Home ›

Judicial Confirmation Network

Printer-friendly version Send to friend

Judicial Confirmation Network

The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) was created just as the debate in the Senate over Republican leaders' plans to eliminate the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations was reaching its apex. JCN was also active in the right-wing campaign to confirm Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.

PFAW
Filed under:

The Rebirth of the Judicial Confirmation Network

Submitted by Kyle on February 11, 2010 - 10:42am

Last year, I wrote a series of posts noting that with the election of Barack Obama, the right-wing Judicial Confirmation Network, which was formed specifically to help President Bush's judicial nominees get confirmed, would probably have to change it name as well as it's mission to "support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States [and] ensure that the confirmation process for all judicial nominees is fair and that every nominee sent to the full Senate receives an up or down vote."

Well, guess what?  The Judicial Confirmation Network is henceforth to be known as the Judicial Crisis Network, as JCN explains in this email it just sent out (and posted here):

Just over a year into the new Administration and it has become abundantly clear that defenders of liberty and justice in America have an enormous task at hand. In fact, we face a crisis potentially more threatening than even the current economic crisis.

Friends and supporters of the Judicial Confirmation Network – which led the fight to confirm only highly qualified individuals to the U.S. Supreme Court - have urged the organization to broaden its mission to confront the radical legal and legislative threats facing the country.

We have chosen to accept this new challenge. We hope you'll join us in this effort by considering a contribution of even $25, $50 or $75. It will go a long way towards our efforts to address the crisis facing our nation.

To reflect this new mission we have changed our name to the Judicial Crisis Network and adopted the following new mission statement:

The Judicial Crisis Network is dedicated to strengthening liberty and justice in America.

Our commitment is to the Constitution and the Founders’ vision of a nation of limited government; dedicated to the rule of law; with a fair and impartial judiciary. Every American deserves equal justice under law.

Our operational mission is to promote this vision at every level and branch of government – and to educate and organize citizens to participate in this mission.

We support efforts to ensure only highly qualified individuals who share this vision comprise our state and federal courts and staff executive branch offices that administer and enforce the law.

We support legislative and legal efforts which oppose attempts to undermine the rule of law; unconstitutionally expand the power of government; politicize the enforcement of the law; threaten American sovereignty; supplant American law with foreign or international law; or bias the legal system on behalf of politically favored groups or individuals.

I knew that screecap I took of their old homepage last year would someday come in handy:

The Legal Times' Tony Mauro adds more:

As part of its ramped-up presence, Marx said the group is moving its offices from Manassas, Va. to 2nd Street N.E., directly behind the Supreme Court and a few doors down from Jay Sekulow's American Center for Law and Justice. Announcement of staff changes and expansion will come soon, Marx said.

PFAW
Filed under:

Sotomayor's Confirmation: A Victory for the Right?

Submitted by Kyle on August 6, 2009 - 1:44pm

Now that Sonia Sotomayor has been confirmed by a vote of 68 to 31, it's never too early for the right-wing groups that vehemently opposed her nomination to start claiming victory:

The final vote was “a triumph of party unity over some of the interest group politics that you would have expected to play a bigger role,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative Committee for Justice, which opposed Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation.

But that is nothing compared to the spin contained in this lengthy memo that the Judicial Confirmation Network released before the final vote was even taken, proclaiming its opposition campaign a monumental success by making Sotomayor the "most unpopular confirmed Supreme Court nominee ever," "refuting the liberal judicial activist philosophy of the President," and, most importantly, frustrating liberal left activists:

Although Judge Sotomayor was confirmed, it was not a resounding victory for the liberal view of the Court: in fact, just the opposite. Because she failed to uphold the liberal view of the Constitution and judging, she has made it more difficult for future Obama nominees who would attempt to be more intellectually consistent and honest. President Obama, the darling of the liberal left, failed – when he had the greatest capital to spend on a nomination of his choosing – to put a powerful and unabashed liberal lion, in the mold of Justice William Brennan, on the Court.

This has unnerved the liberal left and put President Obama into a box. Judicial restraint has won, and judicial activism has lost. Some who voted for Judge Sotomayor, such as Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), specifically did so because he concluded she was “not an activist.” Although Sen. Nelson plainly made an analytical mistake, at least he had the right goal in view. Accordingly, future nominations promise to focus on the nominee’s actual adherence to the practice of judicial restraint. And future liberal activist nominees who have not penned the inexplicable, analysis-free opinions that Judge Sotomayor generated in important cases may find their records harder to hide from.

31 “no” votes in the U.S. Senate.

It’s remarkable, and a real show of strength for proponents of judicial restraint, that the negative vote on this nomination was so high. The “historic” nomination of the first Hispanic nominee to the Court, made by the purportedly “post-partisan” President Obama, who at the time enjoyed high personal popularity and was still in his post-inaugural honeymoon, with a commanding 60-vote supermajority of Democratic votes in the Senate, could not muster even close to the 78 “yes” votes that Chief Justice John Roberts received. The 31 votes against Judge Sotomayor are the highest “no” vote on any Supreme Court nominee picked by a Democratic president since 1894.

And this record opposition to a Democratic nominee occurred on a straight up-or-down vote, following a nomination process that Judge Sotomayor herself said was fair and respectful; Republican Senators never stooped to the common Democratic tactics of personal attacks and obstruction. They asked tough questions, reflected thoughtfully, and discharged their constitutional job of “advice and consent” promptly.

So, despite the Right's relentless attack campaign, Sotomayor was confirmed by a 2 to 1 margin and will now take her place on the Supreme Court?

Well then, by all means, congratulations on your resounding victory, JCN.

UPDATE: The Committee for Justice has released its own equally delusional statement:

“The engagement of the Second Amendment community will long be remembered as the most significant aspect of this confirmation battle. Although the NRA’s decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor and score her confirmation vote got the most attention, the grassroots mobilization of gun owners from the bottom up is probably the biggest story. As a result, gun rights emerged as the most influential issue in this and probably future Supreme Court confirmation battles.

“By adding a large and influential constituency to the coalition opposing the nomination of judicial activists, the Second Amendment issue has forever changed the political dynamics of the judicial confirmation process.

...

“Republican senators should be proud not only of their votes today, but also of the tough but fair questions they asked Sotomayor during her hearings and of the powerful floor statements they made in opposing her. As a result, Americans got the teaching moment they deserved. For the first time since the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, the confirmation battle saw a serious debate about judicial philosophy and the proper role of judges, rather than just an argument about case outcomes.

...

"[T]he living Constitution is now dead as a defensible judicial philosophy outside academia. There is no doubt that judicial activism will live on surreptitiously in the courts, but it is doubtful we will ever again see a Supreme Court nominee who has openly espoused it, no less one willing to defend it during his or her confirmation hearings.

“Finally, it has been a bad summer for the purveyors of identity politics. Not only was the President forced to beat a hasty retreat from his old-school, victim-based take on last month’s incident in Cambridge, but his Supreme Court nominee denied any knowledge of the race-base theories of judging she and other liberals have long championed. Meanwhile, Democrats failed miserably in their attempt to convince Republican senators that they opposed a Hispanic nominee at their ‘own peril’ (quoting Sen. Schumer). Polls showing that Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites shared the same unimpressive levels of support for Sotomayor generally, as well as the same levels of specific concern about her Second Amendment record, dealt a further blow to identity politics. Those of us who believe that racial favoritism has no place in law or politics should celebrate.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Before A Single Question Has Been Asked, JCN Renders Its Verdict

Submitted by Kyle on July 13, 2009 - 3:11pm

The first day of Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing is now complete.  The day was dedicated to opening statements from all sides and no questions were asked ... but that doesn't matter to the Judicial Confirmation Network, which declares that "the verdict on [her nomination] is 'no'" without even bothering to wait to hear her answers:

We have seen enough to conclude that nothing that Judge Sotomayor or her liberal backers say in her hearings this week can alter the significant record before us, and accordingly, we are today asking Senators to vote “no” on her nomination. Far more relevant than whatever she says this week, as a result of White House coaching, is what she has said and done in the past. In short, past performance is indicative of future results. Her record of decisions and statements is a far better predictor of what she would do in the future as a Supreme Court Justice than any self-serving testimony she may offer this week ... Senators will begin to focus on the details of her record in the next few weeks. We do not want them to mistakenly conclude that what she says during this week’s Judiciary Committee hearings can outweigh what she has done and said over the past 30 years. The verdict on Sonia Sotomayor should be “no.”

The JCN actually released this statement before Sotomayor had even delivered her opening statement.  It's quite a contrast to what they were saying back around the time of John Roberts' confirmation hearing, when they were attacking "extremist liberals" for "politicizing" the hearings and demanding "fair and respectful hearings":

"This selection also underscores the President's commitment to making sure the Supreme Court is fully staffed to do the nation's judicial business as soon as possible. This will be a real test for extreme liberal partisans: will they put down their ideological attack weapons and allow the confirmation process to move forward smoothly and swiftly, both for Judge Roberts and for the second nominee the President will soon name? In the spirit of serving our country's best interests, as Chief Justice Rehnquist did selflessly for 33 years, they certainly should. This would be the best way to pay homage to the late Chief, who as a public servant kept the Court open and showed up for work even in blizzards that shut down much of Washington D.C., and who worked hard even when he was in physical pain. The Senate should likewise work hard to do its job of completing fair and respectful hearings on the President's nominees as quickly and efficiently as possible."

PFAW
Filed under:

The Right Readies for Sotomayor

Submitted by Kyle on July 13, 2009 - 9:04am

With Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing getting underway, the Right readies its attacks.

Manuel Miranda says "the Sotomayor hearings are a spotlight on the president who nominated her, and if the Republicans don't use it that way they are fools."

Yesterday, the Christian Defense Coalition held a prayer vigil outside the Supreme Court  while Randall Terry is planning more protests:

On Monday, a Sotomayor look alike will parade around with a "Sickle of Death," showing Sotomayor's support of the slaughter of unborn children. There will also be child coffins holding "dead babies."

Randall Terry States:

"We are tired of Senators using unborn babies to seduce pro-lifers before elections - taking pro-lifers' volunteer labor, money, and votes - only to cast us and the babies aside like an embarrassing mistress after an election. It is disgusting.

"Any pro-life Senator who votes for Sotomayor is turning their back on unborn children and continuing this holocaust. They can't say, 'I want to overturn Roe,' and then confirm a Supreme Court Judge who will uphold Roe. To do so is hypocrisy, cowardice, and treachery of the first order.

Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network lists some questions she want to see asked:

Does Judge Sotomayor believe the abortion industry should be excused from having to prove its case in court when it sues to strike down a duly-enacted abortion regulation?

Does she believe medical records are relevant and admissible as a general matter but not if they involve abortion?

Does Sotomayor have such great faith in abortion providers that she is willing to accept their verbal claims as fact and impose them as a matter of law?

The American Center for Law and Justice likewise wants to see "tough questions" asked:

“The Senate must fulfill its constitutional role in providing advice and consent and that means asking the tough, in-depth questions about Judge Sotomayor’s view of the Constitution and her judicial philosophy,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ. “What does Judge Sotomayor believe is the proper role of judges? How does she view her role as a judge? These are important questions that deserve straight-forward answers. A Supreme Court appointment is the lasting legacy of a President. And, as President Obama moves to reshape the federal judiciary, it’s critical that the American people understand the judicial philosophy and temperament of Judge Sotomayor. Let’s not forget the scope and intensity of questions posed to President Bush’s Supreme Court nominees – John Roberts and Samuel Alito. The questioning of Judge Sotomayor must be direct, focused and in-depth. The nominee must answer the questions clearly and without reservation. The American people deserve nothing less.”

Concerned Women for America is sending a letter to Senators asking them to oppose her nomination:

CWALAC President Wendy Wright said, "Sonia Sotomayor has lived the American dream. Rising from a poor childhood to being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor is a testimony to the opportunities and blessings of America. But as we investigate her record, we are struck by her unwillingness to allow others to have the same opportunities as she has had. Her record reveals she lacks the primary characteristic required of a judge: impartiality. She has used her position as a judge to deny equal opportunity to people based on their ethnicity. She worked with organizations that aggressively fought against basic human rights for preborn children and ethical rights to ensure women and girls are not coerced into abortion. After giving her the benefit of the doubt, her record of giving preferences to certain classes of people and denying equal justice to others obliges Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee to oppose her nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. We urge senators to vote against her nomination.

The Traditional Values Coalition has released a "scorecard" containing "16 questions Americans must demand U.S. Senators ask Judge Sonia Sotomayor before approving her lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land."  The questions include [PDF]:

How can we expect her to rule impartially on the law and the Constitution when she considers herself a world citizen – and openly supports Obama’s political agenda? She has violated the code of conduct for judges and should be disqualified.

Does Judge Sotomayor still believe in the superiority of female Hispanic justices over justices of other races and sex?

Why did race disqualify Miguel Estrada from receiving Senate approval, but not Sonia Sotomayor?

Will Judge Sotomayor refrain from abusing her new power on the Supreme Court to bring about radical change in American society?

Finally, the Committee for Justice claims that Sotomayor is as unpopular as was Harriet Miers and unveils two ads calling for her defeat, with one contrasting her to Martin Luther King and another claiming she wants to "take away your guns":

PFAW
Filed under:

JCN's State-Based Anti-Sotomayor Strategy

Submitted by Kyle on June 12, 2009 - 2:29pm

Last week we noticed that the Judicial Confirmation Network had unviled a state-level operation in Arkansas seeking to fight Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court.

State-level organizations are obviously going to play a key part in the JCN's anti-Sotomayor campaign as, in the last few days, two new ones have popped up, including one in North Dakota:

With the recent nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, the North Dakota Judicial Confirmation Network is proud to announce their 2009 Steering Committee.

The group will be chaired by Rep. Rick Berg, and will include Rep. Kathy Hawken, Sen. Joe Miller, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Rep. Duane, Rep. Chuck Damschen, Bismarck Attorney Robert Harms, Rep. Blair Thoreson, and Fargo City Commissioner Dave Piepkorn. The group will continue to add steering committee members throughout the summer.

Reps Berg and Thoreson also served on the North Dakota Judicial Confirmation Network’s 2005 effort. In 2005, Senators Dorgan and Conrad both voted to confirm Justice John Roberts. Senator Conrad also voted to confirm Justice Alito.

“Our goal is to advocate for a responsible and thorough vetting process for Judge Sotomayor—and part of that means ensuring that this process is not rushed. After all, this is a lifetime appointment,” said Rep. Hawken.

The North Dakota Judicial Confirmation Network is affiliated with the national Judicial Confirmation Network—an organization of citizens joined together to support the confirmation of highly qualified individuals to the Supreme Court of the United States. JCN supports judges who interpret the Constitution, and opposes activist judges who legislate from the bench.

A similar group has also be set up in Colorado, and though this article doesn't explicitly mention its ties to the JCN, the fact that I found the article featured at the top of the JCN's website suggests that this is also part of its efforts:

A conservative coalition has formed in Colorado to oppose President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the New York judge is a judicial activist who puts her "personal political agenda" above the rule of law.

"Sonia Sotomayor's statement that a 'wise Latina woman' would generally make better decisions because of 'the richness of her experiences' than a white male reveals the extent to which political and personal agendas have supplanted the rule of law in selecting nominees," former State Treasurer Mark Hillman said in a press release announcing the coalition. "Rule of law requires that laws be written, accessible, understandable and uniformly applied."

Jim Pfaff, coordinator of the state anti-Sotomayor campaign, said it would lobby the Coloradans whose opinions of Sotomayor matter most: U.S. Sens. Mark Udall and Michael Bennet, who will vote on her confirmation. Bennet told the Associated Press Tuesday that he will support her. A spokeswoman for Udall said Tuesday that "he thinks she's impressive" but has not made up his mind.

Other organizers of the Colorado anti-Sotomayor effort include John Andrews, former president of the state Senate; Jon Caldara, president of the Independence Institute, a conservative Colorado think tank; and Jeff Crank, state director of Americans for Prosperity.

Obviously, the JCN considers the Senators in Arkansas, Colorado, and North Dakota to be key targets for their anti-Sotomayor efforts.

PFAW
Filed under:

JCN Takes Sotomayor Fight to the States

Submitted by Kyle on June 5, 2009 - 10:12am

It looks like the Judicial Confirmation Network is taking its battle against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the state level by teaming up with local activists and state-affiliates of national right-wing groups:

Grassroots Coalition Formed to Mobilize for SCOTUS Hearings

Little Rock -- On Thursday (June 4, 2008), key organizations from around Arkansas announced the formation of a “center-right” coalition, the Arkansas Judicial Network, in preparation for the nomination hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

The initial coalition will consist of the following individuals and/or organizations:

· Anne Britton – NRA National Volunteer of the Year (2000)
· Jerry Cox – President, Arkansas Family Council
· Betsy Hagan – Chairman, Arkansas Chapter of Eagle Forum
· Doyle Webb -- Chairman, Republican Party of Arkansas
· Brian Vandiver – Attorney and Chairman of the Arkansas Federalist Society
· Cory Cox -- Attorney and former Chairman of the Arkansas Federalist Society
· David Fort – Small Business Owner and Chairman, Arkansas Federation of Young Republicans

This Arkansas Judicial Coalition will partner with the Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN), (www.judicialnetwork.com) to ensure that Arkansans understand the judicial philosophy of Barack Obama’s appointee to the United States Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Let's see, this new groups consists of members of the Federalist Society and the Eagle Forum, NRA volunteers, and the head of a state's Focus on the Family affiliate who took the lead last year in preventing gays and lesbians from being able to adopt children.

Where exactly are those representing the "center" in this "center-right coalition"?

PFAW
Filed under:

Manuel Miranda Makes Republican Enemies

Submitted by Kyle on June 2, 2009 - 8:29am

Yesterday we noted that Manuel Miranda and his Third Branch Conference (formerly known as the National Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters) had returned and sent a letter to Republican Senators demanding that they carry out a "traditional filibuster" against Sonia Sotomayor.

Though the letter was signed by more than a hundred right-wing leaders and activists, Miranda is and always has been the leader of these efforts ... and now he's taking his demands one step further:

[I]n an interview with POLITICO, Manuel Miranda – who orchestrated the letter – went much farther, saying that Mitch McConnell should “consider resigning” as Senate minority leader if he can’t take a harder line on President Barack Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.

Miranda accused McConnell of being “limp-wristed” and “a little bit tone deaf” when it comes to judicial nominees.

"Limp-wristed" seems to be Miranda's insult of choice when it comes to sitting US Senators, because it is the same term he used in attacking Sen. Orrin Hatch several years ago when Hatch refused to defend Miranda when he was forced to resign from his positon on the Hill when it was learned that he had improperly obtained hundreds of internal Democratic memos:

I do admit that reading Democrats' documents on an unprotected server to help defend the president's embattled nominees was political hardball, and I have learned that one shouldn't play hardball with a limp-wristed team captain. 

It seems as if Miranda is not only calling out leading Senators like McConnell, but other right-wing judicial groups as well:

Miranda also declined to ask the Judicial Confirmation Network, one of the leading conservative judicial groups, to sign on to his letter, calling the group “an arm of [Republican] leadership” in the Senate.

Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network said the group is not affiliated with the leadership and said she didn’t “really understand” the comment.

Now, we'll agree that the JCN is essentially an arm of the Senate Republicans, but they have also been among the most vocal critics of President Obama's judicial nominees David Hamilton and Sonia Sotomayor.  They've also led the charge against several of his Department of Justice nominees, including Dawn Johnsen David Ogden, and Elena Kagan.

While we obviously have fundamental disagreements with the Judicial Confirmation Network, nobody can deny that they have been leading the right-wing opposition to President Obama on these issues and have a far greater impact than does Miranda and his gaggle of letter-signers.  

And it seems as if Miranda's superiority complex is, not surprisingly, starting to alienate people:

Miranda, now the chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference, served as counsel to McConnell’s predecessor, then-Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist. He left that job in 2004 amid allegations that he improperly accessed thousands of memos and emails from Democratic staffers – circumstances McConnell’s supporters recalled as they pushed back hard against Miranda’s arguments Monday.

“It’s unfortunate that one disgraced former employee of previous Senate leadership has decided to air out his grievances rather than join the conservative effort to examine Judge Sotomayor’s record,” said a senior GOP Senate aide. “Not only did this guy steal the Democrats’ playbook, he seems to be implementing it.”

PFAW
Filed under:

Maybe the JCN Should Hire Some Researchers

Submitted by Kyle on May 29, 2009 - 3:57pm

Yesterday, the Judicial Confirmation Network's Wendy Long demanded that the White House release the full video of Sonia Sotomayor's remarks in which she stated that the "court of appeals is where policy is made":

"An important controversy and debate continues to brew over Judge Sotomayor's comments at Duke University in which she said that appellate courts "make policy," and in her published words tucked away in law review articles ... [W]e are calling on White House Press Secretary Gibbs to post the Duke University video on The White House web site and let the American people judge her comments.

I ignored this at the time because it was an blatant attempt to generate controversy where none exists, with JCN insinuating that the White House was somehow trying to hide the complete video from the public.

Of course, it's not and Media Matters posted a link to it several days ago (you can get the webcast here) and a more complete transcript of her remarks, which makes it clear that Sotomayor was making a distinct and utterly non-controversial point about the difference between the roles of district and circuit courts:

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.

If JCN had bothered to do any basic research, they would have known about this webcast days before they issued their demand to the White House ... and White House spokesman Robert Gibbs would have been saved from this inane exchange with a reporter during yesterday's press briefing:

Q Given what you said about keeping Judge Sotomayor's previous remarks in context ... For example, the YouTube video of her remarks at Duke and the speech at Berkeley -- has the White House considered releasing those full YouTube videos to urge people to watch them in context, for example, on whitehouse.gov, or transcripts as Judicial Confirmation Network is challenging you to do?

MR. GIBBS: Go to Google, type in a couple of key words, hit enter, it pops up.

Q We could also get, let's say, this briefing on video by doing that, but you guys post it on the White House YouTube --

MR. GIBBS: But I think the implication in your question, and I think the implication in the interest group making this, is that somehow these are some top-secret documents that are contained in some undisclosed location in or around the grounds of the White House. If you go to newyorktimes.com, and you're a moderately good Googler like my five-and-three-quarter-year-old son, I have a sense that you and the interest group can find exactly what it is that they're desirous to see.

Q And is that what you're encouraging the American people to go look at it in context --

MR. GIBBS: Sure. Once the vault gets dug up from the front yard -- this I think is symptomatic of exactly the type of game that you have already seen and that you're likely to see. If somebody can find it on YouTube, if somebody -- I don't doubt that -- they produced a commercial, if I'm not unfamiliar with this, that has some of this stuff in there.

Did we somehow give them the secret document in order for them to make the Internet commercial, so that they can then put out a press release asking us to release the secret document that they used to make the commercial" This is the sort of semantical dance that professional interest groups play that pop up like dandelions after a spring rainstorm when there's a confirmation upcoming. Again, I think somebody with a dial-up Internet account can find said secret documents.

Gibbs is right - both of Sotomayor's remarks at Duke and her speech at Berkley are readily available to anyone willing to spend a few minutes searching for them. 

Perhaps people like Long and organizations like the Judicial Confirmation Network should spend a bit more time doing some basic research about Sotomayor instead of filling the airwaves and newspapers with their knee-jerk opposition.

PFAW
Filed under:

Sotomayor: Right Wing News

Submitted by Kyle on May 29, 2009 - 11:17am

Over the last few days, we posted two new Right Wing Watch In Focus pieces analyzing the Right's response to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

A Justice For All: Themes from the Right -- Nomination Day

Right-wing political and legal groups and pundits responded to President Barack Obama’s nomination of federal appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court by cranking up their well-funded attack machine, following their pre-fab attack script (they have been attacking her for months as a potential nominee), launching ads against her confirmation, and threatening to use the nomination as a political bludgeon against Democrats from more conservative states.

A Justice For All: Themes from the Right -- Day 2

The second day of right-wing attacks on Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor continued many of the themes of the first day’s attacks, mostly distortions of her judicial record and public remarks and distortions of President Obama’s desire for judges who exhibit empathy. National Review published a wave of anti-Sotomayor commentary on its website. (Some of this information may have been distributed on Day 1 but didn’t make our initial analysis.)

We are also going to start regularly posting some of the raw material we use in these RWWIF analysis pieces on the blog, as well.  Here is the news from yesterday:

Committee for Justice

Using Sotomayor to Define Obama

The Democrats have the numbers to make a Sotomayor confirmation all but inevitable, but Ed Morrissey picks up on another opportunity that her nomination affords the GOP.

“They have an opportunity to use the hearings to show Sotomayor as a routine appellate jurist with a spotty record who got elevated to this position as an act of political hackery by a President who couldn’t care less about his responsibilities to find the best and brightest for the job.”

Like many of Obama’s other appointments, it demonstrates a lack of executive talent and intellectual curiosity on his part. This appointment makes an argument for more Republicans in the Senate after the midterms, if for no other reason than to force Obama to start putting a little effort in making his nominations."

Bloomberg - Sotomayor Took Cautious Approach in Cases on Race, Gun Rights

Her detractors say Sotomayor, 54, was trying to divert attention from the cases, hoping to prevent Supreme Court review and possibly enhance her resume for a promotion.

“It makes me wonder whether she’s just cautions by nature or whether she was already thinking about being appointed to a higher court,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice in Washington and a critic of the Sotomayor nomination. He said Sotomayor might have been “covering her tracks” by limiting the scope and prominence of the opinions.

The Washington Post - Battle over Obama’s nominee begins

Curt Levey, executive director of the conservative legal group Committee for Justice, said her judicial record would probably not be enough to stop Sotomayor's confirmation, given the Democratic dominance in the Senate, but her speeches are another matter.

"The best predictor of whether a controversial nominee can be stopped is whether the case against her is based on more than just her legal analysis," he said.

Although Levey acknowledged that his description of Sotomayor as a "wild-eyed judicial activist" would be hard to extract from her record on the bench, he said "her words are the best indication" of how she would see her role as a justice.

The New York Times - Obama Hails Judge as ‘Inspiring’

Other conservatives said they would focus on her ruling in a New Haven affirmative action case or on how she might rule on same-sex marriage.

“Abortion is in some sense a stale issue that has been fought over many times, but gay marriage is very much up for grabs,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, a legal group. “Gay marriage will be bigger than abortion.”

Judicial Confirmation Network

Wendy Long Calls on Obama Administration to Provide Transparency via YouTube

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' comments yesterday that "We can all move past YouTube snippets and half sentences and actually look at the honest-to-God record" raise an important question for Mr. Gibbs. The Duke University comments by Judge Sotomayor are quite clear and unequivocal. Is Mr. Gibbs suggesting that Judge Sotomayor was lying in the tape or that she really didn't mean it?

President Obama promised the American people a transparent presidency. In that spirit, we are calling on White House Press Secretary Gibbs to post the Duke University video on The White House web site and let the American people judge her comments.

JCN has also launched a website campaigning against Sotomayor, it can be found here.

The Durango Herald - Sonia Sotomayor, Nominee has intriguing history, solid qualifications

Recognizing that personal history is at least a factor - if not a significant one - in judicial decision-making is an important step, and one that Sotomayor has taken.

She has already been criticized for it. Wendy Long, a spokeswoman for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, said Sotomayor's background will trump fairness. "Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the way of basic fairness," Long said.

Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

Human Events.com - Republicans Withhold Full Judgment on Sotomayor

Conservative grassroots groups began to weigh in on the Sotomayor nomination immediately yesterday, among them the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, a group of over 350 organizations working together during the confirmation process in support of most of President George W. Bush’s nominees, Harriet Myers being the exception.

“Although Justice dons a blindfold when weighing the scales of justice, Sotomayor admits that she lifts that blindfold so as to peek at her own complexion and the skin color of the parties before her,” said Kay Daly, President of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary.

“That might explain why she held it was constitutional for white firefighters to be denied promotion based on their skin color. Sotomayor's own words should be her nomination's undoing.”

Gary Bauer

OneNewsNow - Sotomayor-discriminatory and unqualified?

Gary Bauer is chairman of American Values. He says while the American people should celebrate Sotomayor's story of overcoming poverty after growing up in New York City's South Bronx, it is not a reason to select her as a justice for the nation's highest court.

"Unfortunately, when you do look at the reasons for putting somebody on the Supreme Court, their judicial philosophy -- whether they respect the rule of law, whether they'll be impartial or not -- she fails on those criteria, so I'm disturbed by the selection," he notes.

“She is somebody who believes in reverse discrimination,” he contends. “We have evidence that she thinks it's okay to discriminate against white Americans because she's inclined toward believing in quotas.”

Pat Robertson

Newsmax - Pat Robertson: Sotomayor Nomination an ‘Outrage’

Robertson cited Sotomayor’s views on judicial activism as he criticized her nomination during an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity Tuesday.

“I think Obama has reached out to one of the most left-wing judges that there is in the United States,” Robertson said. “I think it's an outrage.”

Richard Land

Christian Post - Justice Sotomayor? – More for Some, Less for Others?

“Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason: she’s supposed to be impartial, not empathic. Empathy belongs in the legislature and the executive branch, and not in the judicial branch. Sotomayor is a living, breathing example of making the law subjective and relative, rather than objective and impartial.”

Family Research Council

Hill Blog Question of the Day: Will Sotomayor face serious opposition?

I hear all over the place that Ms. Sotomayor has a “compelling story” that makes her more in tune with her feelings. With all due respect to the popular daytime television queen, a judge needs to be more like John Roberts and not Oprah Winfrey.

That is why this process can not be rushed and why the role of the Senate Judiciary Committee is so important in properly vetting any nominee to ensure that the nominee has the requisite competence, temperament, character, knowledge of the law, and experience to make a good jurist.

LA Times - GOP looks for alternate route to block Sotomayor’s path

Conservative critics are already spotlighting a ruling by the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, including Sotomayor, that found that the 2nd Amendment's protection of citizens' gun rights did not apply to state or local regulations.

"These senators will jeopardize their seats if they vote to support an anti-gun radical for the Supreme Court," said Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the conservative Family Research Council.

USA Today - Supreme Court pick Sotomayor faces nomination politics

For now, though, it shows Obama has united liberals behind his pick and left conservatives scouring her record for ammunition.

"How aggressive the effort is depends on whether more comes to light," said Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Research Council. "This is still kind of in the discovery process."

Many of Sotomayor's potential opponents, ranging from groups opposing abortion rights to those backing gun rights, have not committed to an aggressive campaign against her.

PFAW
Filed under:
Syndicate content