Thad Cochran is going to vote against Sonia Sontomayor on the Supreme Court, and he makes it pretty clear it’s pretty much tit-for-tat for opposition to Mike Wallace and Charles Pickering on the Fifth Circuit (he also lists Leslie Southwick, who was confirmed). He also characterizes (without quoting) Sontomayor’s “wise Latina” remark in a way that seems to me intellectually dishonest.
Before quoting him, I’m just going to say that at least Roger Wicker’s reason for voting against her (that he thinks she is insufficiently committed to the Second Amendment) has some basis for it. I don’t agree with him– the evidence is thin, but it’s there, and obviously I don’t share his view that this is a ditch to die in. But there’s something to be said for honesty.
From Cochran’s remarks, quoted in full on Yall:
Recent years have seen that standard dramatically altered. During the Administration of President George W. Bush, several qualified nominees, including Charles Pickering, Michael Wallace, and Leslie Southwick from my home state of Mississippi, saw their nominations opposed based on their perceived ideology. For better or worse, a new standard for evaluating judicial nominees has emerged. …
During her recent hearing, Judge Sotomayor was asked several questions regarding statements that she had made in recent years. In writings and speeches, Judge Sotomayor repeatedly stated that a judge’s personal experiences can and will impact judicial outcomes. She has also argued that judges should allow their personal sympathies and prejudices to influence their decision-making.
She describes the ideal of judicial impartiality as an ‘aspiration’ that, she believes, cannot be met in most cases. These statements raise serious concerns regarding her lack of commitment to the notion of equal justice under the law. Judge Sotomayor’s responses to questions about these comments have failed to alleviate my concerns about whether she would apply the law in an evenhanded manner.
It is the responsibility of the Senate to make certain that those who are confirmed to the Supreme Court not only are fully qualified by reason of experience and training, but will show a commitment to equal justice under the law. Some of Judge Sotomayor’s statements during the last decade have given me reason to question her fidelity to equal justice. And unlike the Federal Circuit Court where she has served since 1998, a Justice on the Supreme Court is not bound by existing legal precedent. If confirmed, there would be no higher court to deter Judge Sotomayor from making decisions that would become the binding law of the land.
For these reasons, I intend to oppose her nomination.
Mitch McConnell made essentially identical remarks (Referring to “an alarming lack of respect for the notion of equal justice, and, therefore, in my view, an insufficient willingness to abide by the judicial oath”). There is nothing in the public record supporting McConnell’s statement about the judicial oath. It’s a lie. This all makes an interesting contrast to the statement of Senator Martinez from Florida, also a Republican, explaining why he is voting for Sontomayor: “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. Olympia Snowe, also voting for stated that she was “impressed with Judge Sotomayor’s comportment and obvious mastery of the law during this week’s nomination hearings.”
i was far more offended by Wicker’s lack of thought and insight. aside from the 2nd amendment comment, which i will get to later, wicker said:
“I am also troubled by what I see as Judge Sotomayor’s aversion to impartiality,” Wicker said. “She appears to believe in a legal system where decisions are based upon personal experiences and group preferences, not the letter of the law. Her record is that of someone who sees the courtroom as a place to legislate and make policy. This kind of judicial activism has no place in any court, particularly the Supreme Court.”
how in the world Wicker could base such opinions in fact is beyond me. where is “judicial activism,” whatever the hell that word can be taken to mean? where did she show she would “legislate” from the bench and make policy? from her opinions? from elsewhere? maybe i shouldn’t be offended by the comments from an empty suit like wicker but, i am. i am offended that a US Senator from our state couldn’t hire someone to write something better than that for him, since he clearly doesn’t have intelligent thoguhts of his own.
i think the 2nd amendment comments are absurd, to boot, as whether the 2nd amendment is incorporated to the states is an open question and, one that Sotomayor appears to be correct on (that it is not incorporated to the states – as other intellectually honest conservative judges would also hold).
based on their perceived ideology
Wallace’s “perceived” ideology? As if his known ideology were substantially different?
GMAFB. I had hardcore Republican friends who knew him and said he had no place on the bench — too partial.
(Pickering got a bit of a raw deal, based on some questionable but minor-to-me conduct; the irony was that, of the Repubs on our district courts, he was about as fair-minded and plaintiff-friendly as one could expect to get.)
Wicker is simply hiding behind the 2nd Amendment. He is merely going with the Republican flow, like those other dead fish washing downstream. No backbone at all. No cajones. Just another GOP capon.
Cochran is behaving about like I always expect him to behave: like a churlish schoolkid who wasn’t picked to be a cheerleader (although he was picked as an Ole Miss cheerleader … probably the pinnacle of his competency): “Tit for tat. Those Dems screwed over some Mississippi nominees for judicial posts … so I’ll just screw right back.” Thad Cochran can never get beyond being Thad Cochran. Pity.
Farm Bureau tells those boys what to vote for and against. Why don’t they just come right out and say it?
The Republicans must have had to play rock-paper-scissors over who had to toe the party line and who would be allowed to vote honestly. And the Democrats do the same thing on other issues. That’s why it’s called politics-as-usual.
One more thought. It may not be true, but doesn’t it appear that the phrase “judicial activism” appears to be only screamed by the losing side in court cases. Or the side thinking they might be up for a loss in the foreseeable future.
My, my. Such disdain for Thad. I guess you all think Sotomayor should get a pass.
OSA: Damn right I think Sotomayor “should get a pass.” I cannot think of one reason for downchecking her in any judicial aptitude category. Not one. I hope President Obama gets to nominate at least 3 more, each of whom will be equally superbly qualified. And damn right on the “disdain for Thad.” He is a toady for big agriculture and Farm Bureau and not much more. He could have done so much, but he elected just to play along to go along.
Ben, if President Obama does get 3 more, they will likely be replacements for the more liberal members of the court. Stevens and Ginsburg come to mind as the most immediate possible retirements. Who would be the third? I only see those two as possible retirees.
Ben, did you believe that Bork should have been given a pass? What about Pickering?