Litigation

Blasting Out of the Blocks

By Charlie Hall

Much like the 2005-06 confirmation hearings for Samuel Alito, competing groups have wasted no time in framing the debate over appellate judge Sonia Sotomayer.

Ads by the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network and liberal Coalition for Constitutional Values, as well as a barrage of competing talking points, have occupied parallel intellectual universes.

Attacks on Sotomayor have focused on several public statements to suggest she is willing to trump the rule of law in favor of ethnic and other considerations. They also have focused on a few potentially controversial cases, involving a New Haven firefighters discrimination case and an eminent domain action.

The Judicial Confirmation Network ad asks: “Equal justice under the law? Or equal justice under attack? America deserves better.”

Particulars of the attack on Sotomayor are spelled out well in a Christian Science Monitor op-ed, by law professor John Eastman.

Supporters of Sotomayor accuse critics of cherrypicking Sotomayor’s cases, saying that she has participated in 3,000 decisions as an appellate judge and written 400 opinions, the vast majority without controversy. The ad by the Coalition for Constitutional Values, which is made up of the Alliance for Justice, the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, and the People for the American Way , shows pictures and text praising Sotomayor, set against a voiceover by President Obama.

Among the ad’s statements: “Tough prosecutor. Distinguished judge. Practical understanding of the law. Keeping faith with our constitutional values.”

Are the attacks against Sotomayor fair? Two video clips, of the same 2005 conference at Duke University conference, provide an intriguing contrast. The shorter clip, shown in the JCN ad, quotes Sotomayer as saying that “policy is made” on appeals courts. The longer video clip of the same conference gives a considerably more nuanced explanation of the function of trial courts versus appellate courts.

The video clips, as well as media articles and summaries of interest-group activities, are available at Justice at Stake’s “Supreme Court Watch” resource page.

Media articles generally suggest that opponents of Sotomayor face an uphill battle. Analyses, including this by New York Times reporter Adam Liptak, suggest she is liberal but no extremist, indeed commenting that her rulings are “technical, incremental and exhaustive.” Other articles said that Republican senators are leery of alienating Hispanic voters by running a scorched-earth campaign against Sotomayor.

Full post as published by The Gavel on May 27, 2009 (boomark / email).