Sonia Sotomayor

  • August 12, 2009
    Guest Post

    By Erin Louise Palmer, Clerk, D.C. Court of Appeals & 2009 ACS Public Interest Fellow 

    On the third day of her confirmation hearings, then-Judge Sonia Sotomayor faced pointed questioning on her views on using international law in U.S. courts. She responded that:

    [F]oreign law cannot be used as a holding or a precedent, or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the Constitution or American law that doesn't direct you to that law .... [T]he American legal system was structured not to use foreign law; it repeatedly underscored that foreign law could not be used as a holding, as precedent or to interpret the Constitution or the statutes.

    She went on to say that although judges should not use international law "in the sense of compelling a result," international law serves to "build up a story of knowledge about legal thinking, about approaches that one might consider."  

  • August 7, 2009

    Following her participation in an ACS panel discussion on the importance of judicial diversity, Professor Sylvia Lazos talked with ACSblog about the potential impact of Judge Sonia Sotomayor on the Supreme Court. Lazos, a University of Nevada, Las Vegas law school professor, said that Sotomayor's "unique Latina perspective is going to be very important for the Supreme Court." Watch the interview below or download a podcast here.

     

     

     

  • August 6, 2009
    Earlier this week, ACS hosted a panel discussion regarding judicial diversity. YouTube clips of comments from the "Diversifying Our Courts," panelists are now available. Video of the entire event is available here.

    Sherrilyn Ifill, Professor of Law, University of Maryland School of Law, discussed how recent Supreme Court nominees address, and are questioned about, their backgrounds.

    Sylvia Lazos, Professor of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, addressed the belief in judicial diversity, saying supporters of it are "convinced and committed to this idea that you come up with better decisions when you have a diverse judiciary."

    Judge Theodore A. McKee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, suggested that it is naïve to belive that judges are not influenced by their experiences and backgrounds.

    Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Counsel, Brennan Center for Justice, cited her research showing that biases persist in keeping women and minorities off the federal bench.

  • July 30, 2009
    BookTalk
    The Next Justice
    Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process
    By: 
    Christopher L. Eisgruber, Provost & Laurance S. Rockefeller Professor of Public Affairs, Princeton University

    On the first day of her confirmation hearings, Judge Sonia Sotomayor addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee and explained her approach to judging. "In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy," she said. "It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law - it is to apply the law."

    It was, as Yogi Berra might have said, déjà vu all over again. John Roberts told the Senate that he was just an umpire calling balls and strikes. Sonia Sotomayor said that she was just applying the law to the facts. Really now; give us a break! Yes, judges should be faithful to the law. Problem is, the law is often unclear-especially in the Supreme Court, which accepts cases only if they pose novel legal issues.

    All the justices on the Supreme Court are doing their level best to be faithful to the law, but they reach very different conclusions about what it requires. Isn't that why we watch the Supreme Court confirmation hearings? If judges were just umpires, if their judicial philosophies amounted to nothing more than ‘fidelity to law,' neither we nor the senators would care so much about who was appointed.

    So why can't we have a more honest public conversation about what makes for a good Supreme Court justice? That question is the starting point for The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process. Its goal is to provide a better description of what Supreme Court justices actually do and thereby to improve the national argument about who should be selected.

  • July 29, 2009
    During yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee vote in favor of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, newly seated Minnesota Sen. Al Franken took issue with some of the current high court's decisions that he described as "judicial activism."

    The Minnesota Independent reported that it was a theme that Franken "promised to revisit when the nomination reaches the floor."

    "The current Supreme Court has consistently struck down and questioned longstanding protections for Americans," Franken said. "And I'm talking about individual rights, individual protections, individual liberties."

    Franken, noted that, "This Supreme Court came close to overturning critical portions of the voting rights act. The Court did this despite the express powers that Congress was granted under the 15th amendment to enact this law.

    Franken also cited decisions that he described as making it much harder for people to access the courts.

    "This is judicial activism," he said. "This is a Court that is willing to reverse itself to limit the rights of individual Americans. This is a Court that is more than willing to overturn Congress to achieve its own agenda of what is right."

    He said a vote in support of Sotomayor, was a vote against judicial activism.