Final Thoughts on Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nomination ...

Like Senator Charles Grassley, we had concerns about Justice Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

We received the following e-mail from Senator Grassley today:

Thank you for emailing me to express your opposition to the nomination
of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. As your Senator, it is
important that I hear from you.

On July 13 - 16, 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearings on Judge Sotomayor's nomination. As a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, I participated in these hearings and asked the nominee a number of questions about her judicial philosophy and judicial record. On July 28, 2009, the Judiciary Committee voted 13-6 to advance Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Senate floor. You should know that I voted against her nomination. On August 6, 2009, the Senate voted 68-31 to confirm Judge Sotomayor to become an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I had a number of concerns with Judge Sotomayor's record and decisions on the bench which ultimately led me to vote against her confirmation. In speeches and law review articles she produced over the years, Judge Sotomayor has articulated a judicial philosophy that is at odds with the fundamental principles of our legal system. For example, she questioned whether judges can truly be impartial, stated that race and gender should influence the judicial decision-making process, proclaimed that the courts of appeals "make policy", and promoted judges using foreign law. I was concerned that Judge Sotomayor's hearing testimony before
the Judiciary Committee was irreconcilable and incompatible with her long
history of previously expressed views. Our American legal tradition
demands that judges not take on the role of policy makers, but that they check
their biases, personal beliefs and politics at the door of the courthouse.
That is why President Obama's "empathy" standard for judges is a radical
departure from our American tradition of blind, impartial
justice.

Moreover, Judge Sotomayor issued a number of controversial
rulings during her time on the Second Circuit. For example, her decisions
in Maloney v. Cuomo and Didden v. Village of Port Chester raise serious
questions about whether she will adequately protect the Second Amendment's right to bear arms and individual property rights under the Fifth Amendment. I
was also concerned with her cursory dismissal in Ricci v. City of New Haven, an
important case involving racial preferences and standardized tests. In
addition, Judge Sotomayor's decisions have been reversed or criticized by the
Supreme Court 9 out of 10 times.

In my two decades as a member of the Judiciary Committee, I consistently have applied the same standard to all judicial nominees. In addition to having a distinguished legal background, superior intellect, personal integrity, and the proper judicial temperament, judges must understand the proper constitutional role of a judge in our system of checks and balances and be capable of ruling without personal bias or prejudice. This last qualification is especially important when we consider nominees to the Supreme Court because it is the highest court of the land. A Supreme Court nominee must demonstrate that he or she can exercise
judicial restraint - the self restraint to resist interpreting the Constitution
and the law to satisfy one's personal beliefs and preferences. Based on
Judge Sotomayor's answers at the hearing and her decisions, writings and
speeches, I was not convinced she could set aside her personal biases and
prejudices and decide cases in an impartial manner based upon the
Constitution. Therefore, I voted against her confirmation to the Supreme
Court.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate hearing from you and urge you to keep in touch.

Sincerely,
Chuck

We appreciate the work Senator Charles Grassley does on behalf of our State and our Country. We wish him the very best in his work as our representative in promoting limited spending and government, equality, life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Robin Tucker