“The siren call of judicial activism”
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions came out against the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor in USA Today. The Senate Judiciary Committee votes tomorrow.
In contrast to Lindsay Graham, Sessions finds nothing “bold” or “edgy” about Sotomayor’s judicial activism.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, says he will vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court in the committee vote scheduled for Tuesday.
In a column published in today’s USA TODAY, the Alabama senator questioned whether Sotomayor would follow through as a justice on her pledge in confirmation hearings to show “fidelity to the law.”
“I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism,” Sessions wrote. “She has evoked its mantra too often.” Saying her testimony and record were at odds, he asked: “Which Sotomayor will we get?”
Awaiting cries of racism in 3, 2, 1…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- There Is Only One God – And His Name Is Obama | The Substratum
- Senator Jeff Sessions vows to vote against Sotomayor unlike pansy Lindsay Graham | Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- “The Justice Nobody Knows”: 60 Minutes Interview with Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Warning Signs about Sonia Sotomayor, from Andrew Breitbart « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Franken & Sotomayor Share ‘Perry Mason’ Memories… Franken Loves the Sound of His Own Voice « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- Friday’s Funnies: Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Judge Nomination Political Cartoons « Frugal Café Blog Zone
- The Illusion of State Sovereignty - Smart Girl Nation
- Sotoliar confirmed for Supreme Court. « Callsign Snoopys Doghouse
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Sonia Sotomayor
Legal Insurrection
» Yes, It Really Is That Bad
Riehl World View
» Burka Barbie w/ Western Outfits And Removable Head?Stop The ACLU
» It’s Burkha Barbie! No, Seriously. I’m Not Kidding. ReallyWeekly Standard
» Beamer: Why'd Obama Recuse Himself on Terror Trials?AmSpecBlog
» Elsewhere in the Enviro-Activist MediasphereNewsBusters.org
» Tax Increase Campaign Item 3: Wars Cost Money And Rich Must Pay, MI Senator Levin Tells Bloomberg
Bold and edgy???? More like slow and plodding but then………….
What’s all this fuss about the Constitution and judicial activism? I thought all the qualifications were that the nominee be female and hispanic. So she should be good to go, right? If that’s so, I choose my roommate (also female and Puerto Rican but very conservative).
I just posted the following in another thread, but it is even more appropriate here…
Six and one-half months ago, members of Congress were blinded by Obama’s popularity (only 29% disapproved of him), along with their fear of being called “racist” (if you didn’t support Obama it could only be because you were a “racist”).
Instead of fulfilling their sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States”, they shunned their responsibility and “outsourced” it to an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party.
There is no expiration date on the Congressional Oath of Office.
Now that a majority of the population disapproves of Obama, and Obama himself has been revealed as a racist, it is time for members of Congress to no longer be blind and finally honor their sworn oath by doing the following:
If the Supreme Court finds that the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” is consistent with both Vattel’s definition…
… and is consistent with the letter from the man who became the first Chief Justice (John Jay) to the man who became the first President (George Washington)
…then the question of Obama’s birth location is irrelevant… he’s ineligible due to the British citizenship that both he and his father had at his birth.
Obama’s own campaign admitted:
Before the Senate can vote to confirm a new Supreme Court Justice, they must conclusively establish that the man nominating that Justice is eligible to hold the office of President!
This is a serious Constitutional issue, not some irrational conspiracy theory, and it must be addressed.
I know…!!! I know…!!! Call on me…
The racist and sexist that she is at her core.
Not the lie she projected…artlessly…during her confirmation hearings.
But, totally fitting as THE ONE’s nominee.
GOOD NEWS: I believe Sotomayer will show “fidelity to the law.”
BAD NEWS: Venezualan law
Judicial activism? Have any of her opinions referenced foreign law? Where has she demonstrated judicial activism? Even in the Ricci case she was following existing law.
Sen Sessions reason to not vote for Judge Sotomayor is a bit amorphous. He should be more specific and provide exactly where her decisions (record) did not follow her testimony.
She has nearly two decades on the bench and hundreds of written opinions. Just pull one and demonstrate where there is an inconsistentcy on her part.
Lord,
Please protect the health of Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas and (gulp) Kennedy.
Amen.
While I don’t doubt it, perhaps they’re too busy beating Baalam’s ass over the Gates thingy…
She’s a hustlah with no swaggah.
The law that she made up in her mind.
What possiable law allows you to exclude people from promotion because of race????
Fair enough. I haven’t read the article, but I can only hope it includes
the link between “judicial activism” and “maintaining (versus destroying) our Constitution.”
Z,
Sotomayer in her confirmation hearings danced around the question of what legal precedence she was referring to in her written opinion on the Ricci case. She never answered the question.
Members of Congress inspected one certificate delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii (the certificate of the Electoral College vote), but they have yet to inspect the other certificate (Obama’s original birth certificate).
It is their Constitutional duty to uphold their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States… including Article II Section 1.
It is their Constitutional duty to inspect a certified copy of Obama’s original birth certificate, delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii.
It is their Constitutional duty to determine, with the help of the Supreme Court, whether the first President born after 1787 to a father who was never a U.S. Citizen and conferred British citizenship to his son under British law, is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President and Commander-in-Chief.
8 to 9 out of 10 of her decisions have been over-turned by a higher court. She’s stated her judicial philosophy on a number of occasions during her past that would give one pause. For a statist, she’s a dream selection. For a strict constitutionalist, she’s a night mare. Sorry, but I prefer keeping the constitution as it was originally written and not subject to capricious changes based on society’s whims at the time.
I’m sure there are a lot of Hispanic people who are quite capable and qualified and not so polarizing.
All the young cherubic faces turn and look toward Europe for the answer.
“bold” or “edgy” ? Her non answers did set me on edge-does that count? She was bold in her evasiveness, and her butt…but let’s not go there…I’d never get back (aka-the Great Liberal Expanse
)
Lady Lindsay is the two word response I often give to the RNC and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. I tried using JohnnyMac–but it causes depression-pills-therapy and psych stuff, none of it covered by ObamaCare. But Lady Lindsay Sotomayor will be our next Supreme Court Justice and one more reason to give up on the United part of United States.
Here is the actual text of a letter I previously received from one of my Senators:
Article II Section 1 makes a clear distinction between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. To be eligible to be President, you must be a “natural born citizen”, not merely a “citizen”. An exception was made for those who were “citizens” when the Constitution was ratified (in 1787), but that clearly does not apply to Obama.
The 14th Amendment is irrelevant here, as it merely defines “citizen” and does not define (or redefine) “natural born citizen”.
At the time Article II Section 1 was written, the commonly accepted definition of “natural born citizen” was Vattel’s definition:
My Senator said:
Why didn’t my Senator personally inspect an official copy of Obama’s birth certificate, delivered under seal from the State of Hawaii?
My Senator claimed:
The Hawaii Department of Health only verified that they have Obama’s original birth certificate on record. They made absolutely no claims about Obama’s birth location nor about the authenticity of the COLB produced at the Obama campaign headquarters in Chicago.
The “experts from the University of Pennsylvania” are Annenberg Political Fact Check, a group with political connections to Obama (former chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Project), and which made two glaring misstatements (a.k.a. lies):
and
Both of those statements are NOT TRUE!
We don’t know why the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the cases brought before them. But we do know that there is significant debate about the meaning of the Constitutional phrase “natural born citizen”, and the Senate should ask the Supreme Court to clarify its definition. The 14th Amendment does nothing to define (or redefine) the term “natural born citizen”.
Again, pardon my repetition, but it is time for members of Congress to no longer be blind and finally honor their sworn oath by doing the following:
These lefties say anything they think you want to hear in order to get elected or appointed. Anything! By any means. Do not be fooled. She is one of Obama’s personal picks. Enough said.
I have only one OT (but related to some of the comments above) question:
Why does the Right have such a penchant to “EAT YOUR OWN”?!
I do NOT see this elegibility issue as an “either/or” matter.
I do NOT see this as “distracting” from more important matters (as the legitimacy of our POTUS and compliance with the U.S. Constitution is a sorta kinda groovy thing IMHO), or ‘delegitimizing’ anyone on the Right.
Why the insults?!
Why the degradation?!?
Let’s bring him down as best we legally can, but as soon as we can, EITHER by vote OR disqualification. I do not know “the best” method; can YOU claim to?!
“On July 27th, 2009 at 10:48 am, stillontheroad said:
Bold and edgy???? ”
If she was conservative, that phrase would read “insufferable b****.”
What’s your point? I thought that is what we are trying to do. Also, we are discussing and debating on these threads. That is the purpose of them.
ITookTheRedPill #18:
I agree with you whole-heartedly and wonder why all of Obama’s past records have been made off-limits to scrutiny when all other candidates are expected to produce theirs.
People in the driveby media claim Obama is a genius. I ask – based on what information? His teleprompter rhetoric? No one is even allowed to look at his undergraduate nor graduate (let alone his community college)transcripts to see if there is any indication as to genius abilities.
A bigger mystery to me is why so many of the so-called conservative journalists dismiss these arguments at “loony” or “tinfoil hat wearers”.
I’d think the fact that Obama would spend close to a million dollars in legal fees keeping information – information that most citizens have to produce during their life times — from being made public would cause at least a modicrum of journalistic curiousity. He very well could have been born in Hawaii and this is a non-issue. It’s the expensive stonewalling that raises one’s suspicions. It cuts across his call for transparency.
Not releasing his health records I can understand. But his birth certificate? I can’t understand that. $20.00 and it’s over. Is he better than John Q. Public?
BruceB #10, sonofdy #11 and Flyoverman #13 -
The central focus of Ricci’s appeal to the Second Circuit was to overturn the lower courts decision that first allowed New Haven to throw out the Lieutenants exam.
That was the question. Can New Haven not use the exam.
New Haven rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that’s inadvertent, as well as, intentional. Ricci’s claim is that the city’s effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself).
Title VII, good law, or bad law? Does Title VII create, or solve problems? I am sure we all have our own opinions about that. The reality is that Judge Sotomayor, and two other Judges, concurred with the lower court that first heard the case.
In overturning the Second Circuit, the Supreme Court was even far more narrow in their decision, because they would be effectively striking down Title VII. Or, saying it another way, the Supreme Court would, and could be, labeled as ‘activist judges’ for changing and making law from the bench.
I wish Sen Sessions had provided a clear example of one of her many judicial opinions that was inconsistent with her testimony. That is his reason for voting ‘nay’ on Judge Sotomayor. Absent that specific example, his reason lacks ‘heft’.
ITookTheRedPill : Something about our elected officials and gubmit types seems rather universal-an innate ability to utterly ignore their constituents concerns and speak long and large on nothing. I say “innate” but perhaps they have a class for freshmen senators and congresscitters on evasive answers.
I have JohnnyMac–he does not bother to answer at all but quick to ad you to his solicitation for funds mailing list.
—
Damn Rebels, lay down your arms!
No.
happyscrapper, I think Lockstein13 is referring to my comments,
and is as disappointed as I am in the way MM and some (certainly not all) of the commenters here have portrayed us as tinfoil-hat-wearing kooky conspiracists.
I’m surprised that Michelle has shown no interest in following up on what she herself admitted “may be a seed of a legitimate constitutional issue”.
I’m surprised that Michelle trusts any document produced by and at the Obama Campaign Headquarters in Chicago. (A document, by the way, which is as authentic as the COLB for “Haye I.B Ahphorgerie” and practically screams “Hey! I Be A Forgery!”)
I’m surprised that Michelle doesn’t seem to realize that a newspaper birth announcement (which could have been placed by his grandparents) is not documentary evidence of birth or citizenship (if it were, it would be accepted as documentary evidence for an I-9 form, but it’s not, so it isn’t).
I’m surprised MM has mocked those of us who seek the truth and expect our elected members of Congress to uphold their sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States (including Article II Section 1).
I’m surprised that anyone (especially Michelle Malkin) has allowed an unelected, unaccountable, untrustworthy third party (Annenberg Political Fact Check) to be the organization that declares Obama eligible to serve as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States.
The Senate reminds me of the three monkeys, see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil, unless it is a Republican nomination. Then all stops are pull out. Don’t you love these guys?
I’d love to have the writers for SNL do an “The Inner Man” skit (the one with comic Kevin Nealon) using the panel’s questions for Sotomayor. They should have a leg up on this one, since one of their former writers is now on this Senate panel.
Not to dissappoint — Jeff Sessions himself was denied a seat on a federal court because of his racist remarks.
RedPill…about the newspaper item. As a genealogist, I know for a fact that people put birth announcements and other personal information in newspapers other than their own local paper. In the case of Obama’s mother, she could very well have sent the information of Obama’s birth from Kenya to certain papers in Hawaii because she had relatives there and other friends who she wished to notify. That is commonly done even today. So a newspaper item from back when Obama was born is absolutely no proof that he was born in Hawaii. Only that his mommy wanted the announcement in the Hawaii paper. I agree that there is so much more to this story. Obama could resolve the entire issue so easily…just prove where he was born. The fact that he doesn’t speaks volumes. I will continue to believe he was born in Kenya until he proves otherwise.
lgm does not disappoint.
Dissent is racism to the left.
lgm said:
And your point is?
The truth is probably that he really was born in Hawaii, but he cannot prove it due to Hawaiian sloppiness with records.
Which opens up a whole can of worms our elites would rather not address.
NEVERTHELESS, the USSC telling citizens they don’t have ’standing’ to demand proof their President is qualified to BE their President is just plain nuts.
What are 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
Q: What are 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: Cheaper healthcare due to a reduction in frivolous malpractice lawsuits.
The “Republican’s hate minorities” narrative is something that has to be addressed.
***
Sonia Sotomayor will replace Ruth (Buzzi!) Ginsburg nicely. No real change in the 5-4 court makeup.
***
As far as her 90 percent reversal (aka “getting it wrong”) rate–in my pre-retirement engineering career I would have been fired quickly if I “got it wrong” more than 10 percent of the time. Lawyers and Judges must get cut a lot more “slack” than most other people do.
***
But “touchy–feely” judging (aka STATE SPONSORED DISCRIMINATION) will be great for all persons in the new “democratic” / liberal / socialist / statist / marxist / communist U.S.S.A. that President Obama (PBUH) and his congressional minions are setting up for us. The “wise Latina” will help him out with his agenda. Except for us Caucasians (aka Whiteys) and our Asian citizens. Racial identity politics at its worst.
***
The real end of our country will come when the Messiah gets to replace one of the conservative SCOTUS justices. A heart attack, stroke, accident, illness, or assassin’s bullet could change the court to 4-5 in the near future.
***
John Bibb
***
I would suggest the response should be, “How? Put up or shut up?”
I am sick of the Drive By slur that goes unchallenged. A very brave man once said that he dreamed of a day when people are judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. That’s my standard. Anyone who has a problem with it can tell me why not.
ITookTheRedPill, take your meds.
Original, vault copy birth certificate — Not released
Certification of Live Birth — Counterfeit
Obama/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license — Not released
Soetoro adoption records — Not released
Fransiskus Assisi School application — Released
Punahou School records — Not released
Selective Service Registration — Counterfeit
Occidental College records — Not released
Passport records for 1981 Pakistan trip — Not released
Columbia College records — Not released
Columbia thesis — Not released
Harvard College records — Not released
Harvard Law Review articles — None (maybe 1, unsigned?)
Baptism certificate — None
Medical records — Not released
Illinois State Senate records — None
Illinois State Senate schedule — Lost
Law practice client list — Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles — None
So…exactly what are you implying? Do you think that they are hiding something? Where is the proof? Move along. Nothing to see here.
/sarc off
neocon527,
What did Hawaii Department of Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino and Registrar of Vital Statistics Alvin T. Onaka (who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records) inspect when they said they had:
That statement was made October 31, 2008. What did they inspect?
Oh, and by the way, Obama admitted in his book that he has an original paper copy of his birth certificate…
http://www.theobamafile.com/ObamaCOLB.htm
I can’t go into all of the details right now, but expect some new news soon regarding what I’ve been talking about above. It’s not a “silver bullet”, but it is definate, major progress towards uncovering the truth.
I’m so excited that I can hardly stand it!
As with Obama, so will be with Sotomayor. Both are criminals to the US Constitution, and enemies to freedom, liberty, life and family issues.
As in the words of Rush Limbaugh…“mark my words – don’t doubt me”
Great. Tell a Polack to pi$$ in the corner of a round room…
Jangar,
I really didn’t expect that kind of a comment from you…
Pill,
The suspense is overwhelming…
Pill,
One thing that is indisputable, Papa Obama passed on his British citizenship to Junior, so that right there makes for a questionable issue of loyalty.
Jangar,
I agree completely with your last comment. But the question of whether or not a dual citizen qualifies as a “natural born citizen” is a question that likely has to be answered by the Supreme Court. If the court rules in favor of Vattel’s definition (and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Jay’s letter to George Washington), then Obama is not eligible to hold the office.
What’s happening on my end is that I have spoken to someone with a “tangible interest” in Obama’s original Birth Certificate, and obtained their verbal agreement to request a certified copy of Obama’s Birth Certificate. If the State of Hawaii refuses to issue it, there will be grounds for a lawsuit because this person most certainly has “standing”. I don’t want to say too much more, because I don’t want to do anything that would allow the Obamabots to practice their “thug thizzle”.
Pill,
Who’s that lady laywer that represented the interest of the serviceman who sued Obama and refused to go to Afganistan? She delivered all documentation to Chief Justice John Roberts for preliminary review, should the case go to SCOTUS.
Jangar,
That’s her! Thanks pill.
You’re welcome, I’m happy to help.
And here’s an update on that case…
Absolutely I think he is hiding all kinds of embarrassing facts in his background. Two documents that his campaign has put forward are obvious forgeries.
You can laugh and stick you head in the sand but there are real questions if Barry Soetoro meets the natural born citizen requirement of the constitution.
We know less about this fraud than we do of a janitor with a background check sweeping the floors in a City Hall.
John McCain should have done this during the campaign but he refused to go after this usurper from Kenya.
They held natural born hearings on him why not on Barry Soetoro aka Obama?
Before the Senate can vote to confirm a Supreme Court nominee, they must first address the issue of whether or not the person who made the nomination is Constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President!
Obama previously claimed that the 14th Amendment made him eligible to be President.
But the Supreme Court, more than six years after the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution said, in “Minor v Happersett”,
This 14th Amendment was ratified July 9, 1868.
U.S. Supreme Court CHIEF JUSTICE Morrison Remick Waite delivered the opinion of the court in “Minor v Happersett” on March 29, 1875.
Members of Congress (Senators and Representatives) have a Constitutional duty to: