Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings, Day 3, Part V

Feingold: Capertown v. Massey. Most states have rules to protect judicial impartiality. In your opinion what additional steps to ensure judiciary held to highest standards.

SS: Inappropriate to make suggestions to Congress. Judicial code has a code of conduct. Many states doing what I spoke about–passing regulations. Capertown.Taken under supervisory issues over courts. At issue is that judges and lawyers must abide by highest standards of conduct. Law is minimum one must do. 

Feingold: Roberts and Alito hate campaign finance, and believe corporations ought to be able to donate. Legal advantages that allow them to amass great wealth. If court overrules Austin. Unlimited corporate spending not seen since 19th century. What precedents provide about state of elections.

SS: Attempted to answer every question. You have noted that Citizens United for September. If confirmed it would be first case I would participate in. Given that case, I think it would be inappropriate to speak about that area of the law. Suggest I’m going into that process with some prejudgment about precedent. I appreciate what you have said, special circumstance.

Feingold: I probably would say the same thing.

Grassley: I assume I can have Feingold’s time?

Leahy: Given that you turn people on, no. Up to 20 minutes.

Grassley: Never asked before in this hearing. Want to say there’s SCOTUS decision Baker v Nelson, 1972. Federal Courts lack jurisdiction to hear state marriage laws. Do you believe Court can speak about marriage?

SS: Pending in many courts. 

Grassley: Yesterday you said these are precedents. Are you saying Baker v. Nelson is not a precedent.

SS: I don’t know what status is. I will apply precedent to facts of new situation that implicates it. 

Grassley: Tell me process you’d go through over whether Baker is precedent or not.

SS: Two sides will come in. One side will say Baker applies, another will say another precedent applies. They’ll argue about what applies. And then court will look at what state has done and decide which precedent controls this outcome. It’s not that I’m attempting not to answer. Process that would be used. 

Grassley: Following what you said yesterday that certain things are precedent. You didn’t seem to compromise or hedge. Why are you hedging on this. 

SS: Its holding is a holding. It’s been a while since I looked at that case. 

Grassley: I would like to have you answer me further after you’ve studied Baker. 1996 Congress passed DOMA. Both provisions have been challenged, courts have upheld. Do you agree with federal courts which have held that DOMA does not violate Full Faith and Credit.

SS: ABA rules would not permit me to comment on case in pending before SCOTUS. SCOTUS has not addressed constitutionality of that statute. It is an impending case.

Grassley: Have you made any ruling on Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Grassley: You believe judges should take into account gender, race and ethnicity. How is being impartial a disservice to law and society.

SS: I do not believe that judges should use personal beliefs and value system. 

Grassley: Further accept that our experiences as women and people of color, personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. 

[blah blah blah blah Didden Didden Didden]

Cardin: Kohl’s question on cert.

9:30 tomorrow. Starts with Kyl or Graham or someone–so drink plenty of coffee or come late!

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

0 Responses to Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings, Day 3, Part V

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
Emptywheel Twitterverse
JimWhiteGNV RT @RaysBaseball: Twelfth inning. Time for ice cream, obviously. http://t.co/VsFMJqOWvz
4hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RPullen @stephenlemons @Steve_Irvin That is pretty much an incoherent response. But whatever.
4hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @pastordan REALLY not a fireworks fan, especially living in place where everyone sets them off. Was interesting learning abt buying process
8hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel I also managed to buy most of the beer left in the little convenience store still open, so I traded beer for lessons in fireworks.
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Fourth of July trivia: I got stuck sleeping on the floor of Nagoya airport w/one of the main fireworks buyers from the NE once.
9hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel RT @WarOnTheRocks: How China can use the #OPMhack data to identify undercover intelligence officers http://t.co/7t2kKtRX9e
9hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @RPullen @stephenlemons @Steve_Irvin When an arbitrary, by all appearances racist, "umpire" calls anything, it is total laughable bullshit.
10hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 Also, American hubris says we'll never get in a dogfight with another industrial policy, all the contrary evidence notwithstanding
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 It helps if you think of it as an industrial policy instead. Pilots aren't encouraged to turn their head in industrial policies.
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @billmon1 Fred: It doesn't much matter because USG will keep paying Lockheed no matter what we do.
11hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ZaidJilani Means you have to play the license plate game all summer.
11hreplyretweetfavorite