterton is no stranger to employment law cases, having represented mainly employees in private practice before getting appointed to the bench. The decision is well worth the read. Reasonable people can disagree with the outcome, but Judge Arterton's decision hardly lacks logic or thorough reasoning.
The firefighters appealed and the case went up to the Second Circuit. Judge Sotomayor was one of three Second Circuit judges selected to serve on a panel to hear the case. In the summer of 2008, she and two other judges decided to affirm the district court's decision.
The two other judges, Judges Pooler and Sack, and Judge Sotomayor all agreed that they did not have anything to add to Judge Arternon's decision so they issued a "per curiam" opinion which, in essence, adopted the lower court's reasoning. (I should note that they original issued a summary order on the case, later turning it into a "per curiam" decision. Summary orders are quite commonly used in the Second Circuit). While not an everyday occurrence, it's not uncommon for courts to use "per curiam" decisions either. (Of course, perhaps the most famous "per curiam" decision was in Bush v. Gore, but that's an argument for another day.)
Here was the essence of the the Second Circuit's decision:
We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.
The firefighters appealed to the Second Circuit again, asking the entire court to hear the case en banc (meaning that all 13 judges would hear the case). That request was rejected by a 7-6 margin and featured a spirited dissent by Judge Cabranes.
No white males need apply. No white males & dogs. This can be used against the rat moderates, IMHO.
17
posted on
05/27/2009 2:55:56 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: neverdem
Why did Orrin G. Hatch not mention Ricci v. DeStefano ?
18
posted on
05/27/2009 3:01:23 PM PDT
by
Uri’el-2012
(Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
To: XeniaSt
19
posted on
05/27/2009 3:05:13 PM PDT
by
neverdem
(Xin loi minh oi)
To: neverdem
Hatch voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg who was head legal counsel for the ACLU and had some ethics issues also.
Can't rely on him.
20
posted on
05/27/2009 3:18:46 PM PDT
by
Jimmy Valentine
(DemocRATS - when they speak, they lie; when they are silent, they are stealing the American Dream)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson