Legal News

Sotomayor, Day 11: A Look at Her Speeches

By Ashby Jones

Nearly unmentioned in the the commentary on Sonia Sotomayor has been her stance on “internationalism,” a topic that of late has created an increasing rift among the justices. In a nutshell, the topic gets at whether and to what degree the justices should be looking to the rulings from respected courts of other countries to provide instruction and guidance on their own decisions. Justice Breyer, for one, has cited his approval for such approach; Justice Scalia has panned it: “What does an opinion of a wise Zimbabwe judge have to do with what Americans believe?” he said in a 2005 speech.

You can bet that any sort of remark made by Sotomayor on this front is going to prompt questioning during her confirmation hearings.

That said, Sotomayor’s take on the topic may not do much to rile up her critics. In a 2004 speech, she said that international law held "very limited formal force" in the United States but that judges should not "close their minds to good ideas." She added: "If the idea has validity, if it persuades you, then you're going to adopt its reasoning. If it doesn't fit, then you won't use it." On this and other remarks from past speeches, click here for the NYT’s take, here for the WaPo’s.

At least one conservative critic is fired up over something else — Sotomayor’s seeming delight over Barack Obama’s win last November. Ed Whelan, the president of the Ethics and Policy Center in Washington (and who seems deeply, deeply committed to pointing out the reasons he doesn’t approve of Sotomayor’s nomination), points to a speech she gave in April of this year in which she said a handful of pro-Obama comments, like: "On November 4, we saw past our ethnic, religious and gender differences."

Whelan points to Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which provides that a judge "should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary." Writes Whelan: “Sotomayor's public cheerleading for Obama seems clearly to violate that ethical obligation.” Click here for Whelan’s full post at the National Review online.

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on June 05, 2009 (boomark / email).