That's Just Super
I'm not entirely sure if I understand the point of Dianne Feinstein's opening statement at Judge Sotomayor's hearing. Part of it went like this:
Some nominees responded by assuring that Roe and Casey were precedents of the Court entitled to great respect. And in one of the hearings, through questioning by Senator Specter, this line of cases was acknowledged to have created a "super-precedent.
But once on the Court, the same nominees voted to overturn the key holding in Casey -- that laws restricting a woman's medical care must contain an exception to protect her health.
Their decision did not comport with the answers they gave here, and it disregarded stare decisis and the precedents established in Roe, in Ashcroft, in Casey, in Thornburgh, in Carhart I, and in Ayotte.
"Super precedent" went out the window and women lost a fundamental constitutional protection that had existed for 36 years.
Okay, so she's mad about some Supreme Court decisions. No surprise. The point she's trying to make is justices aren't merely "umpires," but make important decisions based on their politics (or, as she calls it, their "experiences and philosophies").
So isn't this just giving everyone a green light to vote against Sotomayor, regardless of her qualifications, if you don't trust her, or like her politics?
posted by LAGuy @ 12:10 AM
3 Comments:
The Senate has always had the right to vote up or down as it sees fit and nominees have always been free to say whatever they want in confirmation hearings and not be bound by it later. Both seen to me are examples of a good system of government. I don't want any government actor frozen into defined roles
Sorry- I can't revise comments so I have to add a new one-- above I mean roles defined by commentators' views not consitutionally-defined roles
Here is Obama's statement w/r/t the possible filibuster of the Alito nomination:
"As we all know, there's been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.
"I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge's philosophy, ideology, and record. And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I'm deeply troubled.
"I have no doubt that Judge Alito has the training and qualifications necessary to serve. He's an intelligent man and an accomplished jurist. And there's no indication he's not a man of great character.
But when you look at his record - when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American's individual rights.
---
In sum, I've seen an extraordinarily consistent attitude on the part of Judge Alito that does not uphold the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens.
"Should he be confirmed, I hope that he proves me wrong. I hope that he shows the independence that I think is absolutely necessary in order for us to preserve our liberties and protect our citizens."
Using this approach to evaluating Sotomayor, I don't see why any Republican should feel constrained to vote in favor of her nomination to the SCOTUS.
http://obamaspeeches.com/046-Confirmation-of-Judge-Samuel-Alito-Jr-Obama-Speech.htm
Post a Comment
<< Home