Sotomayor Passes Senate Judiciary Committee Test, 13-6
BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Rebecca Freitag
Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed this morning by the Senate Judiciary Committee with a vote of 13-6, sending the nominee for further approval by the full Senate sometime next week.
It is expected that she will also be swiftly approved in the Senate before their recess on Aug. 7 so she can join the Supreme Court before their special session in September. All 12 Democrats and only one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), voted in favor of Sotomayor.
"I based my vote on qualifications, and I came away believing she was well qualified," Graham said. "She's of good character... she was extremely well qualified," said Graham, noting that Sotomayor was "left of center, but certainly in the mainstream."
Graham also talked about the fact that although he was voting for her, she was not someone he would have chosen originally. He acknowledged his fellow Republicans' opinions in the committee, saying that he completely understands their objections, but her likely appointment to the court won't change the court's ideological balance. She is replacing Justice David Souter, one of four liberals on the court who face five conservatives, including Chief Justice John Roberts.
Many of the Republicans said they were worried she couldn't put her personal biases and preferences aside to make a fair and impartial ruling as a Supreme Court justice.
They were also concerned about the controversial statements and rulings she made in the past. They argued that those rulings and comments were too "activist" and "liberal," and that she didn't have enough commitment to several of the Constitutional rights of Americans.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) dismissed such arguments, saying, "Just because she is not extremely conservative is why some of my colleagues have voted 'no' today."
Graham rebutted his fellow party members and said that although some speeches did "bug the hell out of" him, they had to be put in the context of her judicial record. "I haven't seen this activism that we all dread and think she's got."
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) agreed with Graham and said that her judicial record alone is reason enough to vote for her and it shows that she is not a judicial activist, but an objective and impartial judge.
Regardless of such opinions, many of the Republicans that voted against her also continued to harp upon the wise Latina remark, but Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) countered them and said "it's pretty healthy to have a little ethnic pride." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) also said that the statement was taken out of context.
As he submitted his vote in support of Sotomayor, chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) summed up the arguments in her favor.
"Judge Sotomayor is well qualified. She has the highest rating by the American Bar Association," said Leahy. "She has administered justice without favoring one group of persons over another."
BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version

handbag
We hear that jimmy choo handbags or some people say the Jimmy choo bags always be a classic and timeless accessory for every handbag enthusiast. with the Jimmy Choo brown Beautiful handbags for women to fulfill their dreams Chic and beautiful,I think the ladies could choose the famous handbags such as Jimmy Choo black ,as we all know around the handbags especially the Marc Jacobs handbags.Having gone through a hundred years of fashion trend developments.when people talking about the Mulberry bags the first bag they regraded is the Marc Jacobs Wallet this handbag looks very beautyful,many people think so .we've seen a special edition Miu Miu tote which I think still counts because they're from the same designer.There are many ways to find handbags. One thing you can do, is look for seasonal 2010 designer bags.like Marc Jacobs ToteYou are sometimes able to buy a discount hermes bags, because it was last season's pattern. For example, I managed to buy a beautiful, well-made Mulberry Satchel once for because it was a seasonal style.This black leather Mulberry bag is an absolute classic and Mulberry black is a staple piece for your hermes handbags wardrobe.
Gucci bags The company of Gucci handbags sale started out quite small before earning its top place on the fashion market except the Fendi bags. When shopping for a gucci on sale , you may select from Gucci babouska, Gucci Abbey, Gucci Tote, Gucci hobo, Gucci classic or Gucci Cruise.All this bags can be purchased at local shops or at online retailers like Gucci New Jackie Gucci bags The products at www.beautyaf.com are sold at quite cheap prices if you compare them to other bag retailers.now,you can grab this chance to choose the cheap and high quality handbags!
Let's not forget Sonia's dismissal of an innocent man's appeal
By Jeffrey Deskovic, AlterNet
Posted on July 10, 2009
http://www.alternet.org/story/141197/
My name is Jeffrey Deskovic. At age 17, I was wrongfully convicted of murder and rape, a conviction that was based upon a coerced, false confession, the fabrication of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct and fraud by a medical examiner. I was cleared 16 years later -- almost three years ago -- when DNA evidence proved my innocence, while also identifying the real perpetrator, who subsequently confessed to the crime. Since my release, I have made it my life's mission to battle against wrongful convictions and fight for legislation that would minimize the chances of what happened to me happening to someone else. It is this fight that compels me to speak out about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.
Before I was exonerated, I sought out every legal avenue I could to win my freedom. I defended my innocence before the New York Appellate Division, raising such proof as the fact that the physical evidence found did not match me and arguing that the police violated my rights by coercing a false confession from me at the age of 16. The court ruled against me 5 to 0, concluding that there was nothing wrong with my interrogation and stating that there was "overwhelming evidence of guilt," despite the fact that there was no evidence beyond my forced confession. In truth, the DNA and the hairs found on the victim's body were evidence of my innocence.
When my lawyer was denied a chance to reargue the case on the grounds that the court's decision ran counter to the law and to the facts, we moved to the Court Of Appeals, the highest court in New York. I filed a Writ Of Habeas Corpus, in which I argued that my conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitution. The year was 1997. The year before, Congress had passed Bill Clinton's Anti-Terrorism-Effective-Death-Penalty Act (often called AEDPA in legalese), which mandated that from then on, all state prisoners would have only one year to appeal to a federal court after being denied an appeal by their state's highest court. As a result, there was some confusion in the federal courts regarding the filing procedure; it was not clear how this new law would apply to cases already in the system. Different jurisdictions were answering the question in different ways; my lawyer called the court clerk and asked whether it was enough that my petition be post-marked on the due date, or if it had to physically be filed and in the building on the due date. The court clerk told my attorney that it was enough that it be postmarked. That information turned out to be false. Consequently, my petition arrived four days too late.
Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro seized on the late petition, arguing that the court should dismiss my case without even considering my innocence claim. The court sided agreed. I then appealed my case to the 2nd Circuit. It was there that I first met Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
My lawyer gave three reasons why Judge Sotomayor and her colleague should overturn the procedural ruling: 1) Upholding such a ruling would cause a miscarriage of justice to continue; 2) Reversing the procedural ruling could open the door to more sophisticated DNA Testing; 3) The late petition was not my fault or my attorney's. To our dismay, Judge Sotomayor and her colleague refused to reverse the ruling. "The alleged reliance of Deskovic's attorney on verbal misinformation from the court clerk constitutes excusable neglect that does not rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance," they wrote. "Similarly, we are not persuaded that … his situation is unique and his petition has substantive merit." A second appeal to Sotomayor's court resulted in the same decision. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear my case, and I remained in prison for six more years.
When I first learned that Judge Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, I was immediately alarmed. What would it mean for other people who were wrongfully convicted? Judge Sotomayor put procedure over innocence in my case. Could she be trusted not to do so again in the future? Could she be counted on to correct injustices when the facts indicated that and/or the legal arguments could demonstrate that a trial was unfair?
Judge Sotomayor condemned me to serve a life sentence for a murder and rape that I did not commit. That other innocent people could be denied relief based on procedural technicalities is no mere possibility; Take the case of Troy Davis, who faces execution in Georgia despite overwhelming proof of his innocence -- proof that has never been allowed in a court room. Consider, too, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Alaska V.S. Osbourne, in which the U.S. Supreme Court stated that no prisoner has a constitutional right to access DNA Testing even when such testing could demonstrate innocence. That decision came down to a 5 to 4 vote; if Judge Sotomayor had been on the court, can anybody say with confidence that she would have voted in favor of DNA access?
There are human consequences to these decisions. I can still see the prison cell, the barbed wire, the isolation from my family, the depression, helplessness, frustration, abuse by prison guards, the constant physical danger in prison, no opportunities to build for my future, missing births, deaths, and holidays. We need to awaken this country to the role that judges play in perpetuating wrongful convictions by putting procedure over innocence, by putting finality of conviction over accuracy, and by rubber stamping appeal denials regardless of whether a trial was truly fair.
Judge Sotomayor will appear before the Senate next week. Given that she has been nominated to a lifetime appointment that affects all of our rights, what she did in my case -- condemning me to a life sentence based on procedure in the face of an airtight innocence claim -- should be part of the discussion. I want my case to be a part of the national discussion. I want Senators to ask Judge Sotomayor if she stands by her ruling, and whether she would rule that way in the future. If I could I would testify at the Senate confirmation hearing, about the human impact of Judge Sotomayor's putting procedure over innocence. Thus far, however, I have gotten no response from either side on Capitol Hill.
It is deeply dismaying that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have introduced my case to the national conversation about Judge Sotomayor. Do people remember Anita Hill? As serious as her allegations of sexual harassment were, I would think that my serving time in prison wrongfully and being condemned to a life sentence for a crime that I was innocent of would be even more serious. Why does Judge Sotomayor continue to ignore this story? Does President Obama agree with Judge Sotomayor’s ruling? Does he think that ruling served justice? Is that the type of “empathy” he wanted? I lost 16 years of my life. It seems evident that politics is trumping justice; that I am once again being wronged by the system.
i cannot imagine what you must have gone through
Sonia Sotomayor hasn't learned from her mistakes
No, America stands for and by the plutocracy that owns America and who runs America for the benefit of the plutocracy. Sonia joined the plutocracy a long, long time ago. She is as much a Puerto Rican as I am a Russian or a Chinese or an African American.