Legal Commentary

Sotomayor Hearings Live Blog 3

By Big Tent Democrat

Afternoon session starts. Grassley up. Interested in property rights and the Takings clause. Asks about Kelo. Sotomayor responds by saying she thinks property rights are important constitutional questions. Waves the American flag. Says the issue in Kelo was the amount of deference to be granted to state and local government's decision on what constitutes public purpose and use, and could such a determination allow for private development. She segues to a case she decided where she ruled in favor of a property owners procedural rights.

BTW, Kelo was properly decided. Sotomayor answered that Kelo followed existing SCOTUS precedent. Grassley argues Kelo was an "expansion" of the takings power. (Grassley is wrong). Sotomayor ducks the question.

More later.

Grassley asks about Didden. That's the case where the property owner did not sue within the statute of limitations period. Apparently Grassley wanted the SOL ignored.

Sotomayor responds by explaining the statute of limitations to Grassley. BTW, I wonder that Grassley was not concerned about the SOL when it involved Lily Ledbetter.

Feingold now. Rightly praises Sotomayor's discussion with Grassley. She did quite well no question.

Now to the hard stuff. Executive power. Sotomayor speaking like a politician on the issue. Politic but not what I want to hear. Let's see what Feingold says.

Would Soyomayor recuse herself from a 2nd Amendment incorporation case? If her case, Maloney, came up, then obviously yes. What about a different case? Not so clear.

Kyl is taking a dive. Pretty interesting.

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 14, 2009 (boomark / email).