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 TwitterShare on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

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

Emptywheel Twitterverse
bmaz RT @GinnyLaRoe: some sad truth right here https://t.co/hT9diSEB3N
3mreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @dannowicki: The Arizona Republic's Steve Benson on @realDonaldTrump's call for GOP unity. More cartoons: https://t.co/pslz4r1IZF https:…
11mreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @superwuster I studied 19th C stuff that was called camp-before-its-time. And he snots always said no, it can't be good before camp is cool
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @superwuster No. They're usually only good in a camp sense.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @margibb I was a civ kid! Tho so late in the Duck and Cover era it was mostly rote performance.
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz Hey @ryanlcooper you picked a fine day to connect to Verizon https://t.co/ksNjRurhic
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @billmon1: I thought by now Clintons understood that they (and Wall Street Dem backers) ARE the Rockefeller Republicans. https://t.co/V
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz @ddayen Yeah, well if you make it to Phoenix, call #Grumpr
1hreplyretweetfavorite
bmaz RT @Gaius_Publius: Instd of just rounding up Jeb donors, she shld run w him. Would totally corral the Establishment vote. #ShesWithThem htt…
1hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Old farts should take my poll on whether you actually believed Duck & Cover would protect against nuke holocaust. https://t.co/Luag4poQfF
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel Golly. You mean the Trump briefing panic is manufactured panic? Whyever would that be? https://t.co/iF8TpP0R0u
2hreplyretweetfavorite
emptywheel @ValeriePlame I imagine the few briefings he'll get will be of the level that there's little he could leak our adversaries wouldn't know.
2hreplyretweetfavorite