The Nomination of Justice Sotomayor Formerly: the Replacement of Justice Souter

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

www.rbs0.com/sotomayor.pdf 3 Aug 2009 Page 1 of 185 The Nomination of Justice Sotomayor formerly: The Replacement of Justice Souter Copyright 2009 by Ronald B. Standler No copyright claimed for works of the U.S. Government. No copyright claimed for quotations from any source, except for selection of such quotations. Keywords history, justice, nomination, Richard Posner, Kathleen Sullivan, Diane Wood, Sonia Sotomayor, U.S. Supreme Court Table of Contents Introduction . 4 Responsibilities of a Justice . 5 Oath of Office . 5 Conflict of Interest . 6 Due Process . 7 Judicial Code of Conduct . 8 why politicians undesirable on the Court . 9 Obama in Oct 2008 . 10 First Week: 1-8 May 2009 . 12 Obama’s 1 May briefing . 12 possible candidates . 14 Holland’s list . 14 Halloran’s list . 16 Slate’s list . 16 New York Times’ list . 17 commentary . 18 ignoring Judge Posner . 20 Prof. Kathleen Sullivan . 22 schedule . 23 judicial monastery ? . 24 commentary about “empathy” . 26 other commentary . 28 at least one Republican not a homophobe . 32 www.rbs0.com/sotomayor.pdf 3 Aug 2009 Page 2 of 185 Second Week: 9-15 May 2009 . 34 why not a scientist/attorney on the Court ? . 34 commentary . 35 White House Press Briefing 12 May . 41 schedule . 42 list of candidates . 44 opinion poll . 46 15 May: interviews not begun . 49 a rational method for choosing . 49 Judge Sotomayor . 51 Sotomayor’s 2001 lecture . 53 Judge Diane Wood . 56 Third Week: 16-23 May 2009 . 57 vultures begin to circle . 57 another list of candidates . 63 new candidate and interviews . 64 Obama interview on 22 May . 66 anti-intellectualism . 68 Fourth Week: 24-25 May 2009 . 69 26 May: Obama picks Sotomayor . 73 how Sotomayor was chosen . 75 Obama’s speech . 77 commentary: ethnic politics . 80 White House Press Briefings: 26-29 May . 86 no record on controversial issues . 93 cases . 96 abortion . 96 Ricci v. DeStefano . 97 religious balance ? . 101 racist remark in 2001 . 102 29 May Press Briefing: defense of her racist remark . 103 President’s defense . 104 commentary . 105 marketing of Sotomayor . 108 finances . 110 29 May: Krauthammer’s opinion . 112 Fifth Week: 1-7 June 2009 . 113 what not to include in this document . 113 www.rbs0.com/sotomayor.pdf 3 Aug 2009 Page 3 of 185 Sonia’s meet and greet . 114 commentary . 116 other speeches by Sotomayor . ..

185

Copy Link

Recommended publications

Pdf, Accessed 17 December 2018
INVESTIGATING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TARGETED KILLING, AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM, AND KRIEGSRAISON: REPERCUSSIONS FOR INTERNATIONAL LAW THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE, FACULTY OF HUMANITIES AND SOCIAL SCIENCE, SCHOOL OF LAW AND GOVERNMENT, DUBLIN CITY UNIVERSITY IN FULFILLMENT OF THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY CATHERINE CONNOLLY B.A., M.A. SUPERVISOR: DR JAMES GALLEN July 2019 1 I hereby certify that this material, which I now submit for assessment on the programme of study leading to the award of Doctor of Philosophy is entirely my own work, that I have exercised reasonable care to ensure that the work is original, and does not to the best of my knowledge breach any law of copyright, and has not been taken from the work of others save and to the extent that such work has been cited and acknowledged within the text of my work. Signed: Catherine Connolly Candidate No: 57412029 Date: 18 December 2018 2 Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................6 Dedication ........................................................................................................................7 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................8 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 11 Why is this thesis relevant and necessary? ...........................................................................
[Show full text]
Federal Sentencing Reform Jon O
Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture Lectures 4-23-2003 Federal Sentencing Reform Jon O. Newman Senior Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/lectures_kaplan Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Newman, Jon O., "Federal Sentencing Reform" (2003). Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture. 19. http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/lectures_kaplan/19 This Lecture is brought to you for free and open access by the Lectures at Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. HOFSTRA UNNERSITY 5ci-rOOLOF lAW 2002-2003 Howard and Iris Kaplan Memorial Lecture Series The Honorable Jon 0. Newman Senior Judge, Un ited States Co urt of Appeals for the Second Circuit JON 0 . NEWMAN j on 0. Newman is a Senior Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for th e Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York and Vennont.), on which he has served since june 1979. He was Chief judge of the Second Circuit from july 1993 to June 1997, and he served as a United States District judge for the Distri ct of Connecti cut from j anuary 1972 until his appointment to th e Court of Appeals. judge Newman graduated from Princeton University in 1953 and from Yale Law School in 1956.
[Show full text]
The Brookings Institution
1 MOYNIHAN-2015/01/28 THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION AN INSIDE VIEW OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY: DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN IN THE NIXON WHITE HOUSE Washington, D.C. Wednesday, January 28, 2015 PARTICIPANTS: Moderator: JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS White House Correspondent The New York Times Featured Speaker: STEPHEN HESS Senior Fellow Emeritus, Governance Studies The Brookings Institution * * * * * ANDERSON COURT REPORTING 706 Duke Street, Suite 100 Alexandria, VA 22314 Phone (703) 519-7180 Fax (703) 519-7190 2 MOYNIHAN-2015/01/28 P R O C E E D I N G S (Video played) MR. HESS: After that film, I need no introduction. (Laughter) The film has introduced me to you. I’m Steve Hess. That film, I love that little film. It was produced here at Brookings by our own George Burroughs. And I particularly like Nixon playing “Happy Birthday,” but I wish George had been able to include the next scene, which was Duke Ellington kissing the President French-style on both cheeks, Nixon blushing, et cetera. Now I get to introduce Julie, Julie Hirschfeld Davis. And what interested me, in a sense, was if we had had this event a year ago, when I had written a book called Whatever Happened to the Washington Reporters?, I would be interviewing Julie. In the nature of Washington, today she interviews more or less me. Because Julie -- SPEAKER: (inaudible) MR. HESS: Pardon? You’re working on the sound? I’m up and down. Up and down, up and down. (Laughter) I can talk louder, but I don’t know that that makes any difference.
[Show full text]
Womencorporatedirectors Visionary Awards May 10, 2017
WomenCorporateDirectors Visionary Awards May 10, 2017 WCD WomenCorporateDirectors (WCD) is grateful to the sponsors of the 2017 Visionary Awards GLOBAL INSTITUTE LEAD SPONSOR AND GLOBAL LEAD SPONSOR GLOBAL EXECUTIVE SPONSOR GLOBAL INSTITUTE LEADER SPONSOR GLOBAL INSTITUTE HOST SPONSOR AND GLOBAL INSTITUTE BENEFACTOR AND GLOBAL STRATEGIC SPONSOR STRATEGIC SPONSOR SUPPORTING SPONSOR GLOBAL INSTITUTE SIP AND SHOP HOST GLOBAL INSTITUTE HOST SPONSOR AND SPONSOR STRATEGIC SPONSOR GLOBAL INSTITUTE SUPPORTER GLOBAL INSTITUTE HOST GLOBAL INSTITUTE SUPPORTER GLOBAL INSTITUTE SUPPORTER GLOBAL INSTITUTE SPONSOR GLOBAL INSTITUTE SUPPORTER VISIONARY AWARDS TABLE SPONSORS Arlington Advisory Partners WomenCorporateDirectors Visionary Awards 1 Agenda 6:00 p.m. Reception 7:10 p.m. Welcome Remarks by Kapila Anand WCD Lead Director and Secretary, Director Extended Stay America, Inc., Retired Partner and Senior Advisor, KPMG; WCD Chapter Chair and Lead Director, WCD Foundation, Susan Stautberg, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer WCD Foundation; Co-Author of Women on Board, introduction of Mistress of Ceremonies, Deborah Norville (Executive Producer and Host of “Exposed with Deborah Norville” on Reelz Channel, Anchor of Inside Edition; Board member, Viacom Corporation; Director, Broadcasters Foundation of America) and introduction of Jill Kanin-Lovers (Director, Heidrick & Struggles and Homeownership Preservation Foundation; WCD New York member and Co-Chair Visionary Awards Committee), Mel Lagomasino (Chief Executive Officer & Managing Partner, WE Family Offices; Director, The Walt Disney Company, The Coca-Cola Company, and the Americas Society; WCD South Florida member and Co-Chair Visionary Awards Committee), and Pam Reeve Lead Director, American Tower Corporation; Chairman of the Board Frontier Communications; Chairman of the Board, The Commonwealth Institute; WCD Boston member and Chair Visionary Awards Event.
[Show full text]
Angry Judges
Angry Judges Terry A. Maroney* Abstract Judges get angry. Law, however, is of two minds as to whether they should; more importantly, it is of two minds as to whether judges’ anger should influence their behavior and decision making. On the one hand, anger is the quintessentially judicial emotion. It involves appraisal of wrongdoing, attribution of blame, and assignment of punishment—precisely what we ask of judges. On the other, anger is associated with aggression, impulsivity, and irrationality. Aristotle, through his concept of virtue, proposed reconciling this conflict by asking whether a person is angry at the right people, for the right reasons, and in the right way. Modern affective psychology, for its part, offers empirical tools with which to determine whether and when anger conforms to Aristotelian virtue. This Article weaves these strands together to propose a new model of judicial anger: that of the righteously angry judge. The righteously angry judge is angry for good reasons; experiences and expresses that anger in a well-regulated manner; and uses her anger to motivate and carry out the tasks within her delegated authority. Offering not only the first comprehensive descriptive account of judicial anger but also first theoretical model for how such anger ought to be evaluated, the Article demonstrates how judicial behavior and decision making can benefit by harnessing anger—the most common and potent judicial emotion—in service of righteousness. Introduction................................................................................................................................
[Show full text]
Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges
Trump Judges: Even More Extreme Than Reagan and Bush Judges September 3, 2020 Executive Summary In June, President Donald Trump pledged to release a new short list of potential Supreme Court nominees by September 1, 2020, for his consideration should he be reelected in November. While Trump has not yet released such a list, it likely would include several people he has already picked for powerful lifetime seats on the federal courts of appeals. Trump appointees' records raise alarms about the extremism they would bring to the highest court in the United States – and the people he would put on the appellate bench if he is reelected to a second term. According to People For the American Way’s ongoing research, these judges (including those likely to be on Trump’s short list), have written or joined more than 100 opinions or dissents as of August 31 that are so far to the right that in nearly one out of every four cases we have reviewed, other Republican-appointed judges, including those on Trump’s previous Supreme Court short lists, have disagreed with them.1 Considering that every Republican president since Ronald Reagan has made a considerable effort to pick very conservative judges, the likelihood that Trump could elevate even more of his extreme judicial picks raises serious concerns. On issues including reproductive rights, voting rights, police violence, gun safety, consumer rights against corporations, and the environment, Trump judges have consistently sided with right-wing special interests over the American people – even measured against other Republican-appointed judges. Many of these cases concern majority rulings issued or joined by Trump judges.
[Show full text]
Dark Knight's War on Terrorism
The Dark Knight's War on Terrorism John Ip* I. INTRODUCTION Terrorism and counterterrorism have long been staple subjects of Hollywood films. This trend has only become more pronounced since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the resulting increase in public concern and interest about these subjects.! In a short period of time, Hollywood action films and thrillers have come to reflect the cultural zeitgeist of the war on terrorism. 2 This essay discusses one of those films, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight,3 as an allegorical story about post-9/11 counterterrorism. Being an allegory, the film is considerably subtler than legendary comic book creator Frank Miller's proposed story about Batman defending Gotham City from terrorist attacks by al Qaeda.4 Nevertheless, the parallels between the film's depiction of counterterrorism and the war on terrorism are unmistakable. While a blockbuster film is not the most obvious starting point for a discussion about the war on terrorism, it is nonetheless instructive to see what The Dark Knight, a piece of popular culture, has to say about law and justice in the context of post-9/11 terrorism and counterterrorism.5 Indeed, as scholars of law and popular culture such as Lawrence Friedman have argued, popular culture has something to tell us about society's norms: "In society, there are general ideas about right and wrong, about good and bad; these are templates out of which legal norms are cut, and they are also ingredients from which song- and script-writers craft their themes and plots."6 Faculty of Law, University of Auckland.
[Show full text]
An Empirical Study of the Ideologies of Judges on the Unites States
JUDGED BY THE COMPANY YOU KEEP: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OF THE IDEOLOGIES OF JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Corey Rayburn Yung* Abstract: Although there has been an explosion of empirical legal schol- arship about the federal judiciary, with a particular focus on judicial ide- ology, the question remains: how do we know what the ideology of a judge actually is? For federal courts below the U.S. Supreme Court, legal aca- demics and political scientists have offered only crude proxies to identify the ideologies of judges. This Article attempts to cure this deficiency in empirical research about the federal courts by introducing a new tech- nique for measuring the ideology of judges based upon judicial behavior in the U.S. courts of appeals. This study measures ideology, not by subjec- tively coding the ideological direction of case outcomes, but by determin- ing the degree to which federal appellate judges agree and disagree with their liberal and conservative colleagues at both the appellate and district court levels. Further, through regression analysis, several important find- ings related to the Ideology Scores emerge. First, the Ideology Scores in this Article offer substantial improvements in predicting civil rights case outcomes over the leading measures of ideology. Second, there were very different levels and heterogeneity of ideology among the judges on the studied circuits. Third, the data did not support the conventional wisdom that Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush appointed uniquely ideological judges. Fourth, in general judges appointed by Republican presidents were more ideological than those appointed by Democratic presidents.
[Show full text]
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report
The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies 2009 Annual Report “The Courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise will instead of JUDGMENT, the consequences would be the substitution of their pleasure for that of the legislative body.” The Federalist 78 THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY aw schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a L form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law. The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be. The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, law students and professors. In working to achieve these goals, the Society has created a conservative intellectual network that extends to all levels of the legal community.
[Show full text]
The Judiciary and the Academy: a Fraught Relationship
THE JUDICIARY AND THE ACADEMY: A FRAUGHT RELATIONSHIP RICHARD A. POSNER* I have been a federal court of appeals judge since 1981, and before that I had been a full-time law professor since 1968. And since becoming a judge I have continued to teach part time and do academic research and writing. The United States is unusual if not quite unique in the porousness of the membranes that separate the different branches of the legal profession. The judiciary both federal and state is a lateral-entry institution rather than a conventional civil service; and unlike the British system (though that system is loosening up and becoming more like the U.S. system), in which the judges are drawn from a narrow, homogeneous slice of the legal profession – namely, senior barristers – American judges are drawn from all the different branches of the profession, including the academic. Among appellate judges who came to the bench from academia are Oliver Wendell Holmes (although he had joined the Harvard Law School faculty only months before being appointed to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, he had been doing academic writing for many years), Harlan Fiske Stone, William O. Douglas, Felix Frankfurter, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer (U.S. Supreme Court); Calvert Magruder, Charles Clark, Jerome Frank, Joseph Sneed, Harry Edwards, Robert Bork, Ralph Winter, Frank Easterbrook, Stephen Williams, J. Harvie Wilkinson, John Noonan, Douglas Ginsburg, S. Jay Plager, Kenneth Ripple, Guido Calabresi, Michael McConnell, William Fletcher, and Diane Wood (U.S. courts of appeals); and Roger Traynor, Hans Linde, Benjamin Kaplan, Robert Braucher, Ellen Peters, and Charles Fried (state supreme courts).
[Show full text]
Saving the Federal Circuit
SAVING THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Paul R. Gugliuzza* INTRODUCTION Is it time to abolish the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases? In the thought-provoking speech at the center of this symposium, Judge Diane Wood says yes.1 The Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction, she argues, provides too much legal uniformity, which harms the patent system.2 But rather than eliminating the court altogether, Judge Wood proposes to save the Federal Circuit by letting appellants in patent cases choose the forum, allowing them to appeal either to the Federal Circuit or to the regional circuit encompassing the district court.3 Judge Wood is in good company arguing that the Federal Circuit’s exclusive jurisdiction should be eliminated. In their pioneering article, Rethinking Patent Law’s Uniformity Principle, Professors Craig Nard and John Duffy proposed to replace the court’s exclusive jurisdiction with a model of “polycentric decision making” under which two or three courts would hear patent appeals, permitting inter-court dialogue and enhancing the possibility for self-correction.4 Judge Wood’s colleague on the Seventh Circuit, Judge Richard Posner, also has recently said that he “[doesn’t] think the Federal Circuit has * Copyright © 2014 Paul R. Gugliuzza. Associate Professor, Boston University School of Law. For comments, thanks to Jonas Anderson, Jack Beermann, Jonathan Darrow, Stacey Dogan, Wendy Gordon, Tim Holbrook, Megan La Belle, Mark Lemley, Mike Meurer, Michael Morley, Rachel Rebouché, David Schwartz, David Walker, and students and faculty at the Boston University School of Law IP Workshop. Thanks also to the Chicago-Kent Journal of Intellectual Property for the opportunity to respond to Judge Wood’s remarks.
[Show full text]
Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals
Florida State University Law Review Volume 32 Issue 4 Article 14 2005 Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals Michael E. Solimine [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. (2006) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol32/iss4/14 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW JUDICAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS Michael E. Solimine VOLUME 32 SUMMER 2005 NUMBER 4 Recommended citation: Michael E. Solimine, Judical Stratification and the Reputations of the United States Courts of Appeals, 32 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 1331 (2005). JUDICIAL STRATIFICATION AND THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS MICHAEL E. SOLIMINE* I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 1331 II. MEASURING JUDICIAL REPUTATION, PRESTIGE, AND INFLUENCE: INDIVIDUAL JUDGES AND MULTIMEMBER COURTS ............................................................... 1333 III. MEASURING THE REPUTATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS . 1339 IV. THE RISE AND FALL OF
[Show full text]