Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) is questioning Sotomayer right now.

She is impressive.

... and Sessions is pretty unimpressive?

Sessions is definitely nitpicking and taking statements out of context.

Judges are not robots that come in one-size-fits-all because reasonable judges disagree. Sessions cannot grasp the fact that experience informs opinions. Here's an example:

Ginsburg: Court needs another woman

Yesterday, the hearing was interrupted three times (perhaps more--but three times while I was watching) by outbursts from people sitting in the gallery. According to a news article, these outbursts came from anti-abortion protestors.

Hoosier arrested at Sotomayor hearing

hard to tell if Sessions is the point-man for Alabama or the Republican party but he is depreciating both.

I'm watching now. Kohl is questioning her.

Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI) is questioning Sotomayor.

Affirmative Action? (Series of Questions)

Sotomayor (paraphrasing): a legislative determination. The constitution requires equal protection of all citizens. Equality requires effort and this has been recognized by the courts.

Sotomayor is demonstrating considerable knowledge.

Bush v. Gore?
Sotomayor (paraphrasing): My reaction as a sitting judge is not to criticize or challenge the decision. Some good came from that discussion--and good changes came in many states and improved the electoral process.

Kelo v. City of New London?

Precedent of Court--must follow it on the circuit court and must give it deference if confirmed to be a justice. The reach of Kelo must be examined within the context of each case.

Griswold v. Connecticut?
Constitutional Right to Privacy is founded (mostly) in the Fourth Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth.

Casey?

Reaffirms Court's holding in Roe. That is the Court's settled holding.

Cameras in the Court?

She is willing to engage in conversation and share her experience/thoughts with her colleagues and will continue that policy if confirmed to be a justice.

Term Limits for SC Justices?

All questions of policy are within the province of Congress first and it must be considered in light of the Constitution. There was a purpose to the structure of our Constitution....there is a value in the services of experienced judges.

Antitrust? Supreme Court overturned long-standing precedent concerning verticle pricing....

Will apply the law as written by Congress and as informed by precedent.

Sessions makes me vomit almost as much as Cornyn makes me vomit. I can't force myself to be kind to either of them.

The c-span live link:

http://www.c-span.org/Supreme-Court-Sotomayor-Senate-Confirmation-Hearings.aspx

Sorry, I didn't proofread . . . should be vertical pricing. They were discussing the Leegin case.

Here's an article that discusses the case:

http://www.fenwick.com/docstore/Publications/Antitrust/Antitrust_04-16-09.pdf

After declaring that a "wise Latina" woman has no advantage in finding judicial wisdom, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor faced tough questions Tuesday from the Judicial Committee's top Republican who accused the judge of changing her previous statement.

"My play on those words fell flat. It was bad," Sotomayor told Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, trying to defend her 2001 speech in which she suggested a "wise Latina" would usually reach better conclusions than a white man without similar experiences.

"I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gendered group has an advantage in sound judgment," Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, the second day of her confirmation hearing to become the first Hispanic to sit on the high court. "I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge."

The federal appellate judge said her 2001 remarks to students at the University of California, Berkeley, were meant only to to "inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system" and not to suggest that any one group was more likely to reach a better conclusion.

But Sessions, the senior Republican on the committee, asked how Sotomayor could make such a claim Tuesday that she was "agreeing" with Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor that a "wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."

Sotomayor told students in 2001 that "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases" and "I am not sure I agree with that statement."

"I 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 has not lived that life," Sotomayor had said in her 2001 remarks.

Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is questioning.

Right to possess a gun a "fundamental" right? Heller? (Discussing a footnote.)

Is the Heller decision subject to incorporation through the Fourteenth and applicable to the states?

What's the standard whether a right is deemed a "fundamental right."

Discussing Maloney v. Cuomo case.

See: NRA Says Sotomayor Is Antigun

I wonder if Hatch wants her to actually answer the question or if he just wants to pontificate.

Sen. Hatch is now discussing the Ricci case which was decided on summary judgment. Hatch says that even the four dissenters claimed that the firefighters deserved their day in court. Hatch disputes that the 2nd circuit was bound by precedent. He says this was a case of first impression because it involved both disparate treatment and disparate impact.

Hatch is rearguing the case, dissecting the district court's 78 page decision, and second guessing the 2nd Circuit's treatment of the case on appeal.

OMG! Hatch is upset. This was an IMPORTANT case because (using his EMPATHY) [white] PEOPLE WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST!

I would like to see him all riled up like this when minorities are being discriminated against.

Partisan bickering is going on.

Exactly.

Yeah, the Republicans want this to be Miguel Estrada's confirmation hearing.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is defending Sotomayor against the criticism piled on her over the Ricci case.

Sotomayor says the "health and welfare of the mother" consideration in reproductive cases still exists.