U.S. district judge reject leads Sotomayor opposition
Sen. Jeff Sessions (Image from wikimedia.org)
Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Senator who led the charge against Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation yesterday, continued his assault against Sotomayor today. It’s no secret that Sessions fears Sotomayor will inject “racial bias” into her court decisions, a baseless anxiety made all the more laughable coming from Sessions, a man accused by multiple witnesses of being a racist himself.
Sessions, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said he assumes Sotomayor understood and supported the stance of a civil rights group she advised in the 1980s that brought several race discrimination lawsuits for minorities who challenged jobs or promotions given to white employees.
“It raises questions about, is that her philosophy, and is she going to carry that to the courts and apply it even if the law does not support it?” Sessions told Fox News.
The fact that Sessions is even allowed into the room (and permitted to hurl accusations of racism at Sotomayor) during this confirmation hearing baffles the mind. When he was a US attorney in Alabama, Sessions reportedly called the NAACP an “un-American” and “Communist” organization, called a black attorney “boy” and warned him to “be careful what you say to white folks.” Sessions now says none of these accusations are true, and he claims he was “caricatured,” even though at the time, multiple witnesses made the claims.
Sessions unsuccessfully prosecuted three civil rights workers (including Albert Turner, a former aide to Martin Luther King, Jr.), on a supposed case of election fraud for the 1984 election. A June 17, 1985 Chicago Tribune article quotes Maryland state Sen. Clarence Mitchell, chairman of the National Black Caucus of State Legislators: “This is a blatantly racist investigation, no question about it. … The Justice Department has vigorously pursued this action in Alabama counties where blacks have gained political control while ignoring calls for vote-fraud investigations in neighboring counties where whites hold political control.”
Sessions was nominated by President Reagan in 1986 to be a U.S. district judge. However, the Senate Judiciary Committee killed the nomination on a 9-9 vote, partly because some critics of Sessions testified that he had demonstrated “gross insensitivity” on racial issues. A U.S. attorney had testified that he had heard Sessions claim that he had once admired the Ku Klux Klan.
At the time, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said the vote sends “a clear signal to the Reagan administration that their judicial nominees must meet at least a minimum standard of sensitivity” on civil rights.
And yet, this district judge reject, who has been accused of allowing his racist biases to influence his courtroom behavior multiple times, is now leading the charge against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, the woman who would be the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic justice. Today’s New York Times live blog of the confirmation reports (emphasis mine):
Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican, has started to cut off Judge Sotomayor’s answers as he tries to show that she’s now contradicting things she’s said in the past about how her experiences may influence her decisions.
Sessions Grills on Policy-Making | 10:14 a.m.: Toward the beginning, [Sessions] asked for an explanation about what she’d meant at a law conference when she said that appellate judges got to make policy. She said it would be clear — if people listened to her entire remarks rather than watching a snippet on YouTube — that she was not suggesting judges make policy as Congress does. She said that it was “very clear that I was talking about the policy ramifications of precedent, and never talking about appellate judges or courts making the policy that Congress makes.”Mr. Sessions: “I don’t think it’s that clear.”
Word Play | 10:21 a.m. Judge Sotomayor, confronted by Senator Sessions about how her take on a wise Latina’s decisions differed from that of Judge Miriam Cedarbaum, pointed out that Ms. Cedarbaum was her friend and was sitting in the audience. (In one of her speeches, Ms. Sotomayor had referred to Ms. Cedarbaum’s discussions about the number of women joining the bench and whether those numbers were having any impact.)
Mr. Sessions repeatedly said he was “troubled” and very concerned as to whether she could be impartial if she couldn’t put her experiences aside. Ms. Sotomayor replied that she believed she did apply the facts to each case, and applied the law.
But as far as the “wise Latina judge” remarks, Ms. Sotomayor relented a little bit, saying she had attempted a play on words that “fell flat. It was bad.”
How has no one (I’m looking at you, Al Franken) turned to Sessions and said, “Really, Jeff? Really? You’re afraid a judge is going to inject racial bias into her decision-making process? Really?? Aren’t you the guy who is BFFs with the clan and tried to take down Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assistant? Really??”
The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. Unsurprising, but mind-boggling.
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
“Really, how has no one (I’m looking at you, Al Fraken) turned to Sessions and said, “Really, Jeff? Really? You’re afraid a judge is going to inject racial bias into her decision-making process? Really?? Aren’t you the guy who is BFFs with the clan and tried to take down Martin Luther King, Jr.’s assistant? Really??”
Nice fantasy Allison but never going happen, especially from the new kid in town.
Wow, that was fast, Brian!
Yes, you’re probably right, but wouldn’t it be wonderful?
In response to another comment. See in context »Timing is everything dear! Actually I think you’re going too easy, I’m longing to see one from our side get up and spit in Sessions’ face. Well one can dream!
Sessions is such a slimy beady-eyed scumbag. It is so deflating when a guy like this is leading the charge against a nomination that holds such high importance. However, it seems to me that he is asking the right questions. We do need to know what Sotomayor meant when she said that (paraphrasing) a wise Latina judge can make a “better” decision. Judges are supposed to be impartial PERIOD. Asking questions about her comments and her written opinions is the only way to find out.
I agree, Allison, with your previous post when you state that empathy comes in to play when judges make their decisions, however, I do not think that it should. I think that you correctly point out that experience and understanding of how the world works plays into a judge’s decision when he or she writes an opinion, but is it really supposed to be that way? After all, there is a reason why they hold their jobs for life, so that they do not cave in to political and public pressure. I think that it is possible to interpret law without using past experience. Besides, they are supposed to interpret the law as the legislators intended it to be carried out, not how the judges themselves think it should be carried out. Unfortunately, as you pointed out, that is not always the case.
What Sotomayor has repeatedly stated is that she is a product of her background and upbringing, which is no different than the remarkable (and dreaded) “empathy” expressed by Samuel Alito during his own confirmation hearing:
Judges are not frigid, calculating, unemotional creatures that are completely objective in all of their decision-making. The fact is, that kind of “terminator judge” doesn’t exist. All human beings are inherently biased toward their own ideologies, which form from their respective upbringings and ethnic backgrounds. The fact that we’re a diverse population is nothing to be afraid of. In fact, we should celebrate it.
The “Wise Latina” harping seems to be all the Republicans have left in their arsenal. Sad.
In response to another comment. See in context »I agree that that is all they have, but they have to ask the question. I think it is interesting that she said “better” qualified. Does that mean that she can make a “better” decision than a judge who does not have her background? It is a question that needs to be asked. She even admitted that she shouldn’t have said it, so I don’t see what’s wrong with pressing the issue.
Personally, I don’t have anything against her. In fact, from what little I’ve read about her record as a judge, she seems to be a centrist. That is where I think all judges should be when they interpret law.
As for Alito, I agree with him that diversity should be celebrated, we just shouldn’t be interpreting the law differently based on race or ethnicity. Don’t we currently have laws that are meant to prevent that?
Sotomayor addressed the comment. She admitted that the comment was an attempt “to pull off a ‘rhetorical riff’ based on adages used by retired Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Obviously, she didn’t manage to pull it off. “My plan fell flat. It was bad.”
She said also: “It left an impression that life experience commanded a result in a case but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge.”
She explained further: ““I was trying to inspire [Latino lawyers] to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system because different life experiences and backgrounds always do. I don’t think there is a quarrel with that in our society.”
And yet more: “To give every assurance, I want to say up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experience.”
Hopefully, that finally answers the question that she’s not some vindictive, hot-blooded Latina bitch hellbent on ripping off the penises of every man in Washington.
In response to another comment. See in context »Yikes!! And I thought that was a gavel in her hand!!!
She hit any question about it out of the park with this part of her response:
“…I do not believe that any ethnic racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experience.”
HA!
In response to another comment. See in context »Graham is being amazingly obnoxious Allison, I hope you plan on setting your sites on him really soon!
I see that! He’s really in rare form.
In response to another comment. See in context »I think the only credible criticism of Sotomayor is what was featured on Democracy Now and that is her handling of Jeffrey Deskovic’s appeal.
Agreed. Speaking of which, I’m currently interviewing Deskovic and the Innocence Project about all that.
In response to another comment. See in context »It worries me, that in cases like this, the focus becomes about how racist republicans are… it’s similar to Obama’s election.
Then the democrats get to frame it like they’ve done something really progressive by putting someone of an historically oppressed race in a position of power. Even though they didn’t really put a progressive in power.
It’s almost like there is a conspiracy between the democrats and the republicans. In my fantasy it goes like this…
Democrats: “Okay, so we don’t want to nominate a progressive, we know you don’t want us to nominate a progressive… so what are our options here?”
Republicans: “Hmm… have you considered nominating a minority?”
Democrats: “Wait, how would that work?”
Republicans: “Well we could be really racist, and thus it would make it look like you were supportive of civil rights and therefore…”
Democrats: “PROGRESSIVE! That’s brilliant! You’ll actually be racist for us?”
Republicans: “Hell, if it keeps progressives from power, we’ll start wars.”
Democrats: “Man, I love you guys.”
It is at that point that the whole congress has a giant orgy and Ralph Nader cries.
You know what I got out of Lindsey Graham’s line of questioning? That he loves to hear himself talk and that he had no intentions of finding anything out about whether or not Judge Sotomayor is qualified to sit as a justice on the Supreme Court. What a joke. These hearings are the epitome of going through the motions.
Rossbrummet, you hit the nail on the head. Business as usual in the district.