June, 23 2009, 01:04pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Charles Hall, Justice at Stake, (202) 588-9454; chall@justiceatstake.org
Senators Urged to Probe Sotomayor on Proper Role of Impartial Courts
WASHINGTON
A national court-advocacy group has called on U.S. senators to pose
10 questions to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, to gauge her
views on insulating courts from "inappropriate political influence."
In a June 19 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice
at Stake Campaign said the questions "will help Americans to understand
Judge Sotomayor's perspective on the significance of a fair and
impartial judiciary. We encourage you to bring these pertinent issues
to the public's attention."
The list of questions includes general queries about Sotomayor's
attitudes on the separation of powers, judicial impartiality and the
importance of an independent judiciary. It also cites cases Sotomayor
and other judges have faced, to gauge her attitudes on when a judge
should avoid a case to prevent ethical conflict; the right to bail
during certain immigration proceedings; judicial discretion in
sentencing; and FBI investigative powers under the Patriot Act.
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin hearings on
Sotomayor's nomination July 13. Justice at Stake is a nonpartisan
national partnership that works to protect courts from special interest
and partisan pressure.
"The confirmation process is a unique opportunity to urge nominees
to educate the public on the importance of courts that are fair,
impartial and independent," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director
of Justice at Stake. "These questions, like many others being submitted
to senators, stand in contrast to recent trends in state judicial
elections, where questionnaires are sometimes used to threaten ballot
box retribution if judges don't rule on behalf of interest group
agendas."
Excerpts from the letter and the full questionnaire are as follows:
June 19, 2009
The Honorable [NAME] Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate [ADDRESS]
Dear [NAME]:
As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider the nomination of Judge
Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice at
Stake is pleased to offer ideas for questions that could help
illuminate the nominee's views on an increasingly important public
policy issue - protecting the integrity of our courts from
inappropriate political influence. We believe that this nomination
offers a tremendous opportunity to educate Americans about the
importance of a fair and impartial judiciary.
Justice at Stake is a national, nonpartisan partnership of more than
50 organizations working to keep courts fair and impartial through
citizen education, civic engagement and reform. We have built a
coalition to help Americans protect the courts that protect their
rights, shield our courts and judges from excessive partisan pressure,
and reduce the power of money and special interests over the judicial
selection process. Justice at Stake does not endorse or oppose specific
nominees or candidates.
We think the following ten questions will help Americans to
understand Judge Sotomayor's perspective on the significance of a fair
and impartial judiciary. We encourage you to bring these pertinent
issues to the public's attention by asking the following:
- What conditions do you think characterize a fair and impartial
judiciary? How important is such an institution to the functioning of
our democracy? What principles guide you to fairly and impartially
apply the law as a judge? - The Supreme Court recently ruled in Caperton v. Massey
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment sometimes
requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where they have received
a significant amount of campaign support from a party in a pending
case. In your answers to the questionnaire for this committee you
informed us that you have recused yourself well over 100 times for a
variety of reasons. Can you explain to us your own thinking regarding
when and why you will remove yourself from a case? What
disqualification standards should Americans expect from their Supreme
Court justices? - Can you share some of your views regarding the separation of powers
among the three branches of government? What is your philosophy on the
proper role of the judiciary as a check on the executive and the
legislature? What principles would guide you in cases before the
Supreme Court? - What criteria should the Congress use in applying its
Constitutional power to impeach a federal judge? What norms should be
used to balance the need for accountability with the need to insulate
judges from improper political pressure? - In a 2007 case entitled Kraham v. Lippman, 478 F.3d 502
(2d Cir. 2007), you held that a judicial rule preventing leaders of
political parties, their families, or their law firms from receiving
appointments to state courts did not violate the First Amendment right
to freedom of association. You wrote that the rule "further[ed] the
rational and legitimate goal of eliminating corrupt court appointments"
and that the interest in "protecting the integrity and the appearance
of integrity" of the courts was "not merely legitimate, but
compelling." Can you expand upon your view of the importance of a fair
and impartial court system in our democracy? - During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts opined
that "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply
them." Do you agree with this view? Why or why not? - In Elkimiya v. DHS, 484 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2007), you held
that an applicant for lawful permanent residence in the United States
could apply for bail from detention, though you denied the petitioner
the privilege in that case. Others have disagreed with your decision
on the general right to apply for bail, reasoning that the REAL ID act
had given the Attorney General the unreviewable authority to release or
detain applicants for asylum. See e.g., Bolante v. Keisler,
506 F.3d 618 (2007). How important do you think access to the court
system is in our system of government? In what ways do you believe the
constitution ensures access to the court system for non-citizens? - In a recent case, U.S. v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.
2008), you wrote an opinion dissenting in part. You said that
"arbitrary and subjective considerations, such as a judge's feelings
about a particular type of crime, should not form the basis of a
sentence ...[y]et a serious danger exists that sentencing judges will
dress their subjective views in objective trappings ... . We only
encourage [...] confusion if we signal that our review is arbitrary." 550
F.3d at 219. As a former assistant district attorney and federal
sentencing judge, you have particular experience with the need to
balance judicial discretion in particular cases with standard
guidelines and appellate review of lower court decisions. Can you share
with us your
philosophy about the proper role of judicial discretion in federal
sentencing? - You recently joined a unanimous opinion in John Doe Inc. v. Mukasey,
549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), that invalidated portions of the PATRIOT
Act giving FBI agents the authority to release so-called "gag-orders"
without judicial approval. What do you think the specific role of the
judiciary ought to be in protecting civil liberties from potential
government overreach? - Two of the cases among those you consider your most significant opinions involved protecting First Amendment rights. In United States v. Quattrone,
402 F.3d 304 (2nd Cir. 2005), you maintained the right of the press to
release the names of jurors in an open courtroom, and in Ford v. McGinnis,
352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003), you sided with a prisoner's right to
celebrate a religious holiday he deemed subjectively important. In
light of these cases, what is your view on the role of the courts in
upholding constitutional rights and the rule of law?
Sincerely,
Bert Brandenburg
Executive Director
Justice at Stake
Deanna Dawson
Director of Federal Affairs
Justice at Stake
We're a nationwide, nonpartisan partnership of more than forty-five judicial, legal and citizen organizations. We've come together because across America, your right to fair and impartial justice is at stake. Judges and citizens are deeply concerned about the growing impact of money and politics on fair and impartial courts. Our mission is to educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom--so judges can do their job protecting the Constitution, individual rights and the rule of law.
LATEST NEWS
Joe Lieberman, Iraq War Cheerleader and Killer of Public Option, Dead at 82
"Joe Lieberman's legacy will live on as your medical debt."
Mar 27, 2024
While current and former officials across the U.S. political spectrum shared praise for and fond memories of former Sen. Joe Lieberman in response to news of his death on Wednesday, critics highlighted how some of his key positions led to the deaths of many others.
Lieberman's family said the 82-year-old died at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital after a fall at his home in the Bronx. He served in the Connecticut Senate, as the state's attorney general, and in the U.S. Senate—initially as a Democrat and eventually as an Independent. He was also Democratic former Vice President Al Gore's running mate in the 2000 presidential election.
"Up until the very end, Joe Lieberman enjoyed the high-quality, government-financed healthcare that he worked diligently to deny the rest of us. That's his legacy," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, which advocates for universal, single-payer healthcare.
As Warren Gunnels, majority staff director for Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chair Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.),
explained, "Joe Lieberman led the effort to ensure the Affordable Care Act did not include a public option or a reduction in the Medicare eligibility age to 55."
Noting that Lieberman also lied about the presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq—which was used to justify the 2003 U.S. invasion—Gunnels asked, "How many people unnecessarily died as a result?"
He was far from alone in highlighting the two defining positions.
The Lever's David Sirota declared, "RIP Joe Lieberman, Iraq War cheerleader who led the fight to make sure Medicare was not extended to millions of Americans who desperately needed the kind of healthcare coverage he enjoyed in the Senate."
The Debt Collective said on social media that "Joe Lieberman killed so many people when he killed the public option. Not to mention all the people he killed by cheerleading every war and every lie that led to war. A truly horrible person with a shameful legacy."
Journalist Jon Schwarz pointed out that Lieberman continued to lie about the WMDs long after the claims were debunked.
FormerMSNBC host Mehdi Hasan noted that Lieberman declined an opportunity to apologize for the disastrous war, sharing a clip from his on-camera interview with the ex-senator in 2021.
And please don\u2019t give me this \u2018don\u2019t speak ill of the dead\u2019 stuff - 1) I\u2019m not speaking ill, I\u2019m stating facts, and 2) public figures are public figures, and their obits reflect their legacies and so we should be honest in our accounts of their legacies. Not offensive but honest— (@)
"We lost a giant today. I often disagreed with Joe Lieberman but he was always honorable in the way he called for American troops to murder people abroad so he could get his jollies," said Matt Stoller of the American Economic Liberties Project in a series of sarcastic social media posts.
"Joe Lieberman balanced his love of other people fighting in immoral wars with a commitment to preventing Americans from getting healthcare," Stoller added. "Even after his Senate career, he showed his strong democratic values by lobbying for Chinese telecom firms. We will miss this man."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Enough Is Enough': Ireland Joins ICJ Genocide Case Against Israel
"What we saw on October 7 in Israel, and what we are seeing in Gaza now, represents the blatant violation of international humanitarian law on a mass scale," said one top Irish official.
Mar 27, 2024
Citing Israel's "blatant" human rights violations in Gaza, Ireland's second-highest-ranking official said Wednesday that the country will join the South Africa-led genocide case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
Irish Tánaiste Micheál Martin—the equivalent of a deputy prime minister in other parliamentary nations—said that Ireland decided to intervene in the case after analyzing the "legal and policy issues" pertaining to the case under review by the United Nations' top court.
"It is for the court to determine whether genocide is being committed," Martin—who also serves as Ireland's foreign and defense minister—said in a statement. "But I want to be clear in reiterating what I have said many times in the last few months; what we saw on October 7 in Israel, and what we are seeing in Gaza now, represents the blatant violation of international humanitarian law on a mass scale."
Martin continued:
The taking of hostages. The purposeful withholding of humanitarian assistance to civilians. The targeting of civilians and of civilian infrastructure. The indiscriminate use of explosive weapons in populated areas. The use of civilian objects for military purposes. The collective punishment of an entire population.
The list goes on. It has to stop. The view of the international community is clear. Enough is enough. The U.N. Security Council has demanded an immediate cease-fire, the unconditional release of hostages, and the lifting of all barriers to the provision of humanitarian assistance at scale. The European Council has echoed this call.
South Africa's case—which is supported by over 30 countries, the Arab League, African Union, and others—incisively details Israel's conduct in the war, including the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians, mostly women and children; the wounding of tens of thousands more; the forcible displacement of 90% of the besieged enclave's 2.3 million people; and the inflicting of conditions leading to widespread starvation and disease. The filing also cited numerous genocidal statements by Israeli officials.
On January 26, the ICJ issued a preliminary ruling that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza and ordered its government and military to prevent genocidal acts. Palestinian and international human rights defenders say Israel has ignored the order, pointing to more than 30,000 men, women, and children killed or wounded in Gaza since January 26.
A draft report
released this week by the U.N.'s Human Rights Council found "reasonable grounds to believe" that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, a move that came on the same day as the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire in the ongoing war.
"The situation could not be more stark; half the population of Gaza face imminent famine and 100% of the population face acute food insecurity," said Martin. "As the U.N. secretary-general said as he inspected long lines of blocked relief trucks waiting to enter Gaza during his visit to Rafah at the weekend: 'It is time to truly flood Gaza with lifesaving aid. The choice is clear: surge or starvation.' I echo his words today."
In a St. Partick's Day White House meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden—a staunch supporter of Israel—Irish Toaiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar, who announced earlier this month that he would soon step down, said that "the Irish people are deeply troubled about the catastrophe that's unfolding before our eyes in Gaza."
"And when I travel the world, leaders often ask me why the Irish have such empathy for the Palestinian people," he added. "And the answer is simple: We see our history in their eyes—a story of displacement, of dispossession and national identity questioned and denied, forced emigration, discrimination, and now hunger."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrat Calls GOP Budget a 'Blueprint for a Dystopian Hellscape'
Rep. Don Beyer warns the plan "would see unbridled benefits flowing to a wealthy and well-connected few while tens of millions of Americans lose healthcare, housing, retirement security, and food security."
Mar 27, 2024
As Republicans on Wednesday set their sights on a key seat opening up in the U.S. House of Representatives, the chamber's senior Democrat on the congressional Joint Economic Committee put out a blistering takedown of a top GOP budget proposal for the next fiscal year.
Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va.) took aim at the 180-page "Fiscal Sanity to Save America" plan released last week by the Republican Study Committee (RSC)—which includes about 80% of GOP House members—following proposals from Democratic President Joe Biden and House Budget Committee Chair Jodey Arrington (R-Texas).
"The Republican Study Committee budget is a blueprint for a dystopian hellscape," he warned. "The vision offered by this group, which counts 4 in 5 House Republicans as members, would see unbridled benefits flowing to a wealthy and well-connected few while tens of millions of Americans lose healthcare, housing, retirement security, and food security."
RSC proposals to "dramatically weaken healthcare," Beyer noted, include turning Medicare into a voucher plan and rolling back Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provisions that cut costs for seniors; repealing tax subsidies for the Affordable Care Act and the law's protections for people with preexisting conditions; and transforming Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program into block grants to states.
As Common Dreams has reported, in addition to seeking cuts to Medicare and Social Security—while claiming to do nothing of the sort—the RSC has also launched a full-fledged assault on reproductive healthcare and rights, promoting 42 bills that would ban abortions after 15 weeks or even earlier, require unnecessary ultrasounds and 24-hour waiting periods, prohibit the use of fetal stem cells for research, and threaten access to in vitro fertilization, among other restrictions.
In addition to attacking reproductive freedom and key programs for seniors and low-income families, Beyer highlighted, the RSC wants to "weaken public health, public safety, and environmental protections," while "cutting taxes for the wealthy, by a lot."
The RSC advocates ending green tax credits from the IRA and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act as well as slashing money for Community Oriented Policing Services and the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. The committee also calls for permanently lowering taxes for the ultrarich, indexing capital gains taxes to inflation, repealing the estate tax, rolling back the IRA's corporate alternative minimum tax, and eliminating funding intended to help the Internal Revenue Service catch wealthy tax cheats.
"Democrats believe there is a better way to get our fiscal house in order without betraying our values," said Beyer. "That starts with making smart investments in our people and our future while demanding that the rich and large corporations pay their fair share in taxes. The contrast between the Democratic approach and this Republican budget could not possibly be clearer."
Biden's budget blueprint—released as he prepares for an electoral rematch against former Republican President Donald Trump, who infamously cut taxes for rich people and corporations—proposes a 25% minimum tax for individuals with wealth of more than $100 million, along with ending capital income tax breaks and closing other loopholes.
Polling results released Tuesday by Morning Consult show that a majority of voters across party lines in key swing states support raising taxes on people who make more than $400,000 per year.
Biden and the divided Congress this past weekend narrowly avoided a government shutdown by passing a long-delayed spending package. Fiscal year 2025 is set to begin in October, setting up another election-year fight over funding.
In what's been
dubbed the "Great Resignation," a growing number of House Republicans have announced that they are not seeking reelection or even exited their seats early—shrinking the party's already slim majority in the lower chamber.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular