Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Release The Sotomayor Memos

    Release The Sotomayor Memos

    Barack Obama campaigned on the theme of a new era of transparency. Obama used that theme as a justification for the release of four highly classified internal Justice Department memos detailing strategies for interrogation of alQaeda detainees, over the objections of Obama’s own Director of the CIA.

    It’s time to bring that same level of transparency to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The New York Times is reporting that each of the candidates on Obama’s short-list was the subject of an 60-70-page memo detailing the investigation into her background, including judicial writings and other information gleaned by the vetters. Obama should release the memos on Sotomayor, as well as any other documents used in the decision-making process.

    The release of the memos will have a positive effect on the debate over Sotomayor. One of the problems in assessing the nomination, and why I have not opined on Sotomayor, is that the public really doesn’t know who she is or where she stands on important legal issues. This is a concern mostly from the right, but also from pro-abortion activists on the left.

    Sotomayor has few if any significant judicial decisions on many issues, which is not surprising since as a trial judge or appeals court judge she was bound by Supreme Court precedent. To the extent published judicial decisions are important, those decisions are being carefully analyzed, but do not tell the full story of who a nominee will be once confirmed.

    And Sotomayor clearly was someone who protected her record. The most disturbing aspect to me of the 2005 Duke Law School video, in which Sotomayor stated that appeals court judges make policy, was not her words. Those words can be explained away, as I’m sure she will do at the confirmation hearings.

    What troubled me about the video is that when Sotomayor uttered the words, Sotomayor immediately commented on the fact that the panel discussion was being videotaped, and that she really didn’t mean it, or at least knew she shouldn’t say it. The video gives me the impression of a judge who very much understood that one day she may be under scrutiny for a higher office, and that public comments would be fodder for debate.

    Contrary to Sotomayor’s statement when her nomination was announced that she never dreamed of being in this position, I believe that Sotomayor long has expected that this day would come. Certainly the possibility of her nomination to the Supreme Court one day was a topic of objection and discussion when Sotomayor was appointed to the appeals court in 1998. Sotomayor appears to have managed her public comments accordingly.

    There is nothing wrong or disqualifying about such image maintenance; an ambitious judge is not necessarily a bad judge. But we are left to guess, as we did with David Souter, just who Sotomayor is, and how she would rule on the most important issues which affect the country.

    We are entitled to know if there has been a nod and a wink relayed to the White House by intermediaries, as reportedly was the case in the Souter nomination. These nods and winks may not be reliable, as in Souter being touted in private as a conservative, but we are entitled to know.

    Which gets me to the vetting memos and documents. If the memos are routine analyses of Sotomayor’s writings, then there should be nothing to hide. If the memos are vetting of potential problems which ended up not being problems, then there should be nothing to hide. The only things which would be worthy of hiding would be the types of nods and winks which might affect the public debate, or problems the White House hopes will not surface, and it is precisely that type of information which needs to see the light of day.

    Will releasing the vetting memos and documents have a chilling effect on the advice given a President for future nominees? Absolutely. But no more so than the release of the classified interrogation memos will have a chilling effect on the willingness of government lawyers to give advice to the President on matters of life and death in the war on terror.

    If transparency is justified when it comes to national security, then transparency should be good enough for a Supreme Court nomination. Obama would achieve a great deal of change in the way Washington does business if he changed the way the Supreme Court nomination process worked, away from the political gamesmanship and interest-group politics which appears to drive this nomination.

    A good first step would be the release of the Sotomayor vetting memos and documents. That would be change we could believe in.

    Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.



    Sotomayor is a female Democrat with a Hispanic surname. She would be qualified as an Obama appointee to any post whatever if she had a two-digit IQ and tended to drool and spray spittle when she spoke. Mere credentials as a lawyer and/or jurist are irrelevant.


    The comparison of six year-old memos that were no longer policy, that were essentially publically known are not adequate comparisons to a yet to occur SCOTUS process. Further the administration was sued to even bring the information to light. Even if you granted a similarity, the “transparency” you speak of would dictate the release after the event in question.

    The analogy doesn’t make sense, as you are sort of reaching for the “it all leads to nuclear war” analogy.

    The “strategy” in the ByBee memos was expired, at least the expiration was used as an argument to avoid the release of the memos.
    In addition, the judicial hearings are the appropriate time for all questions to be answered on the nominees record, personal opinions etc.

    The transparency you are asking for already exists within the existing confirmation process.

    Further, there are ample replacements for pre-hearing analysis, is going through detailed analysis of every piece of Sotomayor’s work that is available — including quantitative analysis comparing Sotomayor’s work to other potential nominees. There is also the ABA review. In addition, outfits like the Weekly Standard are going through every bit of private written work Sotomayor has produced, along with anything on tape. Further, given two nomination processes, being on the “short-list” since 1998 and well-funded specialized Judicial groups there should be thousands of pages available to examine. Lastly, there are all the resources of the MSM, Fox News in particular, to go over every detail.

    If the NYT is to be believed in this case two distinct types of memos.

    1.) A single “commissioned a strategy memorandum from Mr. Klain intended to dictate the process. “
    2.) Candidate memorandums in two forms: 10-page prelim, 60-70 page final.

    So, essentially you are asking the WH to give up strategic process information actively in use as well as information that is easily replicated, before the roll out is complete. You compare this to memos that were sued to be made public, and allegedly last used in 2003.

    How would the WH function if every memo would need to be released immediately to prove “transparency?”

    What could have been a good point about transparency comes off as a somewhat awkward partisan take due to the hyperbole present in a faulty analogy.

    (to be cont.)


    “The video gives me the impression of a judge who very much understood that one day she may be under scrutiny for a higher office, and that public comments would be fodder for debate.”

    Why is this a problem?

    As you admit, you do not know Sotomayor well enough to draw conclusions; yet, you make the most politically charged assumptions about someone who may just be a person unwilling to say controversal things — not everyone is in the mode of Scalia.

    “Will releasing the vetting memos and documents have a chilling effect on the advice given a President for future nominees? Absolutely.”


    Given the Bork and Thomas nominations, all SCOTUS nominees are ready to expect their worst to be revealed. And given the availability of Sotomayor’s record — so much of it public record — there is ample time for all to be published and accounted for in the transparent hearings.

    (In fact, given your assumptions about the “Nork Card” twitter statement, your racial politics post and your post on distortion and hypocrisy, I waited for statements about Newt’s twitters on Sotomayor).

    History shows every single questionable action with a paper trail will come out.

    History also shows that both sides care very little about the actual information available along with the media, it’s all a game.

    Sotomayor already suffered anonymous attacks from “liberal” sources (the tnr/Rosen piece).

    In addition, the attacks on Obama’s “empathy” statement (and the race-gender statements by people opposing Sotomayor), even though now justice Alito said the following:

    Can you comment just about Sam Alito, and what he cares about, and let us see a little bit of your heart and what’s important to you in life?

    Alito : …When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

    In addition, Inohfe said of Satamayor “In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.”

    Your conclusion reiterates the strained analogy between a national security issue and a Scotus nomination process; however, we now know Gonzales as WHC authorized the techniques before having the now public opinions anyway. (

    Your conclusion also shows the false-nature of your request given the ability for the Judicial Commitee in the Senate to conduct transparent hearings, the pre-existing information available and the fact political gamesmanship will occur regardless due to auxillary (left and right) groups who need to raise money and future presidential candidates who need to raise profile to prove bonafides.

    Lastly, one might directly conclude from your analysis would be important to re-examine ByBee’s appointment given the lack of candor about his judicial work on national security. By your own analogy, National Security trumps SCOTUS, and thus establishes a hierarchy of importance. So, without ByBee’s work on national security his record could not have been adequately judged directly from your definition. (In reading your blog on ByBee, you are wrong about the LA “attack” timeline.)

    So, I’m guessing you will issue an update to urge the immediate re-examination of Bybee’s judicial appointment, and support that re-examination given the new work available on national security.

    (P.S. sorry for typos, grammar etc.)

    (A personal note that does not need to be published, b/c I’d advise against you continuing the practice in published articles).

    In your article on the boycott of Mormon owned businesses that contributed to the Prop. 8 boycott b/c of guidance from the LDS church, you use “Postings on YouTube of blatantly anti-Mormon videos calling on people to “Boycott the Utah Hate State and the Mormons” (along with dkos and other places online) as evidence of bad general behavior in the use of a boycott strategy.

    As Ric Locke’s posting at May 28, 2009 2:15 PM shows the problem with attributing speech about a topic to any cause, organization or individual. Even when you make disclaimer’s like: “Although comments are moderated, I accept no responsibility for what other people say, and I reserve the right to block or remove any comment for any reason or no reason.”


    “In case you were wondering, all opinions and views expressed on this blog are my own, and do not represent the views of any employer or other organization.”

    Given you use “Associate Clinical Professor of Law, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NY” as an important credential, people could choose to make similar ties of Cornell, yourself and the process of the nomination of Justice Sotomayor to make similar partisan points.

    In particular, b/c you read and approved the comment.

    I do not think that sort of partisan attribution tactic is a fair one; however, it is consistently used by partisans of all stripes to “prove” the “distortion and hypocrisy” and/or the “worst sexual innuendos and mockery.”

    I’m not going to change my posts because of how someone might distort the comments, or how they may distort my posts. Nice try, I get your “subtext”.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend