by Mark Silva and updated at 4:30 pm EDT
The Senate Judiciary Committee is a day away from voting to recommend the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, poised to become the first Hispanic member of the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor is a week away from a seat on the court.
The committee's ranking Republican won't be in the majority. Neither will the Republican senator from Iowa.
Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-Ala.) announced today that he will oppose President Obama's nomination of Sotomayor. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), another member of the Judiciary Committee, announced the same this afternoon.
"I don't believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism," Sessions explained in an Op-ed essay in USA Today this morning. "She has evoked its mantra too often....
"As someone who cares about great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent,'' said Sessions, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama who was nominated for a federal judgeship in 1985 but blocked by liberals accusing him of "gross insensitivity'' in racial matters.
Grassley said in a statement issued by his office this afternoon: "There's no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the credentials on paper to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. But, her nomination hearing left me with more questions than answers about her judicial philosophy.''
Sessions and Grassley are the fourth and fifth Republican committee member expected to line up against Sotomayor. The others are Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Jon Kyl of Arizona and Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-S.C.) plans to support her.
The committee will take up the matter Tuesday morning, and should send Sotomayor's seating on to the Senate with an overwhelming vote. The committee has 12 Democrats and seven Republicans. The full Senate should vote next week.
Five Republicans have voiced support for Sotomayor -- Graham, Richard Lugar of Indiana, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine and Mel Martinez of Florida.
Sessions, while conceding today that Sotomayor "will likely be confirmed," warned in his essay that "supporters of liberal judicial philosophy might find it a Pyrrhic victory." Although she "renounced the pillars of activist thinking" in her four days of testimony earlier this month, Sessions said, she seemed disingenuous.
"Which Sotomayor will we get?" Sessions asked, citing three rulings of the federal jurist from New York on private property rights, affirmative action and the right to bear arms. "Each was contrary to the Constitution," Sessions said. "Each was decided in a brief opinion, short on analysis. And each was consistent with liberal political thought."
Sen. Grassley's office released this statement from the senator:
"I've had the opportunity to vote on many judges and Justices since becoming a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. We confirmed a great number of them. I had hoped to be able to vote for Judge Sotomayor to be the next Justice on the Supreme Court, but after a thorough review of the hearing record and her cases, speeches and writings, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot support Judge Sotomayor's nomination.
"My vote must be based on the nominee's respect for and adherence to the Constitution and judicial restraint. I question if Judge Sotomayor will be able to set aside personal biases and prejudices to decide cases in an impartial manner and in accordance with the Constitution.
"At her confirmation hearing, I asked specific questions about the property rights of private citizens afforded by the Fifth Amendment. My colleagues asked detailed questions about the now famous Ricci case, the right to privacy and the Second Amendment right to bear arms. I was not convinced that Judge Sotomayor understands the rights given to Americans under the Constitution, or that she will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based on her personal preferences. I am not certain that Judge Sotomayor won't allow those personal beliefs and preferences to dictate the outcome of cases before her. There's no question that nominees have become quite adept at dodging our questions, but her lack of clear and direct answers to simple questions regarding the Constitution were troubling. Some of her answers were so at odds with statements she has made over the years, that it was difficult to reconcile them.
"Nearly 20 years ago, then Judge David Souter talked during his confirmation hearing about courts "filling vacuums" in the law. That concept greatly worried me, because courts should never fill voids in the law left by Congress. Since Justice Souter has been on the Supreme Court, his decisions have proven that he does believe that courts do indeed fill vacuums in the law. My vote has come back to haunt me time and time again. So, I've asked several Supreme Court nominees about courts filling vacuums at their hearings. Her lukewarm answer left me with the same pit in my stomach I've had with Justice Souter's rulings that I had hoped to have cured with his retirement, and reinforced my concerns with her hearing testimony, cases and speeches.
"Only time will tell which Sonia Sotomayor will be on the Supreme Court. Is it the judge who proclaimed that the court of appeals is where "policy is made," or is it the nominee who pledged "fidelity to the law?" Is it the judge who disagreed with Justice O'Connor's statement that a wise woman and a wise man will ultimately reach the same decision, or is it the nominee who rejected President Obama's empathy criteria?
"There's no doubt that Judge Sotomayor has the credentials on paper to be a Justice on the Supreme Court. But, her nomination hearing left me with more questions than answers about her judicial philosophy, and I cannot support her nomination."
Comments
I like that name Olympia Snowe. It sounds presidential (don't laugh!). So I went to the place we all go when we're lazy and fact challenged: Wikipedia! After some really lousy skimming....I have to ask...why Palin? why 'o why Palin? It had to be the pipe-line....she uses at the podium. (Interesting how the female vote is lining up on the Sotomayor vote. I'm sure the break down analysis will be something to look forward to...We'll call it "snap shot of the glass ceiling in 09.")
Posted by: cats'r'us | July 27, 2009 3:31 PM
Crass political opportunism.
Jeff couldn't get confirmed by this same committee.
They didnt make judicial robes in white with a hood.
Posted by: milton friedman | July 27, 2009 3:40 PM
If this woman has any integrity she should remover her name from nomination!.
Posted by: Paul | July 27, 2009 3:40 PM
The southern racist bigot little Jeff Sessions will have to deal with the fact Sotomayer will be confirmed and will become the next Supreme Court justice. The dysfunctional GOP will have to live with it as well. I do not believe there can be a more socially retarded, hypocritical, and disingeneous U.S. Senator than Sessions.
Posted by: Doug R. | July 27, 2009 3:46 PM
"Which Sotomayor will we get?" Sessions asked,
We'll get the one who doesn't call a black lawyer....BOY!
Posted by: bill r. | July 27, 2009 3:50 PM
"Sen. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III (R-Ala.) announced today that he will oppose President Obama's nomination of Sotomayor."
Not surprising considering that Sessions (R-Alabama) is a well documented racist and has been for some time.
.
http://newspirates.com/?p=3460
.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102
.
Posted by: Kung Fu Panda | July 27, 2009 4:04 PM
First of all, there's no evidence that she will be what Repubs like to call an "activist judge." Secondly, "acitivism" on the part of judges was just fine when it gave the shrub the White House. Can you say hypocrisy? And, because Sessions couldn't get on the court, anything he says comes off as sour grapes. He really is a racist and gender-biased.
Posted by: Nancy | July 27, 2009 4:24 PM
"As someone who cares about great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent,'' said Sessions, a former U.S. attorney in Alabama who was nominated for a federal judgeship in 1985 but blocked by liberals...
Anyone who thinks the Klan is a "cool" group doesn't deserve to be taken seriously. Not even members of Sessions' own party were willing to confirm him to the Federal bench. Sotomayor should consider herself honored that this buffoon opposes her.
Posted by: Diane | July 27, 2009 4:27 PM
"Which Sotomayor will we get?" Sessions asked,
We'll get the one who doesn't call a black lawyer....BOY!
Posted by: bill r. | July 27, 2009 3:50 PM
But your ok with getting the one that thinks she is a better judge because of her skin color and genitalia?
Posted by: heartburn | July 27, 2009 4:55 PM
"If this woman has any integrity she should remover her name from nomination!." Posted by: Paul
Care to explain why? She's very well qualified.
Posted by: Flo | July 27, 2009 5:02 PM
Another homophobe racist Republican. I'm shocked!......not.
Sessions, it should be noted, was nominated by Reagan in 1985 to a federal judgeship, but was dinged by the Senate. Sessions was a critic of the Voting Rights Act. He had called the NAACP and the ACLU “un-American” and “Communist-inspired” groups that “forced civil rights down the throats of people.” In addition, as a U.S. attorney in Alabama, he reportedly called a Black assistant U.S. attorney “boy”, and told him to “be careful what you say to white folks.” As a federal prosecutor, Sessions engaged in a voter-fraud witch-hunt against three Black civil rights workers, including a former aide to Dr. King. Moreover, during a 1981 KKK murder investigation, Sessions was heard by several colleagues commenting that he “used to think they [the Klan] were OK” until he found out some of them were “pot smokers.”
.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=8dd230f6-355f-4362-89cc-2c756b9d8102
Posted by: Mullah Limbaugh - Leader of the Greedy Oil Party | July 27, 2009 5:08 PM
The very same angry old rich white guys who run the GOP, the one's who have been cultivating their followers to follow their base instincts such as race baiting, xenophobia, war mongering, promoting torture as US policy, and giving the wealthy continuous socialistic support, now want us to believe that because of one misstatement Sotomayor is a racist against white males? Ha Ha Ha!
.
http://www.truthout.org/060109J
Posted by: Maria M | July 27, 2009 5:14 PM
As much as elected Republicans may have tried to hide their bigoted attacks on Sotomayor by letting other Wingnuts fling the mud (Gingrich, Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Lou Dobbs etc), that distinction isn't going to be made by Latinos watching on the sidelines. They know who pulls the strings in the modern GOP, and the longer they drag this out, and the nastier they behave, the more they'll lose a demographic that is projected to be 30 percent of the American population in 2050.
Without young voters or Latinos, the GOP can't win. They've done a fantastic job of alienating the former with their opposition to equality, and they're about to finish off the latter courtesy of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.
Considering that the Census Bureau expects the nation to be only 46 percent non-Hispanic, single-race white in 2050, the GOP's continued shoddy treatment of people who don't look like "President" Newt or Boss Limbaugh is only solidifying their journey toward fringe status.
Posted by: ComeAsYouAre | July 27, 2009 5:22 PM
Having Graham and the other Republicans on board is victory enough.
Grassley and Sessions are ideologues who failed to hear a word Sotomayor said at her confirmation hearings.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | July 27, 2009 5:37 PM
What a shocker!!! Sessions and Grassley won't vote for her confirmation. Why the next thing you'll tell me is that Rush, Bill-O, and Hannity are going to come out against her. Wait a minute...
Posted by: gibster | July 27, 2009 5:56 PM
I hope the Republicans are right; I hope she becomes a Justice like William O. Douglas; bring back the Bill of Rights, Sonia.
Posted by: Flo | July 27, 2009 6:26 PM
Posted by: heartburn | July 27, 2009 4:55 PM
I think she has explained that well enough......how do explain calling someone BOY?
Posted by: bill r. | July 27, 2009 7:25 PM
Milty,
I'm Senator Byrd has a few extra white robes.
Posted by: Terry | July 27, 2009 9:00 PM
Ahhh, as usual the crud that passes itself off human beings from the Loony Left calls anyone it dislikes "racist." Diane, please show when Sessions said the KKK was "cool." I do know for a fact that a Democrapic member of the Senate is a former Klan leader.
If the Democraps hadn't filibustered Miguel Estrada, there already would be a Hispanic on the Supreme Court. Hmmm, Estrada was supported by Sessions, Limbaugh, Hannity.
Again, one of the most diverse cabinets ever occurred during the George W Bush administration. Again, the true and real racists in this world are the crud that tries to pass itself as human beings on the Loony Left.
Posted by: John D | July 27, 2009 9:05 PM
Again, the true and real racists in this world are the crud that tries to pass itself as human beings on the Loony Left.
Posted by: John D | July 27, 2009 9:05 PM
---------------------------------------
.
Translation to English:
"Waaaaaaah!"
Posted by: Darla Kyler | July 27, 2009 10:19 PM
John D, just for once why not try to act like an adult. And do some research on why Sessions failed to be confirmed by the judiciary committee, why Sen. Howell Heflin--also of Alabama--woudn't vote to confirm him.
Posted by: gladys | July 27, 2009 10:50 PM
If this woman has any integrity she should remover her name from nomination!.
Posted by: Paul | July 27, 2009 3:40 PM
I'll take that a step further. Although Federal Judges keep their jobs for life, Sotomayor already suspects she will eventually die (the actuarial statistics on this point are, after all, quite compelling).
She'll be a lame duck. She'll inevitably be tempted to coast. She can't "do that to" the U.S., can she?
Sotomayor should take Saint Sarah's lead and resign immediately upon being sworn in.
Posted by: a blinkin | July 27, 2009 11:06 PM
This nomination is important since the US Supreme Court must be diversified and assert its essence as a multicultural court. Courts are state's agents but they also need to reflect the social forces of a diverse society.
Professor Gad Barzilai
University of Washington
Posted by: Gad Barzilai | July 28, 2009 5:30 AM
Does the truth hurt, Darla?
Posted by: John D | July 28, 2009 6:06 AM
Posted by: heartburn | July 27, 2009 4:55 PM
I think she has explained that well enough......how do explain calling someone BOY?
Posted by: bill r. | July 27, 2009 7:25 PM
Frankly - you can't...they are both equally racist comments.
And for what it's worth I wouldn't support either of them for SCOTUS.
But in upside - down land we live in Sotonayor is a hero and sessions is a racist...
Posted by: heartburn | July 28, 2009 9:00 AM
Hey John D, was Estrada one of the legal geniuses that was backing Cheney with his plan to muse the US Army to enforce the laws within the borders of the United States? I
Posted by: Mel | July 28, 2009 9:00 AM
I could well be that having these gentleman oppose her is one of the finest recommendations she could receive.
Posted by: Skepticat | July 28, 2009 9:51 AM
The again, since when does what *I* say have a passing resemblance to Truth! LOL!
Posted by: John D | July 28, 2009 10:56 AM
In the speech delivered to the San Juan chapter of NOW, Sotomayor said, "I want to be perfectly clear about this next comment so that there is no mistaking my words to mean something other than what they plainly say: the time has come to end white male oppression by castrating every white male until they are no longer dominant in Western culture. That means forcible removal of their testicles. I realize the brutality of my comment, and I don't know how to say it more clearly."
Posted by: Mike Shreve | July 29, 2009 12:44 PM
i juct wanted to out their philosophys
Posted by: derek | September 22, 2009 2:25 PM