On the Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor

While visiting with our troops in Afghanistan today, President Obama called to inform me that he will nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has a long and distinguished career on the federal bench. She has been nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents, and she was twice confirmed by the Senate with strong, bipartisan support. Her record is exemplary. Judge Sotomayor's nomination is an historic one, and when confirmed she will become the first Hispanic Justice, and just the third woman to sit on the nation's highest court. Having a Supreme Court that better reflects the diversity of America helps ensure that we keep faith with the words engraved in Vermont marble over the entrance of the Supreme Court: "Equal justice under law."

The Supreme Court is the final arbiter in the federal judiciary, with a fundamental role in our system of government and a fundamental impact on Americans' everyday lives. One need look no further than the Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine cases to understand how just one vote can determine the Court's decision and impact the lives and freedoms of countless Americans. I believe that Judge Sotomayor will be in the mold of Justice Souter, who understands the real-world impact of the Court's decisions, rather than the mold of the conservative activists who second-guess Congress, and who through judicial extremism undercut laws meant to protect Americans from discrimination in their jobs, their access to health care and education, and their privacy from an overreaching government. I believe Judge Sotomayor understands that the courthouse doors must be as open to ordinary Americans as they are to government and big corporations.

As he promised, President Obama has handled this selection process with the care that the American people expect and deserve. The Senate in good faith should match the president's confidence-building steps in the way we now proceed with this nomination. Some groups in the Republican base have said they are 'spoiling for a fight,' no matter who was nominated. Republican Senators up to now have generally shown more responsibility than that, and the American people will want the Senate to carry out its constitutional duty with conscientiousness and civility.

Among the most serious constitutional duties entrusted to Congress is the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. President Obama has announced his choice, and the Senate will now prepare for fair and thorough confirmation proceedings. There are more than 300 million Americans; only 100 Senators will vote on this nomination. We have a solemn duty to the Constitution and to the American people. This will not be decided by the interest groups on the left or the right. I trust that no Senator will seek to apply a different standard to this nominee than was applied just four years ago when the Senate considered President Bush's nominations to the Supreme Court.

I will work closely with Senator Sessions as the Judiciary Committee prepares for confirmation hearings. We are committed to ensuring that the next Justice is seated before the Court's term begins in October. I hope all Senators will treat this nominee fairly and will respect the Committee's confirmation process.

Now more than ever, while the country is in the throes of an economic recession, and fighting to strengthen our economic and national security, the American people deserve leadership and civility from those they send to Washington. This is an opportunity for this Senate to further the spirit of bipartisanship that Americans want by guiding the nation in installing impartial, fair-minded Justices to the Supreme Court who will apply our laws and not their ideology. The interests of all Americans are at stake.

Comments

[carl99e]

How is it that the Supreme Court in recent years has voted favorably for big business because the Constitution has been interpreted in a certain way, when in reality, there was no big business in America at the time of its writing. Were there multinational companies then operating out of the USA??

[viflyer]

I am telling all of you that this woman is a corporate "shill". I hate to use the term, but no one is even talking about her rulings favoring corporations.

I believe that she, like Obama have spent their lives striving to be part of the "corporate" establishment. They do not believe nor will the attempt to reign in the power of corporations that have destroyed our economy and the middle class. They both believe the corporate status quo is FINE.

There will be no examination of her corporate rulings in the Senate hearings or by the corporate press. Just like how they totally ignored the fact that Bush nominated Alito and Roberts because they would reliably vote in favor of corporations over the rights of individual workers.

And SO will Sotomayor!

[PVHurt420]

Right on, this choice hopefully makes up for Bushie's last two f*#$ups!

[GhiaccioPronto]

Leahy in june 1998 on Sotomayor, hispanic and female judges being
buried for years in Senate Judiciary Committee
(cspan)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d38JqolUOlw

[tallisse]

OK everyone just calm down, go back and read her comment in the context of her speech like I did. What Sotomayor was talking about in her Berkeley speech is the importance of diversity in our judges. This speech is a call for all types of judges, white males included but also others, because, in her words, personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

She said, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived her life, IN THE CONTEXT OF DECIDING SEX OR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION CASES. Just like in deciding an antitrust case, a judge who only had the experience of being a big corporate CEO might look at the case differently than a judge who only had the experience of being a small business owner.

Now you can agree or disagree with her sentiment that having judges with varying personal experiences makes the judicial system better. But calling her a racist because of it is completely and utterly INACCURATE. Once again I fear the conservative bigots will win on spinning this one.

[Jazzier]

Sotomayor's "racial discrimination" decision in the Richie case proves she rules by emotion not the rule of law.

That case alone proves that the symbol of the blindfolded woman holding scales representing the idea of law being carried out fairly means NOTHING to Sotomayor.

Dems again resort to playing their typical "race card" , "class envy card" and name-calling!

[grooveygrover]

link?

[addisonsteele]

Judge Sotomayor would not be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. She would be the first Latino Supreme Court Justice. The first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice was Benjamin Cardozo.

[bighat]

I find it interest than in many media outlets from Huff post to USA Today, NY Times, Drudge report that this was being nominated for the supreme court has little written about her the woman and decisions she madae or even her backgrowing including where she grew up. Was she rich, poor, smart,

But there are thousands of stores about the supreme judge nominee being a woman and of Latin descent. Stories that many people say she will make a great judge because she is a woman and latin. Not even abortion questions. Is it because she is a woman.

Just find it funny that we are supposed to be color blind and gender neutral that all stories for all sides of the political spectrum are not on any particular values or opnions but just that the nominee is a Latina and therefore brings diversity.

has everyone forgot HW Bush or Bush 41 appointed Souter. Judges do not aways turn out to be as what we believe they should be.

personally I would like to know her stance on the 10th amendment and stop the feds from being the major source of revenue for every company, state, city or other locality plus stop the blackmail of withholding money due to states (highway funds) unless you pass so and so law.

[holeybuybull]

It would be refreshing to celebrate "diversity" by nominating an atheist, rather than another Catholic. The Supreme Court is looking like the college of cardinals. Even better would be a gay atheist.

[GIRfan]

Good luck to you sir.

[olddognewtrick]

Come on. It's a Supreme Court confirmation not a beauty contest.

[Bronxdude]

Carl Rove has repeatedly stated that Judge Sonia Sotomayor lacks the intellectual ability to sit on the Supreme Court. What makes Carl Rove (high school graduate and Bush’s minion/hand puppet) competent to critique Judge Sotomayor’s intellectual attributes? Let’s review the facts. After graduating valedictorian from New York’s prestigious Cardinal Spellman High School, Judge Sotomayor went on to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton, and later received a law degree from Yale, where she was also elected Editor of the influential Yale Law Journal. In comparison, Bush was a legacy admission to Yale and graduated “thank-you-laude” with a paltry C average. Why is it that every minority candidate (Thurgood Marshall, Clarence Thomas, and Sonia Sotomayor) nominated to the Supreme Court has been criticized by White (male) pundits as being intellectually incompetent? Even though Judge Alito was affiliated with a racist organization (he denied knowing the group was racist) while at Princeton and had an unremarkable tenure as a student while attending law school at Yale, no one ever questioned his intellectual ability before and during his confirmation hearing.

[Bronxdude]

As a fellow South Bronxite, Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court nomination fills my heart with ecstasy and anticipation. Regardless of one’s beginning or circumstance, the sky can be the limit, with hard work and focus. Princeton and Yale…can’t do much better than that!

[dezzertguy]

It is sad the "Equal Justice Under the Law" is now reduced to gender and race rather than an honest and intelligent application of the law. Perhaps the senator should have the blindfold of Lady Justice removed so the race and gender can be more clearly applied to the law. It is sad that the lawmakers not longer care for the value of the law.

[Jaybot]

"Having a Supreme Court that better reflects the diversity of America..."

What? Since when is this country 66% Catholic.

[nunzia]

6 Catolics.
How diverse.