Barack Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor to replace David Souter as Supreme Court justice has already set off a fierce response from conservatives and the Republican Party. Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic justice and only the third woman to serve on the nation’s highest court. The Republicans are sure to attack Sotomayor for various reasons even though she was first appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush and confirmed by some of the more rabidly conservative Senators, including Jesse Helms and Rick Santorum. Glenn Greenwald lays out some of the likely attacks here. But what is the significance of Obama’s decision?
Jane Hamsher founder of Firedoglake, Lynn Paltrow Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Jose Perez an attorney with Latino Justice discuss the Sotomayor selection.
Thanks Laura
By Elliott on May 27th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
My first post here… Should have posted a while ago, since I’ve been watching just about all of your shows since day one.
Anyway, thank you Laura for asking the question and raising the importance of how Ms. Sotomayor would handle questions on “corporate” issues. That is my number one concern, as now living in a corporate run state so to speak, it is these issues that pretty much determine how all of the other issues are dealt with in all branches of government. The supreme court arguably is one place if you have someone of the right temperament, that they could fend off the corporate lobbyists more than any other branch of government, which in my mind makes her stance on the “court clerk activist” notion of “corporate personhood” that much more critical, especially if she’s a former corporate lawyer herself.
I know that many will say that repecting stare decisis is as important as following the constitution, and we’d like to feel that way on decisions like Roe v. Wade. But it was at least judges that made those so-called “judicial activist” decisions, and not a former railroad company board member court clerk who wrote the headnote for Santa Clara vs. Union Pacific that basically *created* the law of “corporate personhood”. Perhaps someone could ask her the question of whether she would prioritize stare decisis or the constitution in a case where a head note falsely created the basis for laws.
Anyway, you touched on this issue. I’d like to see another show where you perhaps delve into this more. Perhaps bring on someone like David Lindorff, who just wrote a piece with the same concerns I have here:
http://www.opednews.com/articl…..8-168.html
I think now is the time to make sure that we have someone on that get put on the court is not too in bed with the corporate “owners” of our current government. Even if she’s confirmed and she also is confirmed as more of a “corporate” choice as Mr. Lindorff and I are concerned about, perhaps exposing this will put more pressure on Obama to pick a more enlightened choice as his next choice and not continue to reinforce the growing concern that he’s serving corporate America moreso than he is the people who voted him into office.
Another person that would be good to have as a guest I think for a show like this would be Marjorie Cohn, who had some good things to say on Democracy Now over similar concerns she had. She preferred someone like I did (Erwin Chemerinsky) for his knowledge of constitutional law. I also note that in the past he’s had a record on being on the right side of the equation for corporate personhood in his opinion on the Nike case that claimed “corporate free speech”.
Thanks again for your great shows and your equally great perspective!
By Cascadiance on May 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm