Senate Debate on Empathy
=====================================
<PREV |
EXECUTIVE SESSION |
NEXT> |
|---|
Text From the Congressional Record
http://www.c-spanarchives.org/congress/?q=node/77531&id=9028015
Roberts, Pat [R-KS] |
||
| Begin | 2009-08-05 | 12:58:33 |
| End | 13:05:44 | |
| Length | 00:07:11 | |
| Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to express my
opposition, my considered opposition, to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination
to the U.S. Supreme Court. As Senators, I think we all know we have an obligation to ensure that our courts are filled with qualified and impartial judges. While Judge Sotomayor has an impressive --that is a given--I am concerned that her personal judgments and views will impact her judicial decisions. In addition, I find some of her rulings very troubling. During the Senate's debate on the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, then-Senator Obama stated: that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before the Court, so that both a Scalia or Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases, what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and the rules will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. Thus the entrance of the ``empathy'' issue to this debate. I respectfully disagree with now-President Obama. Judges must decide all cases in adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction. It does not mean if they do that they do not have empathy. I agree--and I think everybody would agree--everybody on the Supreme Court has empathy. But the role of a judge is not to rule based on his or her own personal judgments but to adhere to the laws as they are written. While Judge Sotomayor stated during her confirmation hearing that ``it is not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it is the law,'' I still have concerns regarding her ability to remain impartial. She has made some statements in Law Review articles and speeches that are of serious concern. I [Page: S8811] am not convinced that Judge Sotomayor will set aside her personal judgments and views. While on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Sotomayor joined a four-paragraph ruling on property rights. In Didden v. Village of Port Chester, the appellants claimed that a developer demanded $800,000 in order to avoid condemnation of the property by the city. When the appellants refused to pay the $800,000, they received a petition to initiate condemnation. Although the Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the case, it was noted that relief could not be granted based on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London. That four-paragraph ruling didn't even provide an in-depth analysis as to how the Kelo ruling applied to the facts at hand. In fact, the Kelo decision acknowledges that ``a city no doubt would be forbidden from taking land for the purpose of conferring a private benefit on a particular party.'' The four-paragraph ruling in Didden is very troubling. In Kansas, land is gold; farmland is platinum. We have a healthy respect for property rights in Middle America. It also bothers me that a court could make a broad statement without analyzing and applying the facts to case law. Turning to firearm rights, Judge Sotomayor joined an opinion ruling that the second amendment is not a fundamental right and, therefore, does not apply to State and local governments. It is likely that at some point the second amendment's application to States could be argued before the Supreme Court. That could come very quickly. I would certainly hope that should this matter be argued before the Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor would recuse herself. During her hearing, she did not indicate whether she would recuse herself in any decision. That was not, however, the case during the nomination hearings of Judges Alito and Roberts. I do not discount the fact that Judge Sotomayor is a very accomplished judge and has an extensive judicial record. However, some of her statements, writings, and rulings concern me. They indicate her personal judgments and views may impact her judicial decisions. We have a constitutional obligation
to ensure that our judges are impartial and faithful to the law. |