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
Iraq War Costs Could Hit Nearly $3 Trillion by 2050: Report
The Costs of War Project said the U.S.-led invasion and occupation "caused massive death, destruction, and political instability," killing hundreds of thousands of people while displacing millions more.
Mar 15, 2023
As the 20th anniversary of the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq approaches, a leading research institute on Wednesday said that "the total costs of the war in Iraq and Syria are expected to exceed half a million human lives and $2.89 trillion" by 2050.
The Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs said that "this budgetary figure includes costs to date, estimated at about $1.79 trillion, and the costs of veterans' care through 2050."
According to the project:
March 19-20, 2023 marks 20 years since United States forces invaded Iraq to oust dictator Saddam Hussein, under the false claim that his regime was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. The ensuing war, in which U.S. ground presence peaked in 2007 with over 170,000 soldiers, caused massive death, destruction, and political instability in Iraq. Among the consequences was the increase of sectarian politics, widespread violence, and the rise of the Islamic State militant group with its terror attacks throughout the Middle East.
Though the U.S. government officially ended its Iraq War in 2011, the repercussions of the invasion and occupation as well as subsequent and ongoing military interventions have had an enormous human, social, economic, and environmental toll. An estimated 300,000 people have died from direct war violence in Iraq, while the reverberating effects of war continue to kill and sicken hundreds of thousands more.
The new report includes estimates for Syria, which the United States began bombing during the Obama administration after Islamic State militants rose to power amid the destabilization and power vacuum caused by the Iraq invasion and Syrian civil war. Including Syria, the Costs of War Project says between 550,000-580,000 people have been killed since March 2003, and "several times as many may have died due to indirect causes such as preventable diseases."
"More than 7 million people from Iraq and Syria are currently refugees, and nearly 8 million people are internally displaced in the two countries," the publication notes.
University of Oxford professor and Costs of War Project co-director Neta C. Crawford, who authored the report, said in a statement that "the Bush administration was convinced and assured the American people and the world that the war would have few casualties of all kinds—civilian and military—and would lead to quick victory."
"As the Costs of War Project has documented consistently, these optimistic assumptions are confronted by a record of death, high and ongoing costs, and regional devastation," she added.
Those ongoing costs include a recent $397.5 million budget request from the Biden administration to fight what's left of Islamic State.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I Will Burn the Session to the Ground' Over Anti-Trans Bill, Says Nebraska Democrat
"If you want to inflict pain upon our children, I am going to inflict pain upon this body," said state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh, who has filibustered for three weeks to block a proposed ban on gender-affirming care for youth.
Mar 15, 2023
The Nebraska state Senate's 90-day legislative session reached its halfway point on Wednesday, but not a single bill has been passed yet thanks to a filibuster that was begun three weeks ago by state Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh in a bid to stop Republicans from "legislating hate" against transgender children across the state.
Cavanaugh (D-6) was horrified to see an anti-transgender rights bill advance to the Senate floor in late February and was determined to keep it from passing into law, as at least nine other anti-LGBTQ+ bills have in state legislatures so far this year.
The so-called Let Them Grow Act (Legislative Bill 574) would bar transgender and nonbinary people under the age of 19 from obtaining gender-affirming healthcare.
Republicans hold 32 seats in the state Senate compared to Democrats' 17, but it takes 33 votes to overcome a filibuster.
"The children of Nebraska deserve to have somebody stand up and fight for them."
So Cavanaugh has spent every day in session since the bill arrived on the Senate floor introducing dozens of amendments to other pieces of legislation, slowing the Senate's business to a crawl and taking up every hour of debate time permitted by the chamber's rules—at times speaking at length about unrelated topics including her favorite foods and movies.
"If this Legislature collectively decides that legislating hate against children is our priority, then I am going to make it painful, painful for everyone, because if you want to inflict pain upon our children, I am going to inflict pain upon this body," Cavanaugh told her colleagues during one debate session. "I have nothing, nothing but time, and I am going to use all of it."
"I will burn the session to the ground over this bill," she added.
The Let Them Grow Act, like a number of the approximately 150 anti-LGBTQ+ bills that have been introduced in other states so far this year, would prohibit gender-affirming surgical procedures, hormone therapy, and puberty blockers for minors.
Gender-affirming care for minors is supported by the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, with the latter organization noting in a 2018 policy statement that many transgender youths experience fear of discrimination by providers and "lack of continuity with providers" as a result of limited access to gender-affirming care.
A study by the University of Washington found that youths who received gender-affirming care were 73% less likely to experience suicidality and 60% likely to suffer from depression than those who did not obtain care.
Cavanaugh also told the Associated Press Wednesday that 58% of transgender and nonbinary youths in her state seriously considered suicide in 2020, according to a 2021 survey by the Trevor Project, and more than 1 in 5 said they had attempted suicide.
"The children of Nebraska deserve to have somebody stand up and fight for them," Cavanaugh told the AP.
Speaking to "The New Yorker Radio Hour" last week, the senator said some of her Republican colleagues have privately told her they are frustrated with their own party's agenda as GOP leaders including Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and former President Donald Trump wage attacks on transgender children.
"What has been expressed to me is a frustration over discussing policies like this instead of discussing policies that most of them ran to be here discussing. This is what a culture war looks like apparently," said Cavanaugh. "What I'm asking of them is to rise up and say that, if this really isn't who they are, rise up and say that and stop having private conversations with me telling me how much you don't like the bill, how much you don't want to be focusing on this issue, and rise up and say something about it. I'm challenging them."
LGBTQ+ advocacy group OutNebraska told the AP that Cavanaugh has embarked on a "heroic effort."
"It is extremely meaningful when an ally does more than pay lip service to allyship," said executive director Abbi Swatsworth. "She really is leading this charge."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is Scary': Financial Industry Panic Spreads as Credit Suisse Teeters
"Is this the next financial crisis unfolding? It feels like it may be—and all because of reckless increases in interest rates by central banks," argued one political economist.
Mar 15, 2023
A vanishingly short period of relief in U.S. and global markets was shattered Wednesday after the scandal-plagued Swiss banking giant Credit Suisse announced that its auditor identified "material weakness" in its financial reporting and the firm's largest investor—the Saudi National Bank—said it wouldn't inject more cash to bolster the company.
As its share price plunged, Credit Suisse intensified concerns about its financial health—and broader alarm about the stability of global markets—by pleading with the Swiss National Bank and the regulator Finma to issue public statements of support for the lender, which controlled roughly $580 billion in assets at the end of last year.
"The bank said it is working to address the problems [with its financial reporting], which 'could require us to expend significant resources,'" The Washington Postreported Wednesday. "It cautioned that the troubles could ultimately impact the bank's access to capital markets and subject it to 'potential regulatory investigations and sanctions.'"
The fresh crisis at Credit Suisse, which comes just days after two U.S. banks collapsed, compounded fears that seemingly isolated problems at individual financial institutions could signal a deeper systemic threat with far-reaching implications for the interconnected global economy.
"This is scary—financial markets are now betting on Credit Suisse failing—and no one can pretend there will not be a fallout from that," Richard Murphy, a professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University Management School in the U.K., wrote Wednesday, pointing to the soaring price of the bank's five-year credit default swaps, which prompted flashbacks to the 2008 global financial crisis.
"Is this the next financial crisis unfolding? It feels like it may be—and all because of reckless increases in interest rates by central banks," Murphy added.
Experts and analysts have argued that—along with years of deregulation—the U.S. Federal Reserve's rapid interest rate hikes contributed to the fall of California-based Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), which sold its bond portfolio at a major loss last week after it declined in value due to the Fed's actions.
While U.S. lawmakers have lambasted SVB for poor risk management, the firm was hardly alone in taking on large bond holdings when interest rates were low only to watch them lose value precipitously as central banks jacked up rates to combat high inflation.
"Investors said Credit Suisse's problems were a reminder that Europe's banks also had large holdings of bonds that had been hammered by rising interest rates," the Financial Timesreported.
As The American Prospect's David Dayen put it Wednesday, "As long as interest rates keep rising, more banks will be exposed."
"Credit Suisse is in principle a much bigger concern for the global economy than the regional U.S. banks which were in the firing line last week."
Just a week ago, it appeared that Fed Chair Jerome Powell was bent on continuing to raise interest rates even amid mounting warnings about the potentially devastating impacts on millions of workers whose wages and jobs are on the line.
But faced with growing panic in the financial sector, Powell is now widely expected to step on the brakes—at least temporarily—at the Fed's policy meeting next week. Powell is himself a former investment banker, and Wall Street lobbies the Fed on a range of issues.
Reutersreported Wednesday that "expectations for the U.S. central bank's next move have swung wildly in recent days, after the sudden failure of two regional banks late last week triggered alarm about the health of the banking system and raised doubts about how much further the Fed may take what has been an aggressive fight against stubbornly high inflation."
Turmoil at Credit Suisse, which insists its balance sheet is "strong," will likely cement the case against further Fed rate hikes in the near future, analysts suggested.
The Treasury Department is reportedly monitoring news at Credit Suisse, whose U.S. arm is overseen by the Fed.
"Credit Suisse is in principle a much bigger concern for the global economy than the regional U.S. banks which were in the firing line last week," Andrew Kenningham, chief Europe economist with Capital Economics, wrote in a research note on Wednesday. "Credit Suisse is not just a Swiss problem but a global one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
SUPPORT OUR WORK.
We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100%
reader supported.
reader supported.