After Four-Day Hearing, Sotomayor Picks up Support

Republican senators are beginning to announce whether they will vote for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, and so far the nominee is two-for-three.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said today that he will oppose confirmation, signaling that a majority of the 40-member Republican caucus is likely to do the same. A statement from McConnell's office said he will outline the reasons behind his opposition in a speech on the Senate floor Monday.

Two other Republicans said they plan to vote in favor of confirmation.

"Judge Sotomayor is knowledgeable of the law, would be a fair and impartial judge, and seems to have a good understanding of the limited role the judiciary plays in our democracy," Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) said in a statement. "Judge Sotomayor’s rise to the Supreme Court is testimony to the fact that the American dream continues to be attainable. As an Hispanic American, I take great pride in Judge Sotomayor’s historic achievement."

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) said he came to his decision after listening to Sotomayor's testimony this week and talking with constituents and other senators.

"Judge Sotomayor is clearly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court and she has demonstrated a judicial temperament during her week-long nomination hearing," Lugar said in a statement. "Judge Sotomayor has had a distinguished career of public service. She is well regarded in the legal community and by her peers."

A vote on Sotomayor's nomination is likely in the Senate Judiciary Committee before the end of the month, and in the full Senate before senators leave Aug. 7 for a month-long recess.

UPDATE (2:03 p.m.): Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) also plans to vote for Sotomayor: "She appears neither rigid nor dogmatic in her approach to the essential task of constitutional interpretation."

UPDATE (3:45 p.m.): Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) plans to vote against Sotomayor: "I cannot reconcile my strong belief that the Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms with Judge Sotomayor's stated belief that the Second Amendment is not a 'fundamental right.'"

Comments

[lex]

Sotomayor has ruled on several high-profile cases. In 1995, she issued a preliminary injunction against Major League Baseball which ended the 1994 baseball strike. Sotomayor made a ruling allowing the Wall Street Journal to publish Vince Foster's final note. In 1997, she was nominated by President Bill Clinton to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Her nomination was slowed by the Republican majority in the Senate, but she was eventually confirmed in 1998. On the Second Circuit, Sotomayor has heard appeals in more than 3,000 cases and has written about 380 opinions. Sotomayor has taught at the New York University School of Law and Columbia Law School.

[Dan Artz]

"One would think that a conservative, being generally for "federalism" and devolution of matters to the states, would prefer to have his state legislature or judiciary address the right to bear arms as it is regulated in his state."

Well, Jon, I can't speak for all conservatives (I'm really more of a libertarian, myself), but My own belief that the Second Amendment is and ought to be incorporated through the 14th Amendment to be binding upon the States begins and ends with the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and the universal understanding among those who passed the 14th Amendment out of Congress, as well as among the States that ratified it, that that Clause was designed and intended to make the entire Bill of Rights (including specifically the Right to Keep and Bear Arms) binding upon the States. Indeed, one of the very ills which the Privileges and Immunities Clause was designed and intended to remedy was the practice of the Southern States, during and after Reconstruction, to forceably disarm freed slaves so that they could not defend themselves against armed bands of whites like the Klu Kluc Klan, and so they could not rebel against Plantation Owners who would force them, at the point of a gun, to sign "labor contracts" which essentially placed them back into slavery in all but name.

Yes, I am fully in favor of Federalism, and I think Congress, with the aid of a lax Judiciary, has expanded its powers far beyond anything ever contemplated for a "limited" federal government, but that Federalism is explicitly tempered in several places throughout the Constitution, including, for example, the restrictions upon States prohibiting them from burdening interstate or international trade by port duties, the prohibition on interstate compacts that are not approved by Congress, and by the 14th Amendment's Due Process and Privileges or Immunities Clauses. Simply because I support Federalism does NOT mean that I reject all limits on State Soveriegnty; those explicitly provided in the Constitution are entitled to be enforced, and that includes the Second Amendment, as incorporated through the 14th Amendment.

[Jonathan Hudis]

At what point do we return to a Senatorial confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees in which the Senate's "advice and consent" turns upon an examination of candidates' records, qualifications and experience, rather than upon predilections based upon politically or philsophically held views?

[Jon]

I'm endlessly amused by "conservatives" who are infuriated by Judge Sotomayor's refusal to incorporate the Second Amendment against the states.

One would think that a conservative, being generally for "federalism" and devolution of matters to the states, would prefer to have his state legislature or judiciary address the right to bear arms as it is regulated in his state.

Of course, the same conservative would probably lambaste a judge for reading "extraconstitutional rights" into the Constitution--but have no problem with the evolution of some level of "federalism" that is absolutely required by the document (but explicitly spelled out nowhere within it).