Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jul. 20, 2009, at 10:49 am
My guest co-host for this week’s HoCast is Seth Nelson, a Tampa lawyer who is running for the Tampa City Council in 2011 (for Linda Saul-Sena’s citywide seat; she is term-limited).
He is a former law clerk on the 11th US Circuit Court of Appeals, so we look at how Sonia Sotomayor did in explaining her statement about policy being made at the appellate court level. Plus, we discuss Walter Cronkite’s death and how it shows what is wrong with today’s news media and ask ourselves whether Barack Obama’s health care reform effort is in trouble.
And between all those headlines, Seth talks about why he’s running for the Council and what his top priorities are.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jul. 14, 2009, at 11:50 am
The Big Irony for Tuesday was watching the ranking Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, one Jefferson B. Sessions III of Alabama, grill US Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor over her statements about the judiciary and race. (He ascended to the top GOP slot on the committee when Arlen Specter switched parties.) Sessions cited what he termed a history of statements that show she would not apply the rule of law but instead use her life experiences and racial politics to make decisions on the high court.
Sessions himself was the target of a similar grilling in 1986, when he was a nominee to the federal district court, according to this account in the conservative Black Political Thought/Hinterland Gazette:
Twenty-three years ago he was engaged in the fight of his life. He was appointed a U.S. attorney in Alabama in 1981 and was nominated to become a U.S. District judge by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. J. Gerald Hebert, a career Justice Department lawyer, testified that Sessions had once called the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union “un-American” and “Communist-inspired.” He said that they “forced civil rights down the throats of people.” He sealed his own fate by saying such groups could be construed as “un-American” when “they involve themselves in promoting un-American positions” in foreign policy. He is said to have made remarks that he thought the Ku Klux Klan wasn’t so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana. He said these comments were made in jest. Right.
Sessions faced a heated round of questioning from Sen. Edward Kennedy, who called him “a throwback to a shameful era,” and our current Vice President, Joe Biden. How ironic. The committee held four hearings during one of which Sessions pleaded that “I am not a racist.” Hebert also testified that Sessions had called a white civil rights lawyer a “disgrace to his race” for litigating voting rights cases. His nomination failed in committee on a 10 to 8 vote, with Specter joining the nominee’s original patron, Sen. Howell Heflin (D-Ala.) in dooming the nomination. In 1994, Sessions won a state attorney general’s race, and then won election to the Senate in 1996 after Heflin retired.
Talk about somebody who (it would seem) would be prejudiced against a process or person, having gone through what must have been a painful rejection by Democrats decades ago.
The Washington Post has a full transcript of the Sessions-Sotomayor interrogation.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday to deny convicts a constitutional right to DNA testing. It wasn’t a surprise. While acknowledging that DNA can provide powerful new evidence, the majority distinguished between those presumed innocent at the onset of a trial and those already convicted during a trial. In District Attorney’s Office for Third Judicial Dist. v. Osborne, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man.”
That may be true, but what if the verdict arrived at by the jury was wrong? Roberts argument is a non sequitur. The purpose of DNA is to provide more certain evidence as to the party’s guilt or innocence. If DNA was not utilized in the court of first instance, how certain is the jury’s verdict of guilty in the first place?
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jun. 1, 2009, at 1:28 pm
Sonia Sotomayor with her kids nephews at a ballgame. She certainly will have to be alert for foul balls in the confirmation process. (photo courtesy of whitehouse.gov)
This week’s podcast breaks down the Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination with Tampa media lawyer David Snyder. We talk about her race-based rulings, her temperament, Rush Limbaugh and Tom Tancredo’s charges of reverse racism and whether judges really do/should make policy or not.
By Kelly Cornelius PoHo contributor and R-LAND activist
Ever hear the saying don’t look a gift horse in the mouth? That is probably because horse’s teeth can tell you how old they are.
Being a horse person I am a strong believer in vetting before buying a horse which is also called a pre-purchase exam. Along with checking for any glaring unsoundness or other health issues it is a good way to see if your potential steed will hold up for the job you will be asking him or her to do. As you might expect, if you want a horse for light trail riding the pre-purchase bar might not be as high as, say, an Olympic jumper or even something in between.
Most vets will admit that while almost no horse “passes the vet;” there are just shades of failing. It still makes good sense to have a thorough exam performed. The only time it doesn’t make sense to vett a horse is if all you want the horse for is a lawn ornament. If you want a performance horse, however, you should know what you are buying and whether there is a reasonable assumption that your new steed can perform its job. So, before you take the plunge and buy old Dobbin, have him vet’ed.
I feel the same way about Supreme Court Justice nominees by the way. I think we can safely say they are well beyond trail horses and into the category of Olympic jumpers so the bar needs to be set very high. Read the rest of this entry »
Let’s hope for his sake Barack Obama’s vetting team asked Sonia Sotomayor if she has paid her taxes. Let’s hope they asked her if she’s ever hired, employed, otherwise used undocumented folks for laundry, housekeeping, garbage pickup, whatever. Also, she damn well have been kidding about the impact a judge’s ethnicity and sex have on the decision-making process. She better downplay her comment about a Latina woman (isn’t that redundant) making better decisions than a white male considering the folks asking her questions are predominantly white males, and old white males at that.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on May. 27, 2009, at 9:40 am
Here’s an interesting idea from New American Media’s Roberto Lovato, writing in HuffPo about the Supreme Court confirmation process for Sonia Sotomayor:
Rather than allow herself to be put at the center of another racism and sexism-laden political circus around the qualifications of a candidate who brings more real-life prosecutorial and actual judicial experience than any other Supreme Court nominee in the last 100 years, Sotomayor should consider another strategy. She — and we — should instead view those hearings as nothing less than a trial to determine whether the GOP is ready to make restitution for its role in a number of judicial and political wrongdoings perpetrated in the Bush era. Those wrongdoings include unleashing unprecedented and dangerous political attacks on Latinos, and breaching the political and electoral contract the “new GOP” said it wanted with Latinos, one of the country’s most important voting blocs.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on May. 27, 2009, at 6:25 am
The first shot in the confirmation battle over Sonia Sotomayor is out there, a video appearance by the judge at Duke University in which, ABC News reported, she said that the district appeals court is where “policy is made.”
If that is true, that would make her an “activist” judge, a label that is radioactive and would create a real problem for Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.
So what did she say, exactly? And what did she mean?
The left-leaning Media Matters defends her and says her words were taken out of context, that ABC (and others) erred in their characterizations. That spin is being echoed by Democrats on this morning’s news shows. It goes like this:
In fact, Sotomayor was responding to a student who asked the panel to contrast the experiences of a district court clerkship and a circuit court clerkship. Sotomayor’s remarks from the Duke panel discussion … :
SOTOMAYOR: The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m — you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating — its interpretation, its application. And Judge Lucero is right. I often explain to people, when you’re on the district court, you’re looking to do justice in the individual case. So you are looking much more to the facts of the case than you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is non-precedential, so the facts control. On the court of appeals, you are looking to how the law is developing, so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases. And so you’re always thinking about the ramifications of this ruling on the next step in the development of the law. You can make a choice and say, “I don’t care about the next step,” and sometimes we do. Or sometimes we say, “We’ll worry about that when we get to it” — look at what the Supreme Court just did. But the point is that that’s the differences — the practical differences in the two experiences are the district court is controlled chaos and not so controlled most of the time.
Watch the video clip after the jump, and you make the call:
Posted by Wayne Garcia on May. 26, 2009, at 10:19 am
Here’s a quick look at how the media — professional and otherwise — are treating this morning’s announcement of District Court of Appeal Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the first Latina to be nominated to the highest court in the land.
[UPDATE: after the jump, I've added the Libertarian Party's blistering assessment of Sotomayor as an activist judge.]
UPDATE 8:46 a.m.: Barack Obama will announce later this morning his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the Federal Appeals Court as his nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, The New York Times reports. If confirmed by the Senate she will be the third woman on the court and the first Hispanic justice.
The MSM will undoubtedly cast Obama’s first Supreme Court choice in terms of liberal vs. conservative. While the consequences of Barack Obama’s decision will have political overtones, the real debate centers around how the document in question (the U.S. Constitution) should be interpreted.
In the one camp, there’s Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.
In the other, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and John Paul Stevens are firmly situated.
And Obama could announce the next member of the high court as early as today.
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Oct. 15, 2008, at 8:46 am
All of today’s top political and media headlines, plus some other crap I find online that makes me laugh, complemented nicely with updates in the box to the right:
Posted by Wayne Garcia on Jun. 26, 2007, at 3:03 pm
The Supreme Court yesterday struck down some of the provisions of the 2002 McCain-Feingold elections reform law, mainly those dealing with limitations on corporate or union issue advertising paid for from treasury (not PAC) funds in the days leading up to an election.
The case was brought by Wisconsin Right to Life, which wanted the right in 2004 to run ads trying to stop a Senate filibuster on judicial nominees.
The effect of the 5-4 decision was to create a hole big enough to drive a semi through in the law, and to move the state of campaign financing law closer to deregulation. It likely has supporters and critics in both parties, since the coalition that put together McCain-Feingold was a strange one, indeed.
The crackdown on union treasury spending, for instance, was a major selling point for Republicans, who for years complained that the Democratic-leaning unions were using members’ dues to finance their left-wing ads and attacks on conservative politicians — without the explicit approval of the membership paying those dues.
“We see it as a positive; we think it is a fair ruling,” said Stephen Sarnoff, the president of a Communications Workers of America local in Pinellas. “We will be able to use it to inform and educate the voters about the issues that we feel are the most important. It is a just ruling that will allow more democracy and do a better job of educating the public.”
So, is the decision good or bad? It’s tricky. First, there are the money=speech advocates, who cite free speech and say let the marketplace of ideas deal with such advertising. They say government has no role in regulating free speech, and they insist that disclosure and contribution limits are enough to rein in the power of unrestrained spending.
On the other side are those who see how badly money is corrupting the political system, who worry that unfettered spending by any and all special interests will merely muddy the waters so badly that the marketplace of ideas won’t operate properly. They believed the controls in McCain-Feingold were reasonable.
One law professor argues that this decision signals a strong anti-regulation shift for the high court. Loyola Professor Rick Hasen writes:
What’s next? Expect a full, frontal attack on McConnell [a leading current campaign finance decision], likely manufactured by Jim Bopp, as invited by Justice Alito (not to mention Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas). Within a few years, expect the Court to take another campaign contributions case, revisit Randall, and reconsider whether even higher contribution limits violate the First Amendment.
Another legal expert writes that it is a banner day for corporations, who saw a giant leap forward in their ability to impact the political process:
… [F]or the first time in 60 years establishes a constitutional regime in which corporations are entitled to the same First Amendment protections as individuals, notwithstanding that, as the Court stressed in Austin, corporations’ “voice” in public debate is magnified considerably by virtue of numerous advantages that state law provides to such artificial entities.
The net effect is that the court has helped both the left (union politicking) and right (corporate spending) in campaigns, and left lots of uncertainty as to what will be treated as an issue ad vs. an ad advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. Given the Bush Court’s apparent inclination toward deregulation of campaign finance, look for more decisions that could even loosen contribution limits.
