During the Supreme Court confirmation hearings being conducted this week on Capital Hill, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been vigorously questioned about her "wise Latina" remark by Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions. The statement was made some eight years ago, but has been revived by Republicans desperate to paint President Barack Obama into a political corner of weakness. But Jeff Sessions is far from qualified to accuse Judge Sotomayor of being racist.
In 1986, Sessions was nominated for a federal judgeship by President Ronald Reagan. At the time, he served as a United States Attorney in Alabama. During confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Sessions had made several racist statements. Sessions allegedly made a variety of comments that opponents pointed to, when he jokingly said that the Ku Klux Klan was not so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana. Sessions also allegedly referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." When these comments and others surfaced, the nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which refused by a 9-9 vote to let the nomination come to the Senate floor for a vote. Sessions' opponents politely accused him of "gross insensitivity" on racial issues instead of calling him a blatant racist (video). Following the confirmation process, Sessions was quoted as saying that the Senate on occasion had been insensitive to the rights and reputation of nominees.
Surprisingly, it is Sessions who is now being insensitive. He repeatedly characterized Judge Sotomayor as a judge who would be an activist judge and ignore precedent. He even criticized Judge Sotomayor for her role in the Ricci v. Destefano Decision. However, what Sessions missed was that the second circuit's decision was consistent with then existing Supreme Court precedent. It was the Supreme Court that broke with precedent and employed judicial activism to limit the intended reach of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and all other American discrimination laws for that matter). Like a racist, Sessions even suggested that Sotomayor was in error for failing to vote in line with a Latin colleague on the Second Circuit (video) during the Ricci v. Destefano case.
If Sessions' history is any indication, he is a racist and is not qualified to vote on the nomination of any minority judge. When Sessions was a prosecutor, he unsuccessfully prosecuted three black civil rights workers, including a former aide to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on a case of election fraud during the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating African American voters in predominantly black counties, finding only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of approximately 1.7 million ballots cast. The objection to the baseless prosecution was SUSTAINED! when the three civil rights workers were acquitted after only four hours of jury deliberation. Sessions has been opposed to parts of the Voting Rights Act, which he described as "intrusive legislation." He even expressed concerns about its renewal in 2006.
Years ago, the late Judge Andrew Jefferson of Houston, Texas was nominated to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jefferson was a distinguished African-American attorney and jurist. But his appointment was delayed and ultimately derailed by a Republican controlled Senate. His judgeship never came up for a vote during the confirmation process. One must wonder how many other minority judges were stymied by Sessions and other racist congressmen. Minority Judges who themselves may have tasted the bitter whip of discrimination may be more inclined to disarm cowardly racists and reach results that are favorable to people and people's rights.
Judges who favor civil rights and civil liberties are routinely labeled as judicial activists and are criticized for upholding the law. But the truth of the matter is that many conservative judges are judicial activists as well. Earlier this year, I was arguing a case before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case contained an issue of first impression (it was the first time the court had considered the issue). The statute in question was clear about a certain point (a time period in which something had to be done). However, in reaching its decision, the Court created a new law that was in addition to what the statute provided (the Court added an additional 30 days). Simply put, the Court did not like the result of my client going free because things were not done in the manner prescribed by the statute. So, the Court created a rule that had the effect of my client, and others similar to him, losing liberty. The additional proc
ess carved out by the Court was no where in the Statute. This is the root of the Sotomayor debate. Sessions and others like him are lying when they say they do not want a results driven judges, just judges that will interpret the laws. The truth is that they do not want results driven judges who will reach results favorable to the disenfranchised.
It's easy to see why the Klan was "alright" with Sessions. Like the Klan, Sessions' history contains instances of the corrupt use of power to pressure and persecute the disenfranchised. He does not wear a sheet, but his bigotry is as easy to see as a burning cross. Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed.
In 1986, Sessions was nominated for a federal judgeship by President Ronald Reagan. At the time, he served as a United States Attorney in Alabama. During confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Sessions had made several racist statements. Sessions allegedly made a variety of comments that opponents pointed to, when he jokingly said that the Ku Klux Klan was not so bad until he found out that some of them smoked marijuana. Sessions also allegedly referred to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) as "un-American" and "Communist-inspired" because they "forced civil rights down the throats of people." When these comments and others surfaced, the nomination was killed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, which refused by a 9-9 vote to let the nomination come to the Senate floor for a vote. Sessions' opponents politely accused him of "gross insensitivity" on racial issues instead of calling him a blatant racist (video). Following the confirmation process, Sessions was quoted as saying that the Senate on occasion had been insensitive to the rights and reputation of nominees.
Surprisingly, it is Sessions who is now being insensitive. He repeatedly characterized Judge Sotomayor as a judge who would be an activist judge and ignore precedent. He even criticized Judge Sotomayor for her role in the Ricci v. Destefano Decision. However, what Sessions missed was that the second circuit's decision was consistent with then existing Supreme Court precedent. It was the Supreme Court that broke with precedent and employed judicial activism to limit the intended reach of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and all other American discrimination laws for that matter). Like a racist, Sessions even suggested that Sotomayor was in error for failing to vote in line with a Latin colleague on the Second Circuit (video) during the Ricci v. Destefano case.
If Sessions' history is any indication, he is a racist and is not qualified to vote on the nomination of any minority judge. When Sessions was a prosecutor, he unsuccessfully prosecuted three black civil rights workers, including a former aide to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on a case of election fraud during the 1984 election. Sessions spent hours interrogating African American voters in predominantly black counties, finding only 14 allegedly tampered ballots out of approximately 1.7 million ballots cast. The objection to the baseless prosecution was SUSTAINED! when the three civil rights workers were acquitted after only four hours of jury deliberation. Sessions has been opposed to parts of the Voting Rights Act, which he described as "intrusive legislation." He even expressed concerns about its renewal in 2006.
Years ago, the late Judge Andrew Jefferson of Houston, Texas was nominated to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Jefferson was a distinguished African-American attorney and jurist. But his appointment was delayed and ultimately derailed by a Republican controlled Senate. His judgeship never came up for a vote during the confirmation process. One must wonder how many other minority judges were stymied by Sessions and other racist congressmen. Minority Judges who themselves may have tasted the bitter whip of discrimination may be more inclined to disarm cowardly racists and reach results that are favorable to people and people's rights.
Judges who favor civil rights and civil liberties are routinely labeled as judicial activists and are criticized for upholding the law. But the truth of the matter is that many conservative judges are judicial activists as well. Earlier this year, I was arguing a case before the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case contained an issue of first impression (it was the first time the court had considered the issue). The statute in question was clear about a certain point (a time period in which something had to be done). However, in reaching its decision, the Court created a new law that was in addition to what the statute provided (the Court added an additional 30 days). Simply put, the Court did not like the result of my client going free because things were not done in the manner prescribed by the statute. So, the Court created a rule that had the effect of my client, and others similar to him, losing liberty. The additional proc
ess carved out by the Court was no where in the Statute. This is the root of the Sotomayor debate. Sessions and others like him are lying when they say they do not want a results driven judges, just judges that will interpret the laws. The truth is that they do not want results driven judges who will reach results favorable to the disenfranchised.It's easy to see why the Klan was "alright" with Sessions. Like the Klan, Sessions' history contains instances of the corrupt use of power to pressure and persecute the disenfranchised. He does not wear a sheet, but his bigotry is as easy to see as a burning cross. Judge Sotomayor should be confirmed.
1 comments: