FOX News - Hannity - A Closer Look at Supreme Court Nominee Judge Sotomayor
The debate intensifies over the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States. On the Hannity show, Sean Hannity interviews ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow about the nominee and what's ahead.
You can watch the interview here.
You can read a transcript of the interview below.
SEAN HANNITY: And tonight in "Your America," now you've heard legal experts on the left and the right comment on Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Well, what do the lawyers who have appeared in her courtroom think of her judicial temperament.
Well, not much. The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary solicits commentary from practicing attorneys about our federal judges. Now here's what some lawyers who have argued before Judge Sotomayor had to say about her.
Quote, "She is a terror on the bench. She is overly aggressive, not very judicial. She behaves in an out-of-control manner. She is nasty to lawyers."
Now, for comparison's sake, we also see what lawyers had to say about Justice Alito, who, like Judge Sotomayor, served as a federal judge for many years.
Quote, "He is exceptional. He couldn't have a keener demeanor. He is extremely polite and genteel. Very seriously, he is very bright. He's demanding, but he's always courteous."
Now there isn't as much commentary about Justice Roberts because he served on the federal bench for such a short period of time, but the Almanac does indicate that, quote, "Roberts was one of the best Supreme Court oral advocates of the modern era. Chief Justice Roberts is a good listener and an unassuming and engaging conversationalist."
Now talk about a study in contrasts. Joining me now to discuss this is former federal prosecutor, contributing editor to "The National Review," Andrew McCarthy and Jay Sekulow is the chief counsel at the American Center for Law & Justice.
Guys, good to see you both. Thanks for being with us.
Jay?
JAY SEKULOW, AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE: Thanks for having us, Sean.
HANNITY: I don't think I -- I have heard a lot of negative things about me. I don't think I'd want that said about me. What does that mean?
SEKULOW: You know, it's troubling. You know I do a lot of my practice to the Supreme Court of the United States, and of course, the difficulty is, this is the highest court in the land. This is the final determination on judicial review. There is no other higher court to go to. There's no other -- this is it.
And to not have the right judicial temperament not only signals a danger to the litigants before the courts and, of course, the lawyers but also for what the law becomes, and that's my concern with this, Sean.
You got the statements about they're setting social policy. The concerns being expressed by lawyers that have argued before her about her lack of judicial temperament. This is the Supreme Court of the United States we're talking about, and there is no room for error in that regard.
HANNITY: Yes.
SEKULOW: And the lawyer have to be able to artfully, quickly, and diligently present their case, but the judges, the justices have to be able to listen. And that's what I'm concerned about right here.
HANNITY: I couldn't agree more. Andy, by the way, good to see you again.
ANDREW MCCARTHY, NATIONAL REVIEW: Good to see you, Sean.
HANNITY: I love reading your stuff in "The National Review." She could be difficult, temperamental, excitable. She seems angry. She makes inappropriate outbursts. She is nasty to lawyers.
This is about as -- it's almost a liberal critiquing this show.
MCCARTHY: Well, you know, look, I think what Jay is saying is right. It's a bad signal. But you know, let's realize that there are a lot of federal judges who are, you know, very brilliant judges who are also very difficult. Oliver Wendell Holmes was said to be very difficult.
It's a bad signal. And to the extent that it cuts off civil discourse in the court, to the extent that the lawyers can't make their case in an effective way, and to the extent that now she'll have more colleagues on the bench, to the extent that they don't get the benefit of a coherent presentation from a lawyer, that could be a big problem.
HANNITY: Yes, I think so. Let me ask you a political question, Jay, if I can, because it was on the "New York Post" today. Chuck Schumer says that they oppose her at their own peril, meeting Judge Sotomayor. OK?
Lionel Souza, a GOP strategist who advised President George W. Bush on Hispanic outreach, said Republicans would be idiots for opposing her, especially after all the immigration rhetoric in the last presidential election, and that made me think. Well, that same argument didn't hold true for Miguel Estrada or Alberto Gonzalez or Justice Thomas for the Democrats.
Don't the Republicans have a moral obligation and duty to vet her as thoroughly as possible, considering this judicial activism we believe exists?
SEKULOW: Not only a moral obligation but a constitutional obligation. The role of the Senate here is advise and consent. They need to ask -- I'm talking about the Republican senators that are on the judiciary committee. They need to ask real probing questions and get real answers.
And, Sean, if you look back at the history of the most recent nominations, Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts, there were calls for not only slowing the process down -- of course, they took a long time to get through those hearings. But there were calls for, you know, filibusters for Sam Alito, Justice Alito, weeks after they -- before the hearings even started.
They were talking about rumors were circulating among Senate Democrats about filibusters. Here now they're saying basically waive the hearings. An up or down voice vote and the Senate advocates its role as advise and consent, with all the discussion that the Democratic senators had during the Roberts and Alito hearings about making sure there was a thorough review.
When you're talking about with those two nominees, some of the brightest and best, across the board that any president has ever nominated. Now you're talking about basically ignoring the constitutional obligation and politicizing the whole event to try to embarrass the Republicans to not be able to ask a question, and that is the danger in this. Real questions need to be asked regardless if she can be stopped.
HANNITY: Yes.
SEKULOW: . that the nomination would be stopped. Real questions need to be asked. The American people deserve that.
HANNITY: Let me go back to Andy and the question I was trying to get -- maybe for obvious reasons, Senator McCain didn't want to answer it because he didn't want to be seen prejudging the case and I kind of, in that sense, give him the benefit of the doubt, because he's going to have a vote on this.
Newt Gingrich saying today, if a judicial nominee said, my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latino woman, that that nominee would be forced to withdraw, and in this case, she should be forced to withdraw just on that comment alone.
MCCARTHY: Well, look, I -- a white male would be dead on arrival for saying such a thing. There's no question about that. And this goes to a point that you and Jay were just talking about.
I think they not only have a constitutional obligation, we actually have an obligation to the Hispanic community. You know the idea should be at this point, especially we now have an African-American historic presidency, right? We should stop infantilizing parts of our population.
HANNITY: Yes.
MCCARTHY: There's no reason that she can't be asked hard questions, and if I were a Hispanic American, I'd expect her to be treated the same way John Roberts was.
HANNITY: What about the idea that, you know, listen, everybody knows, we make the decisions here. We make policy. I guess we don't have co-equal branches of government anymore, Andy.
MCCARTHY: Right. That everybody knows that doesn't mean that she should confess it so easily and that it should roll so easily off the tongue. That's.
HANNITY: Yes, I thought that was one of the more frightening comments. But good to see you both. Andy, thank you for being with us.
SEKULOW: Right. Dangerous statement she made on the policy issue.
HANNITY: Yes. I agree. Jay, good to see you as well. Thank you, my friend.