Thread: Sotomayor Dodges GOP Questions a Third Day

Sotomayor Dodges GOP Questions a Third Day

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 3:19 PM

Republicans kept pressure on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday, hoping to use her confirmation hearing in Congress to paint her as judicial activist who will help President Barack Obama stamp the court with a liberal agenda.

On her third day before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sotomayor rejected suggestions that she had been vetted by the Obama White House for her stance on issues such as abortion.

And Sotomayor, who is virtually assured confirmation by the Democratic majority as the U.S. top court's first Hispanic justice, brushed aside comments by a former boss at a New York law firm that she had "generally liberal instincts."

But Republican lawmakers kept up the attack, probing her attitudes on race, the law and notions of justice. "We're looking at a classical activist," the ranking Republican on the committee, Senator Jeff Sessions, said after the morning hearing.

Republican Senator John Cornyn asked Sotomayor if she worried that her speeches may have left the impression that she believes "the quality of justice depends on the sex, race, or ethnicity of the judge."

"I would regret that," Sotomayor said. "The role of judges is to ensure that they are applying the law."

CONFIRMATION NEAR CERTAINTY

Political observers say Sotomayor is all but certain to be confirmed on the Supreme Court, whose nine members serve for life and rule on cases touching the most basic issues of American life including abortion, religion and gun rights.

She would be only the third woman and third non-white judge ever to serve on the court, replacing retired Justice David Souter as one of four liberals facing five conservatives led by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Both Republicans and Democrats have praised Sotomayor's long career as a prosecutor and a judge, calling it an inspirationally American story for a woman born to Puerto Rican parents and brought up in a New York City housing project.

But critics have focused attention on some of her speeches in which she appeared to say that ethnicity and gender play a role in judicial decisions -- a red flag for those who fear law could be twisted to suit political priorities.

"We know her judicial record which I think is fairly traditional...(but) if she's going to be like Judge Sotomayor in her speeches, that's a problem," Cornyn said.

Sotomayor has insisted that her judicial philosophy was informed by life experience but governed by statute.

"The process of judging for me is what life experience brings to the process. It helps you listen and understand. It doesn't change what the law is or what the law commands," she said.

NO OBAMA QUESTIONS

In line with other Supreme Court nominees, Sotomayor declined directly to answer a question on her view of abortion, saying it was impossible to discuss in the abstract without reference to specific state laws.

But she did reject the notion that she had been vetted by Obama and the White House on the abortion issue. "I was asked no questions by anyone, including the president, about my views on any specific legal issue," she said.

Sotomayor also brushed aside comments by her former boss at a New York law firm, George Pavia, who said that she had generally liberal instincts.

"He has not read my jurisprudence for 17 years, I can assure you. He's a corporate litigator. And my experience with corporate litigators is that they only look at the law when it affects the case before them," she said to chuckles in the hearing.

Sotomayor said her experience as a commercial lawyer had taught her that "in business, the predictability of law may be the most necessary."

But she demurred when asked a direct question on whether she believed Congress had the Constitutional right to impose regulations on financial markets -- a move already afoot in response to the global economic crisis.

"Policy choices are Congresses' choices. In all areas deference has to be given to that choice," she said.

http://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sotoma ... 35973.html

But she demurred when asked a direct question on whether she believed Congress had the Constitutional right to impose regulations on financial markets -- a move already afoot in response to the global economic crisis.

"Policy choices are Congresses' choices. In all areas deference has to be given to that choice," she said.

The WHAT? If Congress decides something, with or without the support of their constituents, would she rule the Supreme Court shoud not meddle? Infortunately, the Supreme Court can only meddle if someone has spent millions to get a case before them. The Supreme Court will only hear the cases of the rich, so where does that leave your regular American trying to make their voices heard?