FOX News - Glenn Beck Program - A Closer Look at the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court
Discussion continues about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow discusses the nomination and some of the concerns raised about her background.
You can watch the interview here.
You can read a transcript of the interview below.
JUDGE ANDREW NAPOLITANO, GUEST HOST: Remember, Sotomayor's comment about a wise Latina woman would be a better judge than a white male? Well, it turns out it wasn't an isolated incident or just a poor choice of words. What kind of justice would she make? Next.
NAPOLITANO: Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, has taken criticism for a 2001 speech in which she claimed, a, quote, "wise Latina" might, quote, "reach a better conclusion than a white male judge." Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas and others have said she practices, quote, "identity politics"; while the Obama administration has suggested the statement was just a poor choice of words.
Speeches she gave from '99 to 2003 tell a different story. She's said similar things on at least eight occasions.
In October 2003 at Seton Hall Law School -- where I taught for 11 years -- she said, quote, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion," close quote. That's the same thing she said in 2001 at the University of California-Berkeley. And back in 1994, in Puerto Rico, she said, quote, "A wise woman would reach a better decision"; and again, in April 1999, before the Women's Bar Association of the state of New York.
According to the summary descriptions of speeches Judge Sotomayor gave Congress, she delivered speeches like the 1994 one, three other times, in 1999 and 2000. Are these qualities what make a perfect judge, or is there no such thing as a perfect judge?
Jay Sekulow is the chief counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice. Jay, it's a pleasure. Welcome back to THE GLENN BECK SHOW.
JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE: Thanks for having me. You are a perfect judge, so we'll start with that. So, we can have perfect judges.
NAPOLITANO: Well, that's because I'm off the bench, you say that. But here's my take on things -- no, I haven't read all of the -- all the papers she submitted.
SEKULOW: Yes.
NAPOLITANO: It's a pile that's this high, about five feet high.
SEKULOW: Right.
NAPOLITANO: And I have filled out forms like that, so I know the documentation you have to submit. But here's what I think: Her opinions appear to be within the mainstream of American political thinking -- whether it's liberal, conservative, whether it's progressive, whether it's constitutionalist. It is her speeches and her seminars that are her unguarded moments in which she lets loose .
SEKULOW: Yes.
NAPOLITANO: . and really pushes the envelope.
Do these things that she says when she lets loose pose an obstacle to her confirmation?
SEKULOW: I think it's certainly an issue that the Senate is going to have to get into. And you're right. When you look at her opinions, in and of themselves, not all of them certainly, but many -- and now, she's got a big one up at the Supreme Court right now, this Ricci case. And that may well be her five or sixth reversal by the Supreme Court. But if you look at -- but we've had a couple of religious liberties cases in front her and she's ruled in favor.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
SEKULOW: But you look at the off-the-court statement, and the concern you have to have -- and we have it -- is she's confusing the role of judge with the role of policymaker. She's said as much. She's said that the Court of Appeals, really, is the place to set social policy.
That's not the correct view of a judge. A judge is supposed to uphold the rule of the law that is gender-neutral, it is racially neutral.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
SEKULOW: The court and the judge are supposed to be absolutely blind as to those factors, but you uphold the rule of law. That's the real concern here.
NAPOLITANO: Do you think that she looks at people, whether they are litigants or lawyers or fellow judges or legislators, not as individuals but as members of groups? I mean, does she adhere to this philosophy of collectivism, which is that the group is greater than the individuals that are members of it?
SEKULOW: Look, Judge, there is certainly enough there in the record, as you said -- especially in these speeches, these were not isolated statements -- where the Senate has the constitutional obligation to inquire on this issue, to make sure that Judge Sotomayor -- if confirmed to be a Supreme Court justice -- is, in fact, going to understand her role as a judge. And that it is individual justice that is the key, it is the litigants that are before you in the case, and not the grand establishment of social policies .
NAPOLITANO: Right.
SEKULOW: . that somehow would justify this redefinition of the role of judge. That's, I think, where the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to ask the hard and real questions. And that's why this rush to a hearing, this -- trying to get this judiciary hearing done in July they are talking about.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
SEKULOW: She has 3,000 published opinions. Believe me, we're going through those, it takes a lot of time.
NAPOLITANO: I really -- I really don't think the hearings are going to take place until September, because there are too materials .
SEKULOW: I agree.
NAPOLITANO: ... with so many people to read.
SEKULOW: That's true.
NAPOLITANO: You have been studying her.
SEKULOW: Yes.
NAPOLITANO: And you've been studying documents that she's submitted and what others have written about her. Can you say anything good about her?
SEKULOW: Well, I think -- look, I said, on the religious liberty cases, she seemed to have come out the right way. She's certainly following court precedent. Now, that could be good for someone but not good for others. But it seems like on some of those issues, there is not a problem.
I do think there are a lot of unknowns, and that unknown is -- what about judicial philosophy, judicial temperament? How does she view her role as judge? Those are the factors that have to be determined through these hearings. That's why the Senate has the role of advice and consent.
I am concerned -- I am concerned when you have a nominee that has made these statements. But I also think we've got the pragmatic realization here that the Senate Judiciary Committee needs to do a thorough hearing. But, look, Judge, as you know, you know how to count as well as I do.
NAPOLITANO: Right.
SEKULOW: The fact of the matter is -- unless there is a smoking gun, and I right now don't see it .
NAPOLITANO: They have the numbers.
SEKULOW: . she's going to be confirmed as the next justice of the Supreme Court. So the next time I'm up there, I'm arguing in front of her. So, you know, I'm going to be cautious in what I say in that regard, but I'll say this, we need those questions answered on how does she view her role as judge. Is she going to uphold the law .
NAPOLITANO: Right.
SEKULOW: . the rule of law in a neutral manner? That's the case.
NAPOLITANO: When you go up there, we will not give her a tape of what you just said. Jay, thank you very much.
SEKULOW: Oh, it would be OK. I'm saying what you're supposed to say as an advocate. Thanks.
NAPOLITANO: Good luck to you.