Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Dems to GOP nominee: Will the defendant please rise?





© 2009

Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.


Interestingly, the Democrats' examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, "You may now uncuff the defendant."


Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic – as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public.


No, they had to go back to Roger Taney – confirmed in 1836 – who was allegedly attacked for being a Catholic (and who authored the Dred Scott decision), and Louis Brandeis – confirmed in 1916 – allegedly a victim of anti-Semitism.


What will it take to restore common sense and rein in out-of-control government? Get Glenn Beck's latest book, inspired by Founding Father Thomas Paine


Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada's nomination, blaming it on Republicans: "He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge."


The Republicans were "in charge" for precisely 14 days between Estrada's nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada's nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.


Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked "by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats" – as the New York Times put it.


Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada "especially dangerous" – as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer – because "he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."


Sandy Berger wasn't available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.


Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada's house.


In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.


At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be "handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community."


Alas, today Democrats can't really place Estrada – James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on "CHiPs." They also can't recall the name "Anita Hill." Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her.


Only the indignities suffered by Justices Taney and Brandeis still burn in liberal hearts!


So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his "hope" is that "if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment," I think it's a lovely speech.


It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.


But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war – while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.


Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech – everything short of driving a woman into a lake! – within an hour of Reagan's announcing Bork's nomination.

Sotomayor on the Second Amendment - Evasive and Hostile



Guest post from Brian Darling

Senator Orin Hatch (R-UT) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) engaged in detailed questioning of Sotomayor’s views on the Second Amendment. Judge Sotomayor seemed hostile and evasive to the concept that the Second Amendment protects and individual right of all Americans against an action by a state to seize firearms. A senior Senate staffer concluded that “she confirmed her view that gun ownership is not a fundamental right.”


Sotomayor seemed evasive when questioned by Senator Hatch whether she relied on the 1886 case Presser v. Illinois to hold that the Second Amendment was not a fundamental right. Sotomayor said, "It may have. I haven't read it recently enough to remember exactly." Hatch made the case that Sotomayor in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals case, Maloney v. Cuomo applied the wrong standard of review. Senator Hatch said “I believe you’ve applied the wrong line of cases in Maloney, because you were applying cases that used the privileges and immunities clause and not cases that used the 14th Amendment due process clause.” Hatch made the case that Sotomayor’s line of reasoning would allow any decision by a state or local government to pass constitutional scrutiny if merely rationally based. Sotomayor responded that “well, all standards of the court are attempting to ensure that government action has a basis.” Not much of an answer and Sotomayor seemed evasive in explaining her reasoning for the Maloney case other than that she was following a precedent. Not much analysis.


Senator Kyl asked Sotomayor whether she would recuse herself from any Supreme Court decision relating to the divergent Second Amendment decisions of the 9th and 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that direcly address the incorporation argument at issue in Maloney. Sotomayor refused to state that she would recuse herself from these similar cases. Kyl made the case that Sotomayor’s participation in the 9th or 7th Circuit Court of Appeals incorporation Second Amendment cases may lead to an appearance of impropriety. One could come to the conclusion that Sotomayor would be protecting her rational in Maloney if she refused to incorporate the 2nd Amendment on the states. The responses to Kyl’s line of questioning evidenced hostility to the clear reading of the words of the 2nd Amendment that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”



Brian Darling is Director of Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation