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.


    aRic 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.

    And why should that be? The comment was more than a bit snarky, but its substance is accurate. I have seen nobody across the blogosphere defending the Sotomayor appointment on the grounds of her wonderful legal acumen and/or scholarship; I have seen a lot of comment to the effect that, as she is a concave Democrat with a Spanish surname, anyone objecting is a racist, misogynist hater defending the White Hegemonic Patriarchy.


    mmm, personally i find the now infamous wise latina woman comment more disturbing because, well, doesn’t that mean she should have disqualified herself in the Ricci case? Certainly when ruling on the rights of white people claiming discrimination, her comment that a wise latina is more often right than a white male gives at least rational question to her impartiality, which is enough under the canons of judicial conduct to require her to disqualify.

    now, some say that the “i would hope” part gives her just enough of a fig leaf. oh, she was “hoping” latina judges were better, not actually saying they were.

    First, i don’t buy it. i think its pretty clear she was talking about her beliefs.

    Second, okay, let’s pretend that is true. A useful excercise is to imagine a white guy saying it, so imagine if Sam Alito had said, “I hope white people make better judges than black people.” Most people would intuitively realize there is something wrong, there, and what is wrong is that it seems to take his race as his “team” to the exclusion of other “teams.” There should only be one “team” on that subject: the American one.

    and anyway, the rules are not that forgiving. all that needs to be raised is a reasonable question. One can reasonably question whether she would be impartial, so she shoud disqualify herself in any case involving:

    1. white males (as a party or attorney);
    2. latina women (as a party or attorney); or
    3. discrimination.

    Of course the natural response after hearing that is to say, “what’s left?” and well, that is my point. We would be getting, at best, half a justice, or one sitting in many cases that she should normally recuse herself from.

    There are better candidates than this. Let’s find one of them instead. Heck, obama, i won’t give you crap if you nominate another hispanic woman. deal?

    @Aaron has much better discussion of the lone “latina” statement that seems to cause so much trouble, even though Alito made similar comments in regard to his immigrant background providing him with necessary empathy.

    Take a look, there are good arguments on all sides, and it is quite rigorous discussion.
    Sotomayor v. Alito on judicial record.
    Sotomayor “Latina voice speech”

    @Aaron turnabout is fair-play. Since Alito had many of the same comments about his experience, is it fair to say that he should recuse himself when white males are a party?

    “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.”


    J. Woodard

    I have read alito’s comments. he never said it made him superior to non-italians. And that is the crux of the problem.

    I don’t see how this DOESN’T create a reasonable question to her ability to be impartial. And i don’t see how any amount of ex-post spin can change that stubborn fact. She should have disqualified herself in Ricci, at the very least.

    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