CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS
– LEGAL AFFAIRS
July 28, 2009 – 12:24 p.m.
Senate Judiciary Approves Sotomayor Nomination
By Keith Perine and Seth Stern, CQ Staff
The Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on a nearly party-line vote Tuesday, teeing up a Senate confirmation vote next week.
The committee voted 13-6 to approve the nomination in the same cavernous hearing room in the Hart Building in which Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing took place two weeks ago. South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham joined all 12 Democrats on the panel in voting for Sotomayor.
“It is with enthusiasm and hope that I am going to vote in favor of this historic nomination,” committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt., said before the vote.
If confirmed as expected, Sotomayor will be the third woman and first Hispanic to serve on the high court. She will succeed retired Justice David H. Souter , a member of the narrowly divided court’s liberal bloc.
But Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the committee, said, “Based on her record as a judge and her statements, I am not able to support this nomination.” Sessions said he doesn’t believe Sotomayor can put aside her “personal opinions and biases” on the bench.
Sessions emphasized three cases in which Sotomayor participated as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit involving employment discrimination, gun rights and property rights.
The Alabama Republican criticized Sotomayor’s participation in a 2nd Circuit panel decision in the discrimination case, Ricci v. DeStefano, in which the court ruled against a group of mostly white New Haven, Conn., firefighters.
“I think she got the text of the Constitution wrong, and did so in a cursory way,” Sessions said.
In explaining his vote in favor of Sotomayor, Graham said, “I would not have chosen her, but I understand why President Obama did. I gladly give her my vote because I think she meets the qualification test that was used in [Antonin] Scalia and [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg,” referring to a conservative justice nominated in 1986 by President Ronald Reagan and a liberal named in 1993 by President Bill Clinton.
Utah Republican Orrin G. Hatch , who had never before voted against a Supreme Court nominee, did so this time. “I genuinely wrestled with this decision,” he said. However, Hatch added, “Her speeches and articles described a troubling approach to judging that her hearing testimony did not resolve as far as I was concerned.”
All 19 committee members except Minority Whip Jon Kyl , R-Ariz., made statements before the panel voted. Democrats praised Sotomayor.
“America would be well-served when Judge Sotomayor becomes Justice Sotomayor,” Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin , D-Ill., said.
But Wisconsin Democrats Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl both lamented the trend in Supreme Court confirmation hearings in which nominees avoid answering questions about substantive legal issues and high court decisions.
“These hearings have become little more than theater,” said Feingold. “I do not think it makes for meaningful advice and consent.”
Confirmation Assured
The Senate is expected to vote on Sotomayor’s confirmation before beginning its recess Aug. 7.
Although she is likely to be opposed by most of the chamber’s Republicans, five of the 40 GOP senators have already said they will vote for her.
The closest Senate votes of recent times for nominees who made it to the Supreme Court came in October 1991, when Justice Clarence Thomas was confirmed by 52-48, and in January 2006, when Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. was confirmed by 58-42.




Comments
An arguably even more lamentable trend than the strategic camoflaging of nominees' perspectives on substantive issues and opinions is the degree to which the votes for non-district court jurists is bearing ever closer resemblance to presidential and gubernatorial election results, in which the bulk of the opposition party comes out against even the most empirically qualified prospects. With the honourable exception of IN R Dick Lugar - who last opposed D appointee Breyer back in '94 - senators (of both sides) have become hardened by the accumulated weight of past grievances and grudges, as evidenced by the precedent-breaking decisions of Hatch and Grassley.
POST A COMMENT
Oops! The following errors must be addressed: