Attack On Sotomayor's Political Ties Ignores Roberts' Link To Bush

A new line of attack against Judge Sonia Sotomayor holds that the Supreme Court nominee lacks impartiality because she has been a public supporter of President Barack Obama.

But Sotomayor is not the only nominee to the court who has publicly supported a sitting president. The conservatives criticizing Sotomayor seem to have forgotten Chief Justice John Roberts' close association with President George W. Bush.

Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics & Public Policy Center and one of Sotomayor's fiercest critics, declared in a post on The National Review last week that the Supreme Court nominee lacked the judicial objectivity for the job.

"In a speech that she delivered to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Assocation on April 17, 2009 -- two weeks before news of the Souter vacancy broke -- Judge Sotomayor made a number of references to President Obama that seem surprisingly and disturbingly partisan coming from a sitting federal judge," wrote Whelan. "Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that a judge 'should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.' Sotomayor's public cheerleading for Obama seems clearly to violate that ethical obligation."

Among the series of hits on Sotomayor, this one seems likely to fall in the category of throwing mud against the wall and seeing what sticks. After all, if impartiality and ethics obligations on the court are Whelan's chief concern, he would have howled in protest to Roberts' pre-Supreme Court resume.

The current chief justice and pride of the conservative judicial movement was a member of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney, DC Lawyers for Bush-Quayle '88, and the Republican Lawyers Association -- an organization affiliated with the RNC. Roberts also donated $1,000 to the 2000 Bush-Cheney campaign and started his career in a Republican administration, as special assistant to the U.S. Attorney General William French Smith during the Reagan years. The most serious charge of overt partisanship, though one never established, was that Roberts informally advised then Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his handling of the Florida recount effort during the 2000 election.

Reviewing this record for a host of publications during Roberts' confirmation battle in 2005, Whelan focused not on the political ties, but on the history of "judicial constraint." At one point he joked about his own gushing over Roberts' record, posting a joking article on the National Review titled "John Roberts Is A Saint" - a reference to the actual, Welshman St. John Roberts.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[fscuttle]

The republicans are chipping away at thier own credibility on a daily basis.Norm­ally i would love it but i fear that they will become so weak that they will pose no challenge to the dems.Then the dems will not have to work for our support they will have it by default.

[motoGpifupleez]

Get this straight LeftWingers: It's only bad when YOUR nominee does it.

[DCSuburb]

You're confused..­. Go back and read the article again. The National Review blogger was saying that it's only bad when Democrats do it. But if he'd done his homework before opening mouth and inserting foot, he would've known that John Roberts was an overt political supporter of Repub candidates. Duh.

[kareemachan]

I thought that is what moto was being sarcastic about....

[drjay79]

Republicans cannot catch a break now they have to pick on a hispanic, woman who is crippled.

[NowWhatFolks]

Karma's a b**ch, ain't it?

[mergina]

Why do I get the impression that if nominated she will approach her job like the main female character in MISERY?

[chronic]

Because you are dreaming.

[mergina]

zzzzzzzzzz­zzzzzzzzzz­zzz doh!

[Burnsey]

possibly because you don't know the difference between "Nominated" which she already has been, and "confirmed" which she is awaiting. And also because you obviously have not looked at any of her Judicial Record, which shows she is in fact more right leaning than left and would probably move the court slightly to the right compared to Souter, whom she would replace, if CONFIRMED.

[mergina]

The High Court (dont you love how that sounds) is a ridiculous setup. In for life. In until you brain no longer functions and you are out of touch with the up and coming generation. Absolutely asinine. TERM LIMITS. If there were term limits this week they might have ruled in favor of those being kicked out of the military because of their homophobia. In for life. Asinine.

[Imzadi]

Is this some silly reference to her looks??? Your impressions lack a grip on reality

[meede]

Whelan is having a tantrum much like pre-schoolers do, now that he's getting trashed for outting a blogger. He's just not feeling the love anymore.

Whelan and speaking truthfully -- not compatible words in the same sentence.

[realpolitic]

All these conservative future judges begin their ong apprenticeship in the Federalist Society in law school, which is a student association advocating legal restraint and separation of powers. So to say Republican presidents do not choose partisan judges is ridiculous. By a membership in the Federalist Society and long association with Republican administrations, conservatives know which way appointees like Alito and Roberts will vote. Such justices are ideological conservatives and have been their entire lives. Also, although they always advocate judicial restraint conservative justices are the first to overturn precedent and strike down laws which are both measures of judicial activism. The idea of "judicial restraint" is just a code word for conservative activism.

[dragonlady620]

What do you think the reaction of Republicans would have been if any Democrat has raised "He supports Bush" as an objection to Roberts or Alito?
And although there were many objections to Harriet Miers as a candidate I don't recall her unswerving and sycophantic loyalty to Bush ( the only reason Bush picked her in the first place) as being one of them

[Loki11467]

Funny stuff. While Bush was the biggest brown nose to Dick Cheney. Roberts was the biggest brown nose to Bush.

[DXP]

Dems and Repubs simply like to fight. Knee jerk, knee jerk and so on and on and on........

I'm glad for a woman nominee, but what are her political inclinations esp. regarding choice and privacy? Is this another stealth conservative (like Obama)?

[plaidsportcoat]

yes, probably so!

[stuporman]

roberts, scalia, thomas, alito, all were nominated to the bench specifically because of their acceptance of republican ideology and their willingness to enforce it. so sotomayor will lack judicial objectivity?????

[roshni]

Scalia and Roberts appointed Bush president.

[GeoLee]

Roberts did not. Rehnquist was still chief justice. Roberts ws Bush's first appointee and Alito his second.

[Pema]

It comes down to this. if a white man had said his experience would make him a better judge than a latina woman, every single poster would be screaming. oh yes you would. you know you would. Are we down to covering someones butt because it fills our agenda? (how rethuglican) how weak!!!! if we are that weak, we will lose the house and senate. mark my words. we sold out to get blue dogs and look how that has snafu'd. we apply double standards. how weak.
I have to disagree with Obama on this like i do the pre emptive detention.
Rise Up!

[DJ23]

You sound absolutely ridiculous. It really needs to be said. You and others like you making this same stupid argument,

I hope you not serious. Sure, if Judge Sotomayor stood up and only said that one line then it would be a big deal that she would have to explain.

But, if you read the entire speech as I did, you'd know that these people LIKE YOU who are trying to make something sinister out of that one sentence are simply playing politics as usual.

It won't work. In fact it will backfire and hurt the GOP.

[DannyDanson]

It's already hurting them, the smaller their numbers become, the louder and more desparate the purified few will scream foul, it's a good thing.

We should be building bridges with the moderate few within the GOP, who actually are listening to the only trustworthy voice of the masses "VOTES" and not the simple-minded cold-war nostalgia of Newt, O'Reilly, Hannity and Rush.

Alienate the extremists in there own districts through focused and reasoned pragmatism, highlight the Strawmen that have been set-up as symbols of the "liberal" agenda, illuminate the red-herrings which seek to create political capital out of strategic falsehoods, and the demonization of those who hold different views.

Listen to the fears of (GOP) moderates closely and intently, and on most occasions they will unwittingly reference either a Strawman argument or a Red Herring in passing, let them finish and prompt them to reconsider the logical basis of that false asumption, if you can get to this point with a GOP moderate without hostility on either part, the endeavor in and of itself will make our case for us in time. We cannot digress into the extremist psychology of the fringe right.

[Altruth]

I totally understand what she was talking about and she was correct! We all have life experiences which frame our view of the world.

She is a tough lady and she will be confirmed and I am all for that!

[stateretiree]

Rise up and what!!!!!

[emrogers]

She said "She HOPED her experience­s..." Not that she would make better decisions but that she HOPED she would. What part of HOPED didn't you understand?

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Sounds like a irrelephant GOP trying to pretend to be a liberal.

Surely this person can read. And "mark my words" is typical GOP . . . always making predictions based on nothing.

[JessWonderin]

Thank you . . . well said and "mark my words" the actions of a RepubiCON poser

[Tarnas]

Sorry for the typos in my previous post.

[Tarnas]

I am in no way trying to through my support behind Bush or Roberts nor have I read up on Sotomayor's comments before her nominaion. This is merely a comment on the reporter's grasp of the issue he is reporting on.

Roberts was not a sitting judge in the years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court. He was a private citizen and would have been able to voice his political views in any way he wished, with the exception of the time he served on the judiciary.

Sotomayor has been a sitting judge for the largest part of her career. As a sitting judge she is held to different standards under Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Impartiality is key. Whether her comments violate ethical obligations according to the so-named Right-winger really have nothing to do with Roberts ties to Bush unless they occured while he was a siting judge.

[We-Are-The-Ones]

Alito

Judges have lives. They vote.

[JessWonderin]

I think you are workin' it TOO hard . . .

Maybe you SHOULD read Sotomayor's comments (not just rely on Right Wing "edits") . . . . then "comment on the reporter's grasp of the issue he is reporting on". MIGHT enlighten your plainly Right Wing Bias viewpoint . . . then again, maybe not, facts are not part of Republican thought process.

[Burnsey]

How can you judge the reporters "grasp of the issue he is reporting on" if you have not read anything on the Judges history or Judicial record??

Do you really believe that Judges do not have First Amendment rights to freedom of speech due to their jobs? The ONLY employment that has legitimate restrictions on a persons Constitutional Rights is that of military personnel.

Judges have the same rights as any other person, the only thing required of them, and it is NOT technically required, is to recuse themselves in cases of conflict of interest. Taking a job, any job, does not allow for your rights to be taken away.

[DannyDanson]

Their ideologies where known, professed and common knowledge even before they were nominated.

The point is that federalism and the conservative movement per se are synynomous with an ideological preference, what is liberal if not Un-Conservative, the block of Americans considered liberal is diverse and ranges from the fringe left , to blue dogs, white to black to hispanic and so forth, pro-choice-and pro-abortion.

The greatness trick of the right was convincing the country that their ideological activism does not exist.

It does, and I don't think anyone could make the case that it doesn't without being impartial, why would you call it the conservative move

[Tarnas]

By all means, Judges have every right to support the candidates they want.

I was merely refering to the fact that the reporter is basing the story on a quote by a person who has taken issue with Sotomayor's statements made while she was on the bench. How does that go along with Roberts' actions while he was a private attorney. Not right wing or left wing - it just doesn't make sense.

If it compared her statements and actions to Alito - by all means the article would seem to be on track.

How does making a statement about the basis of an article automatically make me a member of a particular party?

[ImJustSaying007]

Rethugs...­..........­..Rest ..........­..In ..........­..........­.G........­.......O..­..........­......PEAC­E

[DASChicago]

DITTO!

[Marnie1]

"Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides that a judge 'should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.­'

So how does Scalia get off without impeachment, when he delcared Duhbya President, and that correctly apply the laws of Florida regarding recounting votes would deny "President Bush" equal representation under the law, - before the Supreme Court had even decided whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear a case regarding the vote counting in Florida?

[Dennis60]

It is just amazing how people keep bringing up selective memories of the Florida presidential election. To refresh your memory, the US supreme court would not have been able to get involve if not for the partisian and completely illegal actions of the Florida State Supreme Court.

[UtahLady]

Seeing as the actions of the Florida State Supreme Court were neither partisan nor illegal . . . much less "completely illegal" . . . your point has no merit.

What I don't understand is why the US Supreme Coiurt inserted itself into this matter, since the Constitution provides that the STATES (specifically the State Legislatures) set the procedure for selection of their members of the Electoral College. I can't see that the US Supreme Court had any jurisdiction.