Discuss the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor

President Obama’s first nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, is going through the process of being confirmed this week.

The 55-year old New Yorker could be the first Latina on the high court if she is approved. And, as is typical in partisan politics, senators on either side of the aisle look at this nomination differently.

As a New York City prosecutor, corporate lawyer, trial judge and appeals court judge, Sotomayor has an "extraordinary record of following, defending and upholding the rule of the law," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said.

Many Republicans, however, are not convinced.

They assert that as a justice, Sotomayor probably would follow Obama's call for "empathy" -- and show it for some litigants more than others. "Whatever this empathy standard is . . . it is more akin to politics than law," Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said.

Throughout this week, we will leave this place open and available for you to chime in as to how you think the proceedings are going. Feel free to leave your opinions on the confirmation in the comments below.

-- Tony Pierce

Photo: Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Capitol Hill prior to testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on her nomination. Credit: Ron Edmonds / Associated Press

Comments

[cc]

I wouldn't have mattered who Obama nominated; Sessions still would have the same objection.

If Obama cured cancer tomorrow, the Republicans would blame him for overpopulation.

[Wrong Wrong]

This is not a fair lady.. I like Obama but I am not sure about this one...

[michael]

We don't need or want activist judges on the Supreme Court. Political Correctness was necessary at one point, but in now going overboard and will Balkanize our country.

[Randy Skipper]

I think Sonia Sotomonster's comments prove without a doubt she is a racist.

[rogied]

"Whatever this empathy standard is . . . it is more akin to politics than law."

Strange remarks coming from Senator Sessions, a politician whose record clearly identifies him as an avowed white supremacist and KKK apologist. But that's the GOP/Conservative nexus' only real rhetorical strategy, calling the other side what it is.

"Judicial Activism" is not the same thing as interpreting the law. Just ask Justices Scalia, Alito or Thomas.

[Paula]

No one's mentioned it yet (probably due to PC concerns), but Judge Sotomayor has a really pretty smile. Beauty & brains together...what a winning combination! I wish her the best of luck in these confirmation hearings.

[michael]

You don't put polite comments on that don't agree with your agenda. That's censureship.

[Jay]

It is wonderful that we finally have someone who came up the hard way with out a golden spoon in their mouth!

She will be great on the court! It is disgusting how these republicans are acting! After all we have to clean up their mess now!

[gil]

I just talked to someone from Iran who wife stole multiple items from Macy's. She is on welfare and they are here on a green card status. They are afraid that she can be deported and I told them they should have thought about that BEFORE they stole MULTIPLE items which I believe constitutes a felony for professional thievery since multiple items rather then one item was stolen. They have a government lawyer defending them and we are going to spend LOTS of money paying the courts to decide the outcome. Then Immigration will have to step in and do ALL their paperwork, etc, and the the cost of a plane ticket back to Iran for her ( and her husband and two kids?) Wow! No wonder we can't afford health care for OUR citizens! No wonder we can't support our social security payments to the retired! Why are we supporting illegal felons, because this is what they are when they break our laws! If they are not here legally than thery are here illegally. And while we are at it... the only reason the drug cartels are killing and selling drugs with our cops on the take( to supplement their pay) is because drugs are illegal! So much for protecting Michael Jackson! Legalize them and let thoise stupid enough to jell at home till they are dead waste themselves! Pot smokers don't rob banks! Pot smokers don't drive anywhere, it's too much trouble when you are high! Personally, I would like drivers snorting coke on the way to Vegas, it would be FASTER and people would not fall asleep, and they would be VERY attentive to other sleepy drivers. Remember folks, Coke use to have cocaine and EVERYBODY thought it was the BEST! We keep jacking up the price because it is illegal! Hell, grow pot in your back yard and the drunks will stop drinking and jell on their sofa and listen to Michael Jackson on demerol.! COOL MAN! WHERE are our priorities?

[chicka]

First off, Senator Hatch should be ashamed of asking a question like "is impartiality a duty or an option". When's the last time he's been impartial about anything? He's a politician, she's a judge, he should respect that difference.

Secondly, the Supreme Court *IS* activist. That was the way it was designed by the founding fathers, in order to protect one branch of government from dominating over another, and of the individual. You know, that whole "Checks and Balances" thing.

When the Supreme Court tosses out a state law as unconstitutional, that's activist. When the Supreme Court ended the fight over the 2000 election, that's activist.

Republicans wouldn't be calling her "activist" is she said she would help overturn Roe-v-Wade, that's for sure.

I swear they need to bring civics lessons back into schools. I'm one of the lucky last few who were forced to read the Constitution in junior high. I bet most of Congress couldn't even recite the preamble!

[Christopher David Ruiz Cameron]

LONDON -- Sonia Sotomayor would be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court if American ex-pats studying law in the United Kingdom this summer have their way.

By a vote of 17 to 2, with one abstention, students monitoring the first day of Senate confirmation hearings at a "watch party" on the campus of the University of London announced their clear support for the first Latina to be nominated to the high court. The students, who watched streaming video from the US, are enrolled in one of two international law programs organized by Los Angeles-based Southwestern Law School: International Entertainment & Media Law (total of 57 students) or International Information Technology Law (total of 18 students).

"Even though we're busy with classes and tours and other activities, we thought it was important to pay attention to what's going on at home," said Catalina Rodas, a second-year student from Southwestern. "And it didn't hurt that we got pizza and ale," said Maryam Dadar, a second-year student from University of San Francisco Law School. Rodas and Dadar are participating in the entertainment and media law program, which offers classes in International Art Law, International Entertainment Law, International & Comparative Media Law, and International Sports Law.

I hosted the watch party in my capacity as director of Southwestern's international entertainment & media law program in London. A couple of fotos are attached. Not everybody enrolled in our programs here attended, due in part to the fact the stream didn't start until 7:00 pm Uk time -- six hours after the school day ended.

The opinions of students in my International Sports Law class may have been a bit more informed, because they were assigned to read two of Judge Sotomayor's more influential decisions.

The first decision, Silverman v. Major League Baseball Player Relations Committee, 880 F. Supp. 246 (S.D.N.Y. 1995), helped end baseball's 1994-95 labor dispute by enjoining illegal changes that owners had made to the players' terms and conditions of employment.

The second decision, Clarett v. National Football League, 369 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004), upheld an NFL eligibility rule barring former Ohio State running back Maurice Clarett from entering the draft because not enough time had passed since he attended high school. In published opinions, Sotomayor demonstrated that she was a quick study of complex labor and antitrust doctrine. She also demonstrated balance; whereas the former decision favored labor, and the latter decision favored management.

Not every US student was enthusiastic about Sotomayor's nomination. Chad Derby, a third year student at Southwestern, said he voted no, but conceded the judge would probably be confirmed "because we need the best of the worst" judges.

Another student who skipped the watch party, and the vote, expressed concern about Judge Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark. "A white man who said that white men would be better judges wouldn't have gotten away with it," he said. "He'd be considered a racist. I wish people could get past race and leave race out of it."

Of the 57 students enrolled in our international entertainment & media law program, nearly half are from US and Canadian law schools other than Southwestern. In fact, the non-Southwestern students represent at least eight different US states, including Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

[rogied]

What I believe many posters and pundits are missing is the meaning and use of the term "unbiased." Who among you is willing to say that you are always impartial, always fair no matter what the issue, situation, people involved or what the impact of the outcome may be? What is this “scientific,” unbiased, pure standard supposedly proffered by the Constitution (or by any law) repeatedly referred to by Republicans on the judiciary committee? Do you think conservatives agree on every point of every law? Do they think every law is applied evenly in every case?

Without such a standard, it can be argued that Justice Roberts' upbringing as the son of a white, Czechoslovakian immigrant and steel plant manager impacts the decisions he makes on a daily basis, especially when he has come down so often on the side of management in numerous cases.

In other words NO HUMAN BEING can attain the mythical impartiality trumpeted by Senators Sessions and Hatch. Instead, guided by precedent, the facts of the case and, what is usually called "policy" (the social goal the law in question seeks to promote/defend), a jurist must do the best she or he can.

The question is, would you rather come before a judge (either as plaintiff or respondent, accuser or accused) who responds with an understanding of just how difficult it is to be fair and who is aware of her/his own interests in a given situation, or would you rather defer to someone who’s unaware and/or unwilling to admit and adjust their own feelings and biases to the facts of the case and the law?

[John A Mungo]

I have been waiting for a justice to replace Thurgood Marshall. Now, I believe our country has found that lioness to take that roaring position that Justice Marshall was. I am so glad that our country has found itself. I am happy that the president
had the wisdom to lead our country when Washington was not paying attention to most of us hard working everyday folk.

I say this as a black person and proud to see this happen.

[Steve]

That thing is quite ugly.

[Tom]

I'm a Liberal Democrat and want to see
a fine Asian, African, Indian, Latino Lady
Judge on the Surpeme Court. But only a
fair, unbiased one. This lady's own words
repeated over and over, condemn her
as a BIGOT. Mr Presiden, please do not
put this Bigoted Judge on the Supreme
Court. Sir, please pass her by and select
an objective Minority Lady Judge with
no PC Axes to grind.

[cooper]

So what if Sotomayor is the first female hispanic Supreme Court judge? From her past cases as an appeals judge (especially in the Ricci case)and her comments, I do not think she can be fair, but thats why we have the other judges. So when will we ever see an asian judge? Hmm?

[JL]

Sotomayor is a mildly qualified candidate at best, and she was on the wrong side of the Ricci case. She described herself as a "product of affirmative action" and blabbed about cultural bias in tests. Ho hum. Her inspring upbrining has should have NOTHING to do with her job performace.

Of course, Obama cronies have capably replaced their Bush counterparts, and the exepcted "KKK GOP opposes Sotomayor" style of rhetoric is expected. Yeah, let's clean up the mess left by Republicans (enabled by their inept democratic buddies) and spending wildly just like they did!!!!!

[bditman]

Replace Hon. Thurgood Marshall??? With Sotomayor?? Are you kidding? Justice Marshall had so much more to bring to the bench - Sotomayor brings an agenda of judicially mandated intentional racial discrimination. Judge Marshall was my favorite jurist - few know he actually argued Brown v. Board of Education when he was a lawyer. Sotomayor has no such distinction. She is the phony planted, obviously biased legal equivalent of payola. Justice Marshall was a legal mind for the ages. See her for what see is - she is a one dimensional, walking wish list for a very narrow political purpose. I feel insulted that she was even nominated. So Obama is supposed to be some kind of Constitutional Scholar? NOT! Sotomayor doesn't even understand Title VII, or Shaw I or Shaw II - or she would have NEVER blundered in the New Haven Firefighter case. Send her packing.

[sumday]

What does she mean the law isn't legal theory? That is EXCATLY what it is! The law certainly does not look at facts, consequences, and results. Point if it did look at only facts then there would be no such thing as inadmissible evidence all FACTS would be allowed regardless of origin. How many people are convicted because a judge won’t let them present facts to their innocents or how many criminals are let go because a judge tossed out some incriminating facts for whatever reason? If the law looked at consequences its punishment would fit the crime, example judges send non violent pot heads to jail for years for growing a plant while giving the violent car jacker 120 days probation, and if the law were based on results then why do 2/3 of the people who go to jail become repeat offenders? The law is based on nothing less than some theory that congress thinks up but has no proof of and certainly no results to show for it. If she wants to base anything on fact then she should say the reason she is here to begin with is because she is a women and Hispanic and with the Hispanic population at 20% this makes Obama politically look good.

[Steve]

Much ado about nothing.

[Harry]

All this is a futile waste of time. Ms. Sotomayor can declare until she is as read in the face as her dress that she will be “neutral” with little effect. Every thinking person knows that when a conservative says “neutral” he/she means “as I would want her to.” If she is truly “neutral” (ruling according to her interpretation of the law,) she will surly make a ruling with which conservatives disagree and then we will continue to have to listen to their relentless, mindless haranguing. Save the country some money and wrap this thing up so we can get on with things.

[Korean Vet]

As a judge she would make a good cook off oficial. Its a laugh that she should be on the supreme court.

[John O]

Its important for the senators not to confirm Sotomayer. She is obviously a minority racist. She was only chosen to stir the racial pot anyways...

[Sam]

Did you ever hear white Christian men get questioned about their bias, about how their whiteness or their Christianity or their maleness slants everything they say and do? Probably not. Because, when folks who look the way you look and think the way you think, you don't notice the bias. But it's there. Always. We ALL have it. We're biased by our religion, our culture, our color, our sex. And if we're honest enough to recognize that, we can try our best to take that bias into account when we have to make decisions, when we deal with others.

[Michael Frisbie]

The current Supreme Court is a bunch of idiots.
Allowing a gold mining operation to fill a nearby lake with tailings slurry and call
it 'fill" instead of the toxic brue it truely is? I mean, come on. Where is the EPA and the Clean Water Act? Perhaps Sotomayor would be a breath of ftresh air. She couldn't possibly be as bad as we have now. You go girl.