Judge Sonia Sotomayor

, President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, attracted my attention in the spring of 1995 when she made the decision that ended the suicidal baseball strike that prevented a World Series in 1994 and threatened to destroy the 1995 baseball season.

Not only is Judge Sotomayor an excellent choice for the Supreme Court, but she also belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame as the Judge Who Saved Baseball

eli

. What follows is a radio commentary I wrote for WUCF-FM in Orlando on April 5, 1995.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

After nearly eight months, some 232 days after it began, the strike by major league baseball players ended not at the bargaining table, but as the result of a judicial ruling by the youngest judge in the Southern District of New York.

At age 40, Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the first Puerto Rican appointed to the bench in this predominantly Puerto Rican district. A Yale Law Graduate, who grew up in South Bronx just a few blocks from Yankee Stadium, she was appointed to the bench by former Yale first-baseman George Bush on the recommendation of Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Richard Nixon’s designated hitter.

In her ruling, Judge Sotomayor clearly upheld the decision of the NLRB which found the owners in violation of labor law by imposing new conditions of employment on the players after unilaterally declaring an impasse in negotiations. She ordered the owners to restore the previous rules including salary arbitration, competitive bidding for free agents, and the anti-collusion provisions of the free agent rules.

The judge said that collective bargaining process was being threatened, and that she was re-enforcing the NLRB’s protection of the “spirit and the letter of federal labor law….” She also told owners they must return to her courtroom before they can declare an impasse in negotiations in the future.

The legal experts seem to agree that it was a very strong decision, and the owner’s lawyers thought it so strong that a lockout could put the owners in a position where they would be liable for players’ salaries, to the tune of $5 million a day.

The owners had clearly lost as they were told they were in violation of federal law and must rescind their actions. This does not mean that the players won. All it means is that we are back to square one. The players are back at work, there is no contract agreement, the parties remain far apart on the issues, and little or nothing has been resolved as a result of the eight month strike.

What has happened is that the players and owners have managed to anger the public and one another, and perhaps have done permanent damage to the major league baseball goose, which has been laying golden eggs for the past several years. What the coming season will bring remains a major question.

What it will not bring, or is not likely to bring, is a lockout or strike before the end of the World Series. The trauma of the past few months should have had a sobering enough impact on players, owners, and negotiators to keep anyone from reopening the wound.

Whether there will be a settlement is equally doubtful, although the pressures to settle have been intensified. The owners know that before they can declare an impasse again they must reappear before Judge Sotomayor, before whom they remain hitless. The players know that if they would walk again the public would never forgive them, and it is likely that many players would not walk a second time.

(more…)

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court confirmation hearing begins today at 10 a.m. (EST). C-SPAN will have live television coverage. Streaming video will be available at newshour.pbs.org.

Viewers and listeners can expect statements today from each of the Senate Judiciary Committee members (reminder: 17 men, two women) and possibly Sotomayor’s opening statement.

For a look at some of the issues sure to arise, head over to SCOTUSblog, where Kristina Moore provides a detailed look at Sotomayor’s judicial record, neatly organized by subject matter.

Sotomayor is expected to be confirmed, but as Michael D. Shear points out, there are other issues and agendas to look for this week:

Democrats are betting that an overly zealous assault on Sotomayor by Republican senators could anger Latinos and accelerate the shift of Hispanic voters away from the Republican Party, particularly in the South and West.

Conservatives are hoping to use the Sotomayor hearings as a way to motivate their base if they can successfully portray her as an activist judge whose “empathy” for certain groups guides her rulings more than court precedent or the written law.

And activist groups on both sides have already prepared press releases and statements to argue that the Sotomayor outcome says something about where the country’s population is on the issues of guns, abortion, affirmative action, race and gender. Liberals hope an overwhelming vote for her confirmation will encourage Obama to consider even more progressive nominees in the future.

Dahlia Lithwick has kindly put together everything you need to know about the hearing, including who will say what (yes, she can predict these things):

Other senators, such as Arlen Specter, will attempt to tap into Judge Sotomayor’s judicial subconscious; asking trick questions about whether she thinks precedent is important (she’ll say it is) and what she thinks of specific cases (she will take a page from Chief Justice John Roberts’ book and summarize cases, without opining on them). She will make blurry-yet-bold pronouncements about the right to privacy, personal autonomy, and bodily integrity — none of which will clarify her stand on abortion. [...]

Despite an 18-year judicial record and hundreds of opinions suggesting she’s a moderate, technical judge, Sotomayor’s critics will attempt to smoke out the raging inner racist/racialist/racial exceptionalist they suspect lurks deep within her. They will do so by asking her about her “wise Latina woman” comment from a 2001 speech at least 16 times over the course of the hearings. (She will say she should have chosen her words better.) They will attempt to get her to hiss and spit like an enraged boa constrictor. (She will be placid and cool.) She will be asked about judicial “empathy.” The conversation about empathy and the Constitution will be just as illuminating as the conversation about judicial activism.

Conservative white men on the committee will attempt to understand whether and why she hates conservative white men. They will do so by asking endless variations on the following question: “Did you arrive at your decision in the New Haven firefighters case because you hate white men?” She will assure them she does not, and tell charming stories of the firefighters she has known and the good times they have shared. Frank Ricci will scowl. David Cone will throw a slider high and inside. Al Franken will find a way to work “Learned Hand” into the conversation without once cracking a smile.

There’s more. Actually, if you’ve got nothing else going on this week, Lithwick’s predictions may be the basis of a supreme drinking game.

Plus: Remembering what it took to get to this moment, the Women’s Media Center has documented racist and sexist comments made about Sotomayor in various media outlets. A video, “Media Justice for Sotomayor,” ties it all together:

After a Boston Herald reporter wrote that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made an obscene gesture inside the Cathedral of the Holy Cross in response to a question about his impartiality on matters of church and state, the jurist accused the Herald’s staff of watching too many Sopranos episodes. So the Herald sought expert opinions — from Sopranos actors.

“It?s an obscenity,? Joseph Gannascoli, who plays capo Vito Spatafore on the HBO drama ?The Sopranos,? said of Scalia?s gesture, which involved flicking his hand under his chin. [...]

?It?s not that bad, but I wouldn?t do it to my mother. No way. Would I do it in church? These days, maybe. It depends if the priest was giving me the hairy eyeball,? said Stoneham native John Fiore, who played Sopranos capo Gigi Cestone.

But even that insight wasn’t enough. Proving you can never have enough coverage of a Sicilian hand gesture, the Herald has 10 related story links on Scalia’s flick-off, including an editorial, columns and responses from legal scholars.

View a photo of the gesture for yourself. The photographer, by the way, was fired by Archdiocese of Boston?s newspaper for releasing this photo.

There are times when I wonder whether the president of the United States thinks the American people are a mass of blithering idiots, or if he is simply so dense himself, he can’t see the most obvious idiocy in his own words. Iraq aside, the past few weeks have offered truckloads of such words.

In interviews and public statements during the crisis over Katrina the president at various times claimed that no one could possibly have anticipated what happened in New Orleans. Apparently he did not know that several members of his administration familiar with the work of their agencies were fully briefed on the potential disaster.

When the president finally appeared in hurricane-ravaged areas, he congratulated his ill-informed FEMA Director that he was doing a great job. A tape loop of “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job” [full transcript] belongs in a time capsule.

Trying to show his connections to the city of New Orleans in the middle of this disaster, the president recalled that New Orleans was special to him because he frequently went there and got stoned. What a sentimentalist!

After realizing that things were not going very well, the president became omnipresent in the Crescent City and along the Gulf Coast hugging people, looking serious, and staging a nighttime speech at considerable cost and effort. The spectacle of Bush in New Orleans alone will be enough to reserve a special place for him in history’s Hall of Fools.

So a few weeks pass. A second hurricane comes and goes without total disaster. Progress! A successful confirmation of the new Chief Justice goes well. Then indictments begin falling from the sky on Republican insiders and cronies across the Bushwacked Landscape. The president will not comment. Of course.

The next historic development is the second Supreme Court nomination. This time, as his feckless father once did, the president tells us that after a search far and wide across the land, he has found the very best and most qualified person for the job. That person would be Harriet Miers. Really?

Seemingly Ms. Miers has three major qualifications: she comes out of a big time Dallas law firm, she was and still is the president’s lawyer, and she is a born again Christian. In addition, she is also a born again Democrat.

The major qualification of Ms. Miers seems to be that she is a Bush loyalist. Cronyism anyone? At least she isn’t Michael Brown.

Her intellectual brilliance comes immediately into question when Ms. Miers is quoted as saying that George W. Bush was the most brilliant person she has ever known. Perhaps Ms. Miers doesn’t get out much.

Most amazing of all are Bush’s reassurances to his neo-con base. He insists that Ms. Miers is a strict constructionist and a conservative and “would stay that way.” Are you sure Mr. President?

“I’ve known her long enough to know she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she will be the same person with the same judicial philosophy she has today.”

How Bush knows this is a mystery. Perhaps he looked into to her soul as he once did with Vladimir Putin.

What we know, and apparently the president doesn’t know, is that Ms. Miers has made several significant and profound changes in her life, not the least of which involves her religion. Born and raised a Roman Catholic somehow and in some way the woman who will not change, changed, from Catholic to Evangelical. This is no small development in anyone’s life whether you view it from the Catholic or the Evangelical end of the story.

We know, and apparently the president doesn’t know, that Ms. Miers was once a Texas Democract, and then changed to become a Texas Republican. For Texas Republicans this may not be a major change, but I assure you that for Texas Democrats it is.

We know, and apparently the president doesn’t know, that as a young woman Ms. Miers believed in the right of women to have an abortion, and then later came to an anti-abortion position.

It seems to me that in this latest walk around the block the president has walked in ignorance or he simply thinks the public is at such a level of idiocy they will believe anything he says.

What the president seems to have forgotten is that Hurricane Katrina pulled back the curtain on his fantasy world. The public got a very candid look at this man of limited vision, protected from reality by a life of privilege, who at one time appeared as nothing less than a Wizard and now stands exposed as a man of stunning incompetence.

Inspired by a quote from a New Hampshire Union Leader editorial on the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers — “What separates her from the others is a single attribute: friendship with the President” — Think Progress today released a video tribute, “Thank You for Being a Friend.” How sweet.

And Maureen Dowd sounds off on “tough women who steadfastly devote their entire lives” to caring for and propping up President Bush — Condoleezza Rice, Karen Hughes and Miers. Her assessment is interesting, though her TV comparison is a bit of stretch: “The West Wing is a parallel universe to TV’s Wisteria Lane: instead of self-indulgent desperate housewives wary of sexy nannies, there are self-sacrificing, buttoned-up nannies serving as adoring work wives, catering to W.’s every political, legal and ego-affirming need.”

Plus: Think Progress also takes note of the “media glass ceiling” when it comes to including quotes describing Miers. Anyone know Chief Justice John Roberts’ shoe size?

The Senate Judiciary Committee today voted 13-5 in favor of Judge John Roberts’ confirmation. The nomination will be sent to the full Senate, which may vote to confirm Roberts as chief justice early next week.

The committee’s 10 Republican members all voted in favor, as expected. They were joined by Democratic Sens. Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, both of Wisconsin.

Voting no were Democrats Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), Joseph Biden (Del.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Richard J. Durbin (Ill.).

Feingold’s office released his statement in favor of Roberts.

“This has not been an easy decision, but I believe it is the correct one,” said Feingold. “Judge Roberts’ impeccable legal credentials, his reputation and record as a fair-minded person, and his commitment to modesty and respect for precedent have persuaded me that he will not bring an ideological agenda to the position of Chief Justice of the United States and that he should be confirmed.”

He later continued:

As I’m sure every single one of us on this Committee noticed and expected, Judge Roberts did not expressly say how he would rule if asked to overturn Roe v. Wade. But if Judge Roberts abides by what he said about how he would approach the question of stare decisis, I think he should vote to uphold Roe. He certainly left some wiggle room, and he said he would approach the possibility of overturning a case differently if the underlying precedents themselves came into question.

But it will be difficult to overrule Roe or other important precedents while remaining true to his testimony about stability and settled law, including his statement that he agrees with the outcome in Griswold v. Connecticut. I know the American people will be watching him very closely on that question, and I personally will consider it a reversal of huge proportions, and a grave disappointment, if he ultimately does attempt to go down that road.

Er, yeah.

CNN analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the split shows that “Democrats in different ways … are deciding what’s the best way to position themselves for the next vacancy, which will be lots more contentious.”

What do you think?

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

Supreme Court nominee John “I’m not an ideologue” Roberts made it through four days of hearings without revealing much we don’t already know, leaving Democratic senators supposedly baffled over how to vote.

Clear to those of us who watched from home was the utter futility of it all. Lee Seigel, television critic for The New Republic, writes:

With his smooth equivocations, Roberts actually had television pundits like CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin debating whether Supreme Court nominees really should have to answer any questions at all! Roberts’s formalism had spilled over into the studios. A stickler, it seems, for judicial precedent, Roberts has now set a precedent for future nominees that may very well make such hearings pointless exercises. Though some commentators praised Roberts for being “dreadfully intelligent,” what the judge offered was the horrifying spectacle — familiar to Ivy League professors teaching ambitiously obsequious undergraduates — of dreadful utilitarian smarts devoid of real intelligence.

In the end, there was something kangarooish about these hearings in which nothing substantial on the part of the nominee was ever actually heard. Travesty crept in. Meaning slipped into Roberts’s smooth meaningless evasions through the back door. By saying nothing, he was increasing the possibility that everything he said signified his opposite.

After Wedesday’s questioning deteriorated into a probe of whether Roberts has a heart and, if so, what kind of heart — with Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) sternly reminding us that “there are bleeding hearts and there are hard hearts,” and just because Justice Ginsburg has a bleeding heart, and thus a different value system, doesn’t mean she doesn’t have a good heart — the Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony from those still focused on what’s at stake should Roberts be confirmed.

Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center, said, “Unfortunately, John Roberts’ view of the law is entirely divorced from its real-world consequences on women’s lives. In contrast to Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said that the ‘life of the law is not logic but experience,’ for Judge Roberts the law is pure logic, untempered by his life experiences.”

Then National Women’s Law Center’s report on Roberts’ record on critical legal rights for women was submitted into the record.

The issue of abortion became the focal point from the start. Though some Democratic senators seem pleasantly surprised by some of Roberts’ answers, particularly on precedent and privacy, women’s rights activists are not as easily convinced.

Dahlia Lithwick, in her last dispatch on the hearings, came to some interesting conclusions:

I came into these hearings thinking there was no constitutional question more urgent than where in the godforsaken Escher painting that is the Hart Senate Building one might plug in one’s breast pump. But I’ve come away with a much harder question — one I’m not certain I can answer anymore. The problem isn’t whether John Roberts can be principled and fair on a thoroughly passive court. I’m sold on that. It’s whether a thoroughly passive court can ever truly be principled and fair.

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

Nominee John Roberts must have been told during the lunch break that he said enough about privacy to appease critics and now needed to abide by the adage “silence is golden.”

In contrast to this morning’s questioning, Roberts was more cautious in explaining his views, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein didn’t get as far as Sen. Arlen Specter when she pushed Roberts on the right to privacy and issues of equality and autonomy.

Feinstein opened with questions about comments Roberts made about women 20 years ago, including his dismissal of the wage gap that women experience and the now infamous quote, “Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide.”

When Feinstein pushed Roberts on whether he wrote with a “very acerbic pen” or if he truly believed what he wrote, Roberts replied:

Senator, I have always supported and support today equal rights for women, particularly in the workplace. I was very pleased when I saw, for example, the report of the National Association of Women Lawyers, who went out and talked and interviewed with women lawyers who have worked with me, who have appeared before me.

And the conclusion was that I not only always treated women lawyers with respect and equal dignity, but that I had made special accommodations for life/work issues to ensure that women could continue to progress, for example, at my law firm, and had always treated women who appeared before me in a perfectly professional way.

In addition to insisting that he was just making a common lawyer joke, Roberts noted that he is married to a lawyer and he was “raised with three sisters who work outside the home.” Roberts added that he has daughter for whom he “will insist at every turn that she has equal citizenship rights with her brother.”

Feinstein said she didn’t want to belabor the point. “I’m just trying to understand how you think, because you appear — you know, you speak about modesty and humility, and yet none of these comments are modest or humble.”

“Well, those comments were in the nature of the tone that was encouraged in our office,” said Roberts. “It was a small office. They expected return projects around very quickly. We were expected to be candid. And if making a joke about lawyers would make for a more enjoyable day on the part of the people in the office, that’s what we did.”

Roberts’ defense was predictable. Yet as Dahlia Lithwick pointed out last month, “Roberts honestly seemed to think that humor or disdain were the only appropriate ways to think about gender. [...] The record seems to make it quite clear that Roberts — with his “perceived/purported/alleged” discrimination trope — simply didn’t believe that gender problems were worthy of his serious consideration or scrutiny.”

As for the report by the National Association of Women Lawyers, Roberts is correct about the compliments, but take a look at what else the Association’s Committee for the Evaluation of Supreme Court nominees had to say:

The available record raises questions about Judge Roberts’s view of the role of federal courts in ensuring equality of treatment for women and protecting women’s rights. As a lawyer and judge, based on interviews the Committee conducted, Judge Roberts has treated individual women lawyers fairly and with respect [...]

The Committee’s review of Judge Roberts’s writings and public statements, however, has raised concerns about the impact of Judge Roberts’s judicial philosophy in three broad areas essential to women’s rights: (1) the use of state and federal power, (2) laws that have a substantial impact on women, and (3) federal laws intended to protect against discrimination based on sex.

The NAWL Committee submitted recommended questions to the Senate Judiciary Committee seeking more information about Roberts’ judicial philosophy and approaches to women’s rights. It must have been frustrating to hear Roberts selectively quoting their remarks without providing much by way of answers.

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

John Roberts just concluded his statement, in which he cast himself as a humble servant. His remarks drew upon iconic American images, including baseball games and “the endless fields” of Indiana. (Read the transcripts of all speakers here; visit C-SPAN for video; the Washington Post’s Robert Kaiser will discuss the hearings and take questions online at 5 p.m. EST.)

“Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around,” said Roberts. “Judges have to have the humility to recognize that they operate within a system of precedent shaped by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath. Judges have to have the modesty to be open in the decisional process to the considered views of their colleagues on the bench.”

Roberts added that he comes before the committee with no agenda and no platform.

“I will confront every case with an open mind,” he said. “And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat.”

Following the hearing, Sen. Edward Kennedy said he was troubled by Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee urging the nominee not to be responsive to questions. “It is very important for Americans to understand what this justice is all about,” said Kennedy, adding that the need is magnified by the Bush administration’s decision to restrict access to memos and documents “for reasons we do not know.”

It was a masterful staging by all sides, with everyone on message to the end.

Sometimes those messages were a bit hard to swallow. I was particularly struck by Sen. Tom Coburn’s opening statement. After railing against decades of judicial activism that have “created these huge rifts in the social fabric of our country,” the Republican senator from Oklahoma got choked up — really choked up — when he reflected on the state of the union: “When I ponder our country and its greatness, its weaknesses, its potential, my heart aches for less divisiveness, less polarization, less finger-pointing, less bitterness, less mindless partisanship which at times sounds almost hateful to ear of Americans.”

This from a physician who sterilized a woman without her written consent and who once said, “The gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country, and they wield extreme power … That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.”

Nope, no finger-pointing there.

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has a beatific face. His brow furrows on occasion. His lips purse together. He seems appropriately sincere when listening to senators’ concerns and humble when being praised.

In short, he looks like a man who knows exactly how to act in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, the only woman on the committee, just finished speaking. Her statement was released in advance. She didn’t exactly follow the script — and in fact ran out of time before she could complete her remarks — but it’s close.

With regard to her comments about abortion and the right to privacy, I’ve transcribed exactly what she said here:

As the only woman on this Committee, I believe I have an additional role in evaluating nominees for the Supreme Court, and that’s to see if the hard-earned autonomy of women is protected.

Like any population, women enjoy diverse opinions, beliefs, political affiliations, priorities and values. And we share a history of having to fight for many of the rights and opportunities that young American women now take so much for granted. I think they don’t really recall that during the early years of the United States, women actually had very few rights and privileges. In most states, women were not allowed to enter into contracts, to act as an executor of an estate. They had limited inheritance and child custody rights. It actually wasn’t until 1839 that a woman could own property separate from her husband, when Mississippi passed the Married Woman’s Property Act.

It wasn’t until the 19th Century that women began working outside their homes in large numbers. Most often women were employed as teachers or nurses, and in textile mills and garment shops. As women entered into the work force, we had to fight our way into “nontraditional” fields — medicine, law, business, and, yes, even politics.

The American Medical Association was founded in 1846, but it barred women for 69 years from membership until 1915. The American Bar Association was founded in 1876, but it did barred women and did not admit them until 1918. That’s 42 years later. And it wasn’t until 1920, when after a very hard fight, women won the right to vote — not even 100 years ago.

By virtue of our accomplishments and our history, women have a perspective I think that has been recognized as unique and valuable.

With the retirement of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, the Court loses the important perspective she brought as a woman — and the deciding vote in a number of critical cases.

For me — and I said this to you privately, and I’ll say more about it in my time on questions — one of the most important issues that needs to be addressed by you is the constitutional right to privacy.

I’m concerned by a trend on the Court to limit this right and thereby to curtail the autonomy that we have fought for and achieved. In this case, over just simply controlling our own reproductive system rather than having some politicians do it for us.

It would be very difficult — and I said this to you privately and I said it publicly — for me to vote to confirm someone whom I knew would overturn Roe v. Wade. Because I remember, and many of the young women here don’t, what it was like when abortion was illegal in America.

As a college student at Stanford, I watched the passing of the plate to collect money so a young woman could go to Tijuana for a back-alley abortion. I knew a young woman who killed herself because she was pregnant.

And in the 1960s then, as a member of the California Women’s Board of Terms and Parole, when California had what was called the Indeterminate Sentence Law, I actually sentenced women who committed abortions to prison terms. I saw the morbidity. I saw the injuries they caused. And I don’t want to go back to those days.

How the Court decides future cases could determine whether both the beginning-of-life and the end-of-life decisions remain private, or whether individuals could be subject to government intrusion or perhaps the risk of prison.

It appears that most if not all of the senator’s opening statements are available online, though everyone seems to be ad-libbing at least somewhat. C-SPAN has video clips for each senator if you want to know exactly what was said. Prior to Feinstein, Senators Joe Biden, Edward Kennedy and Patrick Leahy came out the strongest, arguing for judicial protection for all.

“There are 280 million Americans,” said Leahy. “The president has made his choice. Now there are only 100 Americans standing in the shoes of all other Americans. It’s the job of 100 of us in the Senate to make sure we get it right.”

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

With confirmation hearings for John G. Roberts slated to begin at noon EST Monday, it’s time for a quick refresher. But first, here’s the full hearings schedule. Monday’s lineup includes opening statements from senators and introductory remarks. Roberts will also give his opening statement. C-SPAN’s Supreme Court page has links to live coverage as well as related recent programs.

According to Sunday’s New York Times, Sen. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he doesn’t plan on asking Roberts if he would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“While I will not ask Judge Roberts whether he would overrule Roe, there are, in my opinion, entirely appropriate questions on his jurisprudential views that might be asked,” wrote Specter. “For example, I consider it appropriate to question him as to his views on stare decisis, or following precedents, as well as his views with respect to the importance of stability in the law, which Judge Roberts has identified, along with ‘modesty,’ as one of his lodestones.”

Apparently anyone else on the committee can ask away — though it’s unlikely they’ll get very far.

“While I personally consider it inappropriate to ask a nominee how he would vote on a specific matter likely to come before the court, senators may ask whatever they choose and the nominee is similarly free to respond as he chooses,” Specter added.

So what will Roberts face this week? Adam Liptak looks back at the hearings for Robert’s predecessor:

The questions are sure to be sharp, but at least he can take solace in the fact that his mentor, and the man whom he seeks to replace, the late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, endured two rocky confirmation hearings, for associate justice in 1971 and for chief justice in 1986. They were marked by accusations of racial insensitivity and ethical impropriety, based in part on Mr. Rehnquist’s writings as a young lawyer.

Indeed, if anything, his confirmation hearings provide lessons in how to respond to accusations far more charged than anything Judge Roberts is likely to face. And Mr. Rehnquist’s hearings also show how much the coaching and prepping of nominees have changed.

(Not to dwell too much on Rehnquist, but this Boston Globe column from Saturday caught my eye: “President Bush said William Rehnquist should be remembered for ‘improving the delivery of justice for the American people,’” wrote Derrick Z. Jackson. “To Rehnquist, justice meant just us white men, preferably connected, preferably straight and preferably with all limbs functioning.”)

Back to the hearings. Linda Greenhouse wrote a Senate hearings primer — “a viewer’s guide, by topic and in context, to the words and phrases that are likely to be heard as the event, part legal seminar and part political theater, proceeds.” It covers privacy and reproductive rights, sex discrimination, civil rights, access to court, commerce clause and presidential power.

Short on time? If you’re looking for a quick read, here’s a basic guide to legal terms you’re likely to hear over and over this week.

The Washington Post has put together a handy dossier. Scroll down and you’ll find links to key documents and memos written by Roberts while working in the Reagan administration; Roberts’ response to a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire in preparation for the confirmation hearings; and oral arguments Roberts made before the Supreme Court when representing private clients. Look under key decisions for the U.S. Brief in Rust v. Sullivan dealing with the issue of abortion.

And don’t forget that there will be daily rallies in opposition to Roberts’ nomination. Here’s the schedule of events, brought to you by Feminist Majority.

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

Groups already opposed to Supreme Court nominee John Roberts responded quickly today to President Bush’s decision to nominate Roberts to succeed William Rehnquist as chief justice. Here’s a sampling of statements released this afternoon, many of which are calling for greater disclosure of Roberts’ legal writings and related documents:

Eleanor Smeal, president of Feminist Majority (excerpt):

The Feminist Majority strongly opposes the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The President’s elevation of John Roberts to Chief Justice raises the standard by which Senators must measure Roberts. As Chief Justice, Roberts would be in the nation’s top judicial leadership position to roll backwards the gains made by women and people of color over the past 40 years. His record indicates he would greatly weaken anti-discrimination statutes in employment and education; ignore wage discrimination; gut Title IX; water down voting rights; cut back affirmative action; eliminate the right to privacy (which he has mocked); and reverse Roe v. Wade.

As the Gulf Coast and New Orleans tragedy reveals, our nation still has a deep race and class divide. We must have a federal judiciary that will not unravel the legal gains and guarantees decades of civil rights and women’s rights struggles have produced.

We again call on President Bush to choose a moderate woman jurist to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s historic seat. He did not win a mandate to appoint right-wing judges who would reverse women’s progress. Americans deserve to know who the President is appointing for both vacancies before a vote occurs.

Kim Gandy, president of NOW (excerpt; full statement):

Now that Roberts’ attitudes toward women have been revealed, it is an outrage and an insult to the women of this country that George W. Bush has nominated such a jurist to be Chief Justice of the United States.

First, there cannot be a “stealth nominee” for Chief Justice. Bush must release every document from Roberts’ tenure as Principal Deputy Solicitor General under the first President Bush, and any remaining writings from his time as an advisor to the Reagan administration. How dare Bush nominate this candidate for the top position on the Supreme Court when his administration has deliberately concealed hundreds of thousands of pages of his writings, during a time that he was one of the top lawyers representing the people of the United States? If the Bush administration refuses to release these papers, we must ask ourselves what they are hiding. And the Senate must ask the same question. [...]

Finally, Bush now has a second opportunity to honor Sandra Day O’Connor’s legacy by naming a moderate woman to replace her as associate justice. He can get it right this time, and if Bush needs any help finding a woman who will uphold women’s rights, NOW will be happy to help.

Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women’s Law Center:

John Roberts’s nomination as Chief Justice demands a new and more searching level of scrutiny. Given the important responsibilities of the Chief Justice, it is critical that John Roberts’s complete record is made available so the U.S. Senate and the American people can make a fully informed judgment.

The stakes have been raised, and much lies in the balance. Laws that protect women’s constitutional rights to equal protection in employment, education, health, safety and welfare are on the line, as is a woman’s right to choose. We must not allow these core rights to be eroded.

Debra L. Ness, president of the National Partnership for Women & Families (excerpt):

[A]fter an exhaustive review of his available record, the National Partnership for Women & Families opposed his confirmation as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. We must oppose his confirmation as Chief Justice even more strenuously because, in that post, he would have even greater power to shape the direction of our courts, our laws and our lives. The Chief Justice is the most powerful judge in the nation, the lead policy maker for the judiciary, and the public face of our courts.

Today’s action makes it even more urgent that Roberts’ record be produced in its entirety. The Administration has refused to release Roberts’ files dating from his work in the Solicitor’s Office during the Administration of President George H. W. Bush. The same types of records were released when Justice William Rehnquist was elevated to the position of Chief Justice, and they should be released now. Without them, the Senate cannot conduct the independent, careful, and thorough review of Roberts the nation needs.

Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way (excerpt; full statement):

People For the American Way opposed Roberts’ nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in large part based on his hostility to the laws and remedies that protect Americans from discrimination and his longtime efforts to restrict the role of the courts in upholding Americans’ rights and legal protections. To an even greater degree, that record makes him unfit for the position of Chief Justice, and we will vigorously oppose his confirmation.

The events of the past week have only underscored that we need Supreme Court justices who value the role of the courts in protecting individuals’ rights and freedoms, who understand the nature of discrimination and its continuing impact on our country, and who will uphold the role of the federal government in preserving those rights and acting to protect the common good. John Roberts’ record makes it emphatically clear that he does not meet this standard.

American Association for Affirmative Action (excerpt; full statement):

AAAA’s President, Robert Ethridge, stated that the decision was reached after careful consideration of the available record. “The American Association for Affirmative Action has heard many of the arguments for and against the suitability of John Roberts for a position on the nation’s highest court. We have also reviewed documents related to his views on affirmative action and equal opportunity law and policy. Based on his record, we must respectfully oppose John Roberts’ confirmation as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.” [...]

AAAA also called upon the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to investigate the loss of documents regarding Roberts’ involvement in affirmative action policy during the 1980s. “We live in a democratic society” said Ethridge, “and the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice must be based on a full and complete record. The loss of documents related to John Roberts and his affirmative action record raises serious concerns for the Association and threatens to impugn the integrity of the entire judicial confirmation process. “At best, this was a thoughtless misplacement of important records. At worst, this was an obstruction of justice. Failing an investigation by the Justice Department, we call upon the House and Senate Judiciary Committees to exercise their authority and responsibility to conduct a nonpartisan investigation of the disappearance of documents related to John Roberts’ work on matters involving affirmative action law and policy.”

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts, slated to begin Tuesday, have been pushed back at least two days. From The New York Times:

President Bush nominated Judge John G. Roberts Jr. today to replace Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, whose death late Saturday opened a second vacancy on the Supreme Court and a new front in the ideological battle over the judiciary.

Senate leaders agreed this morning to delay by at least two days the start of Mr. Roberts’s confirmation hearing, which had been set to begin on Tuesday, when he was being considered to succeed Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Now that Mr. Bush has nominated him for the chief justice’s job, several Senate and Congressional leaders had asked that the hearings be delayed until after Chief Justice Rehnquist’s funeral, which is set for Wednesday. [...]

“He’s a man of integrity and fairness and throughout his life he’s inspired the respect and loyalty of others,” Mr. Bush said of his nominee. “John Roberts built a record of excellence and achievement and reputation for goodwill and decency toward others in his extraordinary career.”

In brief remarks, Judge Roberts said: “I am honored and humbled by the confidence the president has shown in me.”

“I am very much aware that if I am confirmed I would succeed a man I deeply respect and admire, a man who has been very kind to me for 25 years,” he said.

Watch the news conference with Bush and Roberts here.

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

From ABC’s This Week — Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) discussed the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and how it may affect the Judiciary Committee hearings scheduled to start Tuesday for Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. (via Campaign for the Supreme Court):

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Hatch, the hearings for John Roberts are scheduled to begin on Tuesday. You heard Terry Moran there raise the prospect of a timeout. Do you think that’s a good idea?

HATCH: No, no. I think we have to proceed with the hearings, but we’ll have to see. We’ll have to see what the president decides to do here.

You know, there are a lot of factors that might enter into — that could cause a delay, but I don’t think so. I think we need to proceed with John Roberts and move right ahead.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, one possibility would be, though, that if you wanted to make John Roberts his nominee for chief justice, that would certainly require a delay, correct?

HATCH: Well, I don’t think so, because what’s the difference? We’ve gone through Roberts, almost 75,000 documents and pages. We know about as much about Roberts as we have anybody in history, and I don’t see any reason why we couldn’t go ahead, even if the president nominates him for chief justice.

But the second one, I think that will take more time. There’s no question about that.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Schumer, let me bring you in on this question. Do you agree with that, no delay?

SCHUMER: No, I think, you know, we can take a few days out to mourn Justice Rehnquist. He was a towering figure in the judiciary. I think Judge Roberts, Judge Roberts was his law clerk, and Judge Rehnquist was Judge Roberts’s mentor.

I think it makes a good deal of sense for us to take time, catch our breath and take a few days out. I think that’s what [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist and Senator [Arlen] Specter are now considering, and I hope they will, because it makes sense.

Before Rehnquist’s death was announced, groups opposed to Roberts’ nomination were already calling for the hearings to be delayed. From The New York Times on Saturday:

But as they scramble to rally grass-roots supporters in the days before the confirmation hearings and the month before the Senate is expected to vote, some opposition groups worried that their efforts had failed to pierce the din of concerns about rising gasoline prices, casualties in Iraq, and, most recently, the hurricane devastation in New Orleans.

“Now there is this hurricane,” said Eleanor Smeal, president of the Feminist Majority Foundation. In exasperation, Ms. Smeal suggested Thursday that the Senate Judiciary Committee should postpone the confirmation hearings, scheduled to begin Tuesday, because the hurricane was distracting attention from debate on the nomination. “This has got to get more visibility,” Ms. Smeal said. “We have to do something.”

Hilary Shelton, director of the Washington Bureau of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, said he, too, was hoping for more time. “I think the disadvantage is that the Senate is moving as fast as it is,” he said. “With the White House releasing documents as slowly as it has been doing, we would think that the entire Senate would want to be more circumspect.”

*cross-posted from msmusings.net

Here are the first obituaries and reports on the death of William Rehnquist:

Statement by Supreme Court Spokeswoman Kathy Arberg (via Chicago Sun-Times)

****

Bush Expresses Sadness at Rehnquist Death (Associated Press, via San Francisco Chronicle)

****

Supreme Court Has Rare Pair of Vacancies (Associated Press, via Washington Post)

****

Background on Rehnquist (FindLaw.com)

Excerpts From Opinions by Rehnquist (Associated Press, via Washington Post)

Key Dates in Rehnquist’s High Court Tenure (Associated Press, via Newsday)

****

Rehnquist Led Conservatives on U.S. Supreme Court (Reuters)

Rehnquist Often Sided With States Over Federal Power (USA Today)

Rehnquist Was Warm and Jovial Off Bench (Associated Press, via Washington Post)

Conservatism, Judicial Restraint Mark Rehnquist Legacy (CNN)

****

William H. Rehnquist, Chief Justice of Supreme Court, Is Dead at 80 (New York Times)

U.S. Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies (BBC — includes video and audio about Rehnquist’s life)

Rehnquist Dies (Chicago Tribune)

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist Dies (Washington Post)

Chief Justice Rehnquist Dies at His Home (Associated Press, via Washington Post)

Chief Justice Rehnquist has died (CNN)

*cross-posted from msmusings.net