The Judicial Spotlight

Much of the debate in Washington right now centers on judges.  Of course, most of the attention is focused on the pending nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.  At the same time, nominees to federal courts are also moving forward.

First, regarding Judge Sotomayor, there's growing concern that the Senate Judiciary Committee may not take the time necessary for a thorough and thoughtful consideration of Judge Sotomayors record.  Not long ago, it took the Committee 70 days to sift through the record of Justice Samuel Alito before confirmation hearings began.  Now, the Senate majority is pushing to schedule confirmation hearings before the August break - giving Senators just 40 days to review Judge Sotomayor's 17-year-long judicial record - something that even President Obama concedes is a voluminous record.  There should be no rush for confirmation hearings.  There's plenty of time to examine Judge Sotomayor's record and begin hearings after the August recess since the high court doesn't begin its new session until October.

When the confirmation hearings do occur, it's very important that the Senators bring up the tough questions - not about specific issues - but about Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy - how she views the Constitution and the rule of law.  What is also not likely to go unnoticed at the hearings is Judge Sotomayor's reversal rate.  Of the six opinions that she has authored that the U.S. Supreme Court has considered, four have been reversed, and a fifth was affirmed while Judge Sotomayors legal rationale was rejected. 

With the eye on the Supreme Court, the Judiciary Committee is also moving forward with President Obama's nominees to federal appeals courts.  Two nominees were approved out of Committee this week. Judge David Hamilton (nominated to the Seventh Circuit) and Judge Andre Davis (nominated to the Fourth Circuit) cleared the Committee and the vote was predictably along party lines.  Many of you will remember that Judge Hamilton is the Indiana Judge who ruled against the practice of opening the legislature in prayer.  He also ruled that the very basic Indiana informed consent law was an unconstitutional undue burden.

We'll bring you additional information as it becomes available.