Tag Archives: Topic: Nominations

The White House scrambled yesterday to assuage worries from liberal groups about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s scant record on abortion rights, delivering strong but vague assurances . . .

Opinio Juris: “. . . my very quick scan suggests that, whatever else her critics can say, her judicial record does not suggest she will be a particularly ‘transnationalist’ justice . . . While ruling for the government, Judge Sotomayor went out of her way to reject the government’s argument that the fact that the criminal statute was enacted to implement treaty obligations should automatically satisfy judicial scrutiny of the statute’s constitutionality. ‘The Court agrees with defendant, however, that this begs the question: “[N]o agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any branch of Government, which is free from the constraints of the Constitution.” (Citing Reid v. Covert, 353 1, 16 (1957)).’”

David Welna writes at NPR: “But with Democratic majorities firmly in charge of the Senate, what can they do? Quite a bit, actually. Their arsenal includes an array of delaying tactics that could make it hard for Democrats to meet the president’s aim of having Sotomayor confirmed by Aug. 7, the last day before a five-week break . . . Here’s a list of moves that could put on the brakes . . . ”

Patrick J. Buchanan writes at Townhall:
“Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, ‘I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.’ Alito would have been toast . . . He would have been branded for life a white bigot . . .

The lady is a lightweight. What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do? Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.”

Jan LaRue writes at the American Thinker: If you believe the myth that Democrats are champions of equality for women, racial minorities, and folks with “compelling” life stories, maybe you’ve been spending more time tracking Big Foot than judicial nominations.

SCOTUS Blog: “This post will begin an examination of that presumption, identifying recent cases in which Justice Souter cast a deciding vote in a context where it is at least possible that his likely successor, Judge Sotomayor, might vote differently.”

CNSNews: “In Maloney v. Cuomo, [No. 07-0581 (2nd Cir. Jan. 28, 2009)] Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.”

Alexander Burns and Josh Gerstein write at the Politico: “The Hispanic Bar’s Romero accused Gingrich of deliberately savaging Sotomayor at a time when tradition dictates she maintain public silence in advance of her confirmation hearings.”

Related:

Gingrich: Sotomayor ‘racist,’ should withdraw nomination

Dan Gilgoff writing at the U.S. News & World Report God & Country blog: “Conservative Christian groups are applauding the ruling. ‘The California Supreme Court arrived at the only correct conclusion available: The people of California have a fundamental right to amend their own Constitution,’ said Alliance Defense Fund Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks.”

“Rush Limbaugh isn’t the only one calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist. Newt Gingrich is, too — and he’s demanding that Obama’s pick to the Supreme Court withdraw her nomination.”

CNN: “Sotomayor was raised Catholic and if she is confirmed, six out of nine, or two-thirds of the justices on the court will be from the faith. Catholics make up about one-quarter of the U.S. population . . . ‘Is it safer to nominate a Catholic as opposed to an evangelical to get votes? I think the answer is decidedly yes,’ Donohue said.”

Washington Times: “With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.”

CNSNews: “Our concern is judicial philosophy and this idea that courts set–court of appeals is where policy is made, that is fundamentally incorrect,” Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice, told CNSNews.com. “That’s not the way our Constitution works.”

Reid Wilson and Aaron Blake write at The Hill: “Even though Republicans have found success in using judicial nominations to excite their base, political observers say the issue is not one that can appeal to independent voters — especially in lieu of a wounded economy and mounting job losses.”

ABA Journal: Ideologues are likely to advance four lines of attack against federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor when confirmation hearings are held, likely in the third week of July, according to a frequent U.S. Supreme Court litigator . . . ”

ADF attorney Jordan Lorence appeared with Craig Parshall of the National Religious Broadcasters appeared on Chris Fabry Live to discuss the nomination of Sonyia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The MP3 runs just under 19 minutes.

ADF President Alan Sears: “If confirmed, we pray that Judge Sotomayor will heed the magnitude of Jefferson’s concern and respect the limits of her judicial office, ruling according to the Constitution, and not legislating from the bench.”

You Tube Video shows the Supreme Court nominee saying that “the Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”

President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation’s first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday, praising her as “an inspiring woman” with both the intellect and compassion to interpret the Constitution wisely.

LifeSiteNews: “Criticism continues to pour in from pro-life lawmakers over the radical pro-abortion views of Dawn Johnsen, Obama’s pick to head the Office of Legal Counsel, who reportedly does not have enough votes to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate. However, GOP judiciary committee members fear that Obama may move the nomination through while Congress is in recess over Memorial Day, a tactic known as a recess appointment.”

Jonathan Adler poses this question at the Volokh Conspiracy: “With the Senate recessed over the Memorial Day break, will President Obama name stalled nominee Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel through a recess appointment.”

Brookings Institution: “As we await a White House announcement, a consideration of Justice David Souter’s religious liberty legacy is in order. Justice Souter has had a strong voice and an interesting combination of views on these matters. A brief review of some of Souter’s opinions helps to lay a foundation for understanding how President Obama’s pick to replace him might affect the church-state balance at the Court.”

At the Wall Street Journal, Collin Levy discusses how VP Joe Biden has been instrumental in helping poison the judicial nominations process.

How Appealing provides this link to the Daily Journal article by Laura Ernde and Lawrence Hurley who write: “Having already reportedly interviewed 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Diane Wood, the White House has also been in contact with another frontrunner, Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit, and long-shot contender Justice Carlos R. Moreno of the California Supreme Court, sources have told the Daily Journal.”

AP: “There has never been a Hispanic, Asian-American or Native American justice. Ginsburg is the only female justice at the moment and most of the candidates whom Obama is considering are women.”

Gene Johnson reports in The Columbian: “President Barack Obama has nominated Jenny Durkan, a longtime friend and counselor of Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, to be U.S. attorney in Seattle . . . Durkan is a lesbian who lives in Seattle with her partner and two sons. It was not immediately known whether she would be the first openly gay U.S. attorney; the Justice Department said it does not keep track.”

45. Do you think Oprah Winfrey would make a good Supreme Court Justice, or not?

Democrats 23% (yes) 71 (no) 6 (don’t know)
Republicans 10% (yes) 87 (no) 3 (don’t know)
Independents 13% (yes) 77 (no) 9 (don’t know)

Denver University Law Review: “This short Essay discusses what can be predicted now, as President Obama begins his term, about the impact on the federal courts of the Obama presidency.”

“In this Essay, I will offer three observations about Professor Guinier’s intriguing project of encouraging the use of dissent to catalyze democratic action. First, I examine the connection that Guinier sees between a dissenting Justice’s life experience and his or her capacity to be moved by a litigant’s plight. I look back to Lynne Henderson’s exploration, more than twenty years ago, of empathy’s role in shaping Justices’ opinions. Second, I discuss the emphasis on life experience and the capacity for empathy in President Obama’s public statements about judicial qualifications, criticized by some for stressing empathy to the detriment of justice and the rule of law. Third, I contrast Guinier’s call for Supreme Court Justices to be more mindful of the democratic potential of their dissents with political ‘scientist Rogers Smith’s proposal that judicial rulings, particularly those by the Supreme Court, can further social transformation by “usefully highlight[ing] the way existing arrangements appear to be working against constitutional goals and values,’ and identifying “the most important tasks of civic restructuring that confront the rest of us.’”

The Washington Post:
“This is kind of like the abortion debate 30 years ago. Some states changed their laws; some didn’t,” said Jordan Lorence, senior counsel for the conservative Alliance Defense Fund, who counseled New Hampshire Republicans on the religious exclusion, and whose group is active in other state and federal cases. “Does the Supreme Court come in with a Roe v. Wade trump card?” Lorence asked. “How this is all going to play out over time, I think the new Supreme Court nominee is going to be a factor . . . which makes it a legitimate area of questioning.”

LifeNews: “Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, a potential Supreme Court nominee for pro-abortion President Barack Obama, will be at the White House on Tuesday. Although Obama administration officials say she will be present for an unrelated event, Granholm is on the president’s high court short list.”

LA Times: “Pressure is building on hot-button issues: same-sex marriage, lobbying for a gay Supreme Court justice and ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’”

AP: “Stephanie Cutter is expected to leave her job as an adviser to Treasury Secretary Geithner and move next door to the White House, an administration official said.”

Ed Whelan writes at the National Review Bench Memos Blog: “In the aftermath of his confirmation hearing two weeks ago, Seventh Circuit nominee David Hamilton (whose record I’ve previously outlined here, here, here, and here) has provided answers to written questions submitted by various Republican senators. I highlight here several of his responses . . . ”

NJ.com: “He was the author of the state’s decision approving civil unions, Lewis vs. Harris.” A political fight is anticipated according to this report in PolitickerNJ and other sources.

Tom Goldstein writes at SCOTUS Blog: “Here, we make our first effort at summarizing what we regard as Judge Sotomayor’s principal opinions in civil cases. Our only goal is to identify and summarize the opinions, not evaluate them.”

AP: “Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, considered a potential nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, has drawn criticism from gay rights groups after announcing plans to join a think tank whose founder is an outspoken opponent of gay marriage.”

Associated Press: “President Barack Obama plans to announce his Supreme Court choice soon but didn’t say who is being seriously considered, said senators who met with him Wednesday.”

National Review Bench Memos: “If his recent performance is any guide, Senator Sessions takes this obligation to question nominees quite seriously. As BLT reported, he pressed Second Circuit nominee Gerald Lynch quite extensively at his recent confirmation hearing.”

Jan Crawford Greensburg writes at ABC: “The White House has formalized its short list of Supreme Court contenders and asked six prospects to provide personal background information, with an intensive vetting process well underway, according to sources close to the process. The leading contenders on the short list: federal appeals court Judges Sonia Sotomayor and Diane Wood, and Solicitor General Elena Kagan, sources close to the process say.”

Bloomberg: “President Barack Obama’s first U.S. Supreme Court appointment probably will be drawn from a group of women who have achieved prominence in the law or politics, ensuring more diversity and possibly more real-world experience for the high court.” The report provides a list and some details on the purported short list candidates.”

National Law Journal: “Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said Thursday that getting Dawn Johnsen confirmed to head his department’s Office of Legal Counsel is ‘probably my top priority.’”

Thomas Sowell writes at Townhall: “There is a reason why the statue of Justice wears a blindfold. There are things that courts are not supposed to see or recognize when making their decisions– the race you belong to, whether you are rich or poor, and other personal things that could bias decisions by judges and juries.”

AP: “Senate Democrats gave party switcher Arlen Specter a plum Judiciary subcommittee chairmanship on Thursday as a potential primary challenger to the veteran Pennsylvania lawmaker stepped forward.”

Doug Kmiec writing in America Magazine: “No offense to all the highly talented appellate judges on the president’s short list, or even to my fellow academics, but both talent pools give almost exclusive emphasis to the law’s doctrinal development–the ‘footnotes in a casebook’ as the president put it, rather than the impact of those developments on individual citizens. A few theoreticians in the mix makes sense, but the Supreme Court is now entirely their domain. Empathy has a wider, more open-minded nature, asking how law interrelates with the larger culture.”

Michael O’Brien writes at The Hill: “I don’t believe in a litmus test,” Sessions said during an appearance on Fox News. “I believe a judge can have a different view on abortion than I have, and still receive my vote.” Asked if a pro-choice nominee could win his vote, Sessions said, “Yes.”

“Two of Mr. Obama’s potential Supreme Court nominees are openly gay; some advocates, irked that there are no gay men or lesbians in his cabinet, are mounting a campaign to influence his choice to replace Justice David H. Souter, who is retiring.”

NPR: “Politico notes that two of the people whose names are being tossed around as Supreme Court possibilities are lesbians: Kathleen Sullivan and Pam Karlan, both of Stanford Law School.”

“Stanford Law School today announced the appointment of Michael W. McConnell . . . as Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law. McConnell will step down from his role on the bench to rejoin the legal academy and direct the Stanford Constitutional Law Center.”

Steve Sanders writing at the Sexual Orientation and the Law Blog: “Kathleen Sullivan, a top New York appellate lawyer, constitutional scholar, and former dean of Stanford Law School, has landed on most people’s lists of possible Obama Supreme Court appointees. What’s less known about Sullivan is that she is a lesbian.”

CNSNews: “Judge Diane Wood, reported to be on President Obama’s short list of possible nominees to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, believes a judge’s interpretation of what the Constitution means must ‘grow with the times.’”

Thomas Sowell writing at Townhall: “That President Obama has made ‘empathy’ with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.”

Law Professor Richard F. Duncan writes at the Washington Times: “Non-originalists believe that the Constitution’s meaning is not limited to what the Framers intended; rather, the meaning and application of constitutional provisions should evolve by interpretation.” Is this really a theory of evolution? Or is it more honestly a theory of creation? How does the Constitution “evolve” into a new species in so brief a time? Surely, the sudden appearance of new constitutional rules in the fossil record is best explained by a theory of intelligent design, of Creation, if you please, by shifting Supreme Court majorities.

U.S. News and World Report: “The Politico reports Senate Judiciary Committee member Orrin Hatch, who spoke with President Obama by telephone on Monday, ‘says he believes the White House will move swiftly on its Supreme Court nominee, perhaps making an announcement by the end of this week.’ Obama ‘made no timing commitments’ to Hatch.”

Jeffrey Rosen writes at the New Republic: The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”

“Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) will take over the ranking member position on the Senate Judiciary Committee after striking a deal with his more senior colleagues over the weekend, sources confirm to The Hill.”

AP: “Court watchers think President Barack Obama will choose a woman for his first nomination to the Supreme Court, where only one of nine seats is currently held by a female – Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

“Justice David Souter is planning to retire after nearly two decades on the Supreme Court, but his departure is unlikely to change its conservative-liberal split.”

The Washington Post has this editorial calling for the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen to head the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel.

The Religion Clause Blog reports: “Yesterday, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on three nominees (webcast of hearing) . . . the most controversial of the nominations is that of David Hamilton . . . ”

David Ingram writes at the Legal Times: “Sen. Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party brings his new colleagues a little closer to controlling 60 seats in the Senate, but it’s not clear that the switch will have much of an effect on the fate of nominees for the federal bench and the Justice Department.”

“‘I think she’s in real trouble,’ said Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio. “From what I’m picking up from consensus, she’s got a problem.’”

Wall Street Journal: “President Obama announced recently that he will restore the American Bar Association to pre-eminence in federal judicial vetting — a privilege it lost under President Bush. And no wonder. A study out of three universities in Georgia says the ABA’s vetting is predisposed toward more generous ratings of liberal nominees than of conservatives.”

Ed Whelan writes at National Review Bench Memos: “Judiciary Committee chairman Leahy has scheduled a hearing on Davis’s nomination for next Wednesday, April 29—less than four weeks after his nomination. To put this rush in context: During the Bush 43 administration, the average time from nomination to hearing for federal appellate nominees was 166 days overall, and 197 days while Leahy was chairman.”

CQ Politics: “Leahy bowed to committee Republicans, who argued that the committee’s April 1 hearing on Hamilton’s nomination came too soon after President Obama nominated him on March 17.”

Christian Post: “A Senate panel is scheduled to vote Tuesday on the bid of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as health and human services secretary. But pro-life activists are making an eleventh-hour push to derail her nomination.”

Walter Dellinger writes at the Wall Street Journal:

“On the eve of George W. Bush’s inauguration in 2001, I cautioned fellow Democrats against ‘delaying or denying confirmation of nominees to cabinet and subcabinet posts.’ I argued on these pages that blocking executive nominees would weaken the presidency and be counterproductive for the opposition: ‘If a president cannot promptly place his chosen people in key offices, he can hardly be held fully responsible for the missteps of the administration.’ In the past few years, many Republican senators have agreed, saying that it is unacceptable to filibuster a nominee submitted to the Senate for its ‘advice and consent.’ Some Republicans have gone further than I would, asserting that filibusters of presidential nominations are unconstitutional.”

CQ Politics: “Former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania told a Republican lawyers group Friday their party should take the filibuster off the table as an option against President Obama’s judicial nominations.”

CNSNews: “President Barack Obama’s health secretary nominee got nearly three times as much political money from a controversial abortion doctor as she told senators.”

Providence Journal:
“Rhode Island’s first black female state judge and a prominent Providence lawyer who took on tobacco and lead-paint companies have been recommended for the federal bench by Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse.”

CQ Politics: “Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy has rejected the idea of having another confirmation hearing on 7th Circuit Court nominee David F. Hamilton. Leahy made his position clear in an exchange of letters with ranking Republican Arlen Specter that has laid bare the mounting tension between the two lawmakers over the confirmation process.”

Fox News: “President Obama’s nominee to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel once compared ‘forced pregnancy’ with slavery. Now Republicans are considering a filibuster to block her confirmation.”

Eric Posner: “Koh is best known for his defense of what he calls “transnational legal process,” a somewhat ill-defined concept that refers to the process by which international legal norms enter domestic law. When the president ratifies a treaty with senate consent, the treaty becomes a part of American law; if the treaty is self-executing, courts will enforce its provisions. Congress can also adopt international law by statute. Common law courts, including federal courts using their limited common law powers, are free to draw on international and foreign law for inspiration, and often do.”

Religion Clause reports on President Obama’s nominees for the 4th and 2nd Circuits: Maryland U.S. District Court Judge Andre M. Davis and New York U.S. District Court Judge Gerald E. Lynch.

Marc Ambinder (Atlantic) reports that Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, nominee for Health & Human Services, is not encountering significant opposition from Republicans on her pro-abortion stance