Sotomayor Confirmation Vote Looms

Any nomination for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court deserves careful review by the Senate, write Heritage's Ed Meese and Robert Alt about the pending deliberations about Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Nominees should be judged by a common standard: Will they apply the Constitution of the United States and the law as it is written and according to its original meaning, or will they use the lifetime appointment to enact policy preferences from the bench?
Since her nomination by President Barack Obama, she has received fierce criticism for a number of her public statements and court opinions that reveal serious concerns about her judicial philosophy, fairness on the bench, and fidelity to the Constitution.'
She has questioned whether judges can be impartial, displayed a tendency to completely ignore or bury arguments she disfavors, and in several cases denied rights that are specifically protected by the Constitution while giving little or no justification thereof.
Heritage's Deborah O'Malley and Robert Alt have proposed questions on ten different topics that should be vigorously pursued by senators during the hearings.
On Tuesday, July 14, 2009, at 6:00 pm EDT, Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) joined President Reagan's Attorney General, Edwin Meese, chairman of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation, via live tele-townhall to share their thoughts on the Sotomayor confirmation hearings and the proper role of a Supreme Court Justice.' Listen to the call now.
We will be updating this page regularly with Heritage commentary, primary documents, and analysis by outside scholars.
Statement from Ed Meese and Robert Alt | 'Advice and Consent' Takes Time
|
July 20, 2009
July 16, 2009
July 14, 2009
July 13, 2009
July 13, 2009
June 30, 2009
June 9, 2009
June 4, 2009
June 1, 2009
May 28, 2009
May 27, 2009
May 13, 2009
May 4, 2009
October 29, 2008
October 25, 2008
October 24, 2008
October 9, 2008
June 24, 2008
|
| ||||||||




July 10, 2009
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds