About Sonia Sotomayor

Published July 27, 2009 | 12:02 pm

VERDICT ON SOTOMAYOR IS "NO"

TO: JCN MEMBERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES
FROM: WENDY E. LONG, COUNSEL
GARY A. MARX, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
DATE: JULY 27, 2009
RE: SONIA SOTOMAYOR: THE FINAL VERDICT IS A RESOUNDING “NO” 

Based on our pre-hearing examination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record, we asked Senators to oppose her nomination. After completing our review of Judge Sotomayor’s hearing testimony and written responses to Senators’ written questions, we are today reiterating our recommendation that Senators vote “no” on her nomination. 

Judge Sotomayor’s written and oral responses to Senators’ questions were evasive, contradictory, and frequently characterized by semantic acrobatics or feigned ignorance, exacerbating our concerns instead of alleviating them.

Judge Sotomayor’s testimony reinforced our conclusion that her three decades of political activism, speeches, law review articles, legal advocacy, and judicial decisions demonstrate that, if she is confirmed, Justice Sotomayor will be a supreme liberal judicial activist, outdoing and outflanking the Justice she is replacing, David Souter, in this regard. Her belief that judges should rely on their own views, instead of the law as written, in deciding cases would take our nation a critical step further away from the Rule of Law and toward the Rule of Nine Lawyers.

The pre-hearing polls conducted by CNN and Rasmussen Reports revealed that more Americans oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court than any other successful nominee in the last two decades. According to the post-hearing polls conducted by USA Today/Gallup and ABC/Washington Post, opposition to Sotomayor INCREASED (by 3 percentage points and 5 percentage points respectively).

Simply put, the more Americans learn about Judge Sotomayor’s record, the more they oppose her nomination. A growing number of Americans are concluding that she is a very liberal judicial activist in the mold that President Obama promised when he told Planned Parenthood he would appoint judges who decide the “hard” cases based on personal politics and feelings. It should be noted that important parts of her record have never been disclosed (such as what input she had into the legal strategies advancing racial quotas and late-term-abortions-for-minors-at-taxpayer-expense-without-parental-notification that the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund advanced during her years of leadership).

Read the documentation on Sotomayor's record >>

Get The Facts

Learn More Here

What Others Are Saying

  • "President Obama abided by his dismal and lawless ‘empathy’ standard and, in his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, picked a nominee whom he can count on to indulge her own liberal biases. Sotomayor’s outrageous shenanigans in Ricci v. DeStefano—the case now awaiting a ruling by the Supreme Court in the next four weeks or so—shows what the Obama “empathy” standard means in practice: disfavoring politically incorrect litigants, in this case firefighters who devoted their spare time and their scarce resources to study hard for and pass a promotional exam. See here for more on Sotomayor’s incoherent account of her selective empathy, here for her sorry record of Supreme Court reversals (a record made worse by the Court’s recent reversal of her ruling in the Riverkeepers case), and here for Jeffrey Rosen’s recounting of liberal concerns that Sotomayor just isn’t smart enough."
    Ed Whelan, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center
  • "The problem will soon arise, as it inevitably does for any judge in a court of last resort, of what happens in a particular case when the second factor of limited judicial role impartiality conflicts with empathy? When push comes to shove, will a Justice Sotomayor favor individuals over institutions, employees over corporations, the poor over the rich? My hope is that she will recognize that a judge is supposed to be objective, impartial, free from bias. When it comes to judging, impartiality must trump empathy."
    Justice Raoul Cantero, former Florida Supreme Court Justice
  • "For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground. She is a radical pick that divides America. She believes the role of the Court is to set policy which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the National Abortion Control Board denying the American people to right to be heard on this critical issue. This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations – supported by the vast majority of Americans – like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance."
    Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life President & CEO
  • "President Obama's choice of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U. S. Supreme Court is consistent with his ideological view supporting Supreme Court justices that rule based on personal feelings and political agenda, rather than a strict and disciplined adherence to the rule of law. While, as a woman who has been a lawyer for almost 25 years, I applaud his choice of a woman jurist for a seat on our nation's highest court, this does not allay my concerns about the impact this appointment will have on Supreme Court jurisprudence. It is imperative that our next Supreme Court Justice rule based on the law as it stands, blind to the emotional, cultural, or political appeal of the issues presented."
    Leslie Hiner, Freedom for Educational Choice