Will It Get Ugly? Both Sides Prepared for Start of Sotomayor Hearings Monday
EmailIn a letter to the head of the Senate Judiciary Committee released by the White House this morning, Russell Laine, the chair of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, endorsed the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, saying she's "consistently demonstrated a firm understanding of, and a deep appreciation for, the challenges and complexities confronting our nation’s law enforcement officers."
The White House trumpeted the endorsement, saying that the IACP's backing means that "Judge Sotomayor now has the support of every major law enforcement organization in the U.S., representing nearly all of law enforcement."
But the White House knows that such endorsements can mean little in confirmation battles.
So officials are pulling out all the stops, trying to leave nothing to chance.
Sotomayor, White House officials say, paid 89 courtesy calls on members of the Senate, which they say is a new record.
A senior White House official tells ABC News that those meetings were immeasurably helpful in preparation for the hearings that start Monday because "you get a feel for what they want to know and how her answers work."
"We've spent most of the past two weeks in extensive mock hearings, so she gets a good feel for the questions and can hone her answers," the official said. "Her style is down to earth and straightforward — not the sort of great speechmaker that [now-Supreme Court Chief Justice John] Roberts was, but a more pragmatic and 'just the facts' style that [former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day] O'Connor had when she was up."
Those mock hearings have been conducted by Vice President Biden's chief of staff, Ron Klain, White House Counsel Greg Craig, Counsel to the Vice President Cynthia Hogan, Associate White House Counsel Susan Davies and Deputy White House Counsel Cassandra Butts, among others.
The ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., told reporters Friday that the hearing "will be focused on her views and writings. I will ask her if she agrees with the opinions of the organizations she supported."
Unquestionably, this will mean questions about her "wise Latina" remarks, as well as her leadership in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
It will also include her ruling against the white and Latino firefighters in the New Haven firefighters' case Ricci v DeStefano, since overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 ruling.
The White House has dismissed criticisms against Sotomayor's ruling in that case, saying that "she applied 2nd Circuit precedent" and her ruling “shows restraint.”
But certainly not everyone agrees, and Ricci — one of the white firefighters who alleged racial discrimination against the city of New Haven — appears on the Republicans' witness list.
On Friday, the liberal group People for the American Way sent e-mails to journalists saying they needed to look into Ricci's "troubled and litigious work history," McClatchy Newspapers reported. Ricci filed a lawsuit in 1995 saying the city of New Haven discriminated against him regarding his dyslexia, the liberal group pointed out.
Over the weekend the NAACP, kicking off its 100th year anniversary convention, vowed a "full-court press" to make sure Sotomayor is confirmed, the New York Daily News reported.
"We fully support her," said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous. "An attack against one of us is an attack against all of us." Jealous said, "Sessions should cool his heels and focus on her qualifications."
Polls, in general, show strong public support for Sotomayor; a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll indicated 62 percent of the American people think she should be confirmed.
A recent CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey showed a tighter margin, with 47 percent support, 40 percent opposed and 13 percent unsure. CNN's poll director said one reason why the poll might show less support for Sotomayor is because CNN's survey, unlike other polls, does not identify Sotomayor as President Obama's pick.
The hearing kicks off tomorrow at 10 a.m. in the Hart Senate Office building.
Sotomayor will be introduced by home state Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, followed by the judge herself.
"Her foot is still in a boot/cast," the White House official said, adding that, physically, she's in quite a bit of discomfort.
Starting at 10 a.m. ET, ABCNews.com will feature live-streaming coverage of the Sotomayor confirmation on a special section at ABCNews.com/Politics/SoniaSotomayor.
- jpt
Gulf of Mexico to Become Gulf of America? 
Can Mitt Romney Win Conservatives Back?
HAS THERE EVER been a more blatently racist nominee to the Supreme Court ? This is the sort of thing you get when the primary consideration for any post is the person’s skin color.
Posted by: Ron | July 12, 2009, 12:05 pm 12:05 pm
I’m half Irish half Latino and from what this woman has said, it sounds like she’d rather see the white race wiped off the face of the earth to be replaced solely by the latino race. Couple this with Obama’s swooning defense of south American dictators and we can see institutionalized racism against whites.
Being half and half, I’ve received racism mostly because of the white in me – not the latino. Come on America, let’s stop this nonsense!
Posted by: Mono-Race Soto-Mayer | July 12, 2009, 12:15 pm 12:15 pm
i want to see her cry! I want her family upset! I want her hurting…then they can vote! :)))
Posted by: barry | July 12, 2009, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
why cant we simply appoint Justices based on the demographic makeup of the country? Use census data to tell the ethnic, racial, religious, sexual, and income information of the US population and make the courts reflect that information as closely as possible. Maybe with one Justice who is an illegal alien to reflect that population. This would avoid the costs and trouble of hearings and it would ensure the court reflect the public. This could also be used from Congress and the Senate or even the President, for example, the next President should be a hispanic women who, preferably, is homosexual. It makes sense to me.
Posted by: Ed | July 12, 2009, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
Yes, Ron, his name was Harrold Carswell. But I think he was white.
But, bringing two discrimination law suits should not mean a person has a troubled and litigious work history. What does it mean if he wins every case he brings? There are some sore losers out there!
Exactly whom are the mock hearings mocking, anyway? Her or Congress? Maybe the people? Or maybe it’s the People for the American Way. They are pretty much making a mockery of decency and fairness in this process.
Posted by: Bull | July 12, 2009, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
This Woman has no business judging anyone…..Wake up up America..
Posted by: sage | July 12, 2009, 1:35 pm 1:35 pm
I don’t know why they are even bothering. It’s a done deal! She’d have to grow horns, spit green vomit, and rotate her head 360 degrees before they would even possibly vote against her confirmation.
Posted by: LongT | July 12, 2009, 1:48 pm 1:48 pm
Sotomayor is a moderate to conservative judge who was appointed by Republican George H.W. Bush. She wrote three opinions favoring anti- abortion protesters, and anti-abortion policies. In 96 cases alleging racial discrimination, Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of racial discrimination roughly 78 times. Sotomayor also was tougher on convicted criminals than her colleagues during her six years as a federal district judge, sending more convicts to prison and handing out longer sentences than her colleagues. In the Ricci firefighter case, Sotomayor simply followed existing law; the Supreme Court in overturning that decision created new precedent (which is fine for the Supreme Court to do, but it is not the job of a lower court; Sotomayor rightly followed precedent in this case.) It’s not clear what Republicans hope to gain with a fight here, since the next nominee is hardly likely to be more conservative.
Posted by: Tom | July 12, 2009, 2:16 pm 2:16 pm
So I guess everything in Iran is completely resolved. Funny how that happened at the exact moment that the latest Michael Jackson circus began.
How much will we actually hear about these confirmation hearings this week? I know ABC already has several hours set aside to discuss the terribly important Michael Jackson situation, but how much time will something relevant have devoted to it?
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2009, 2:33 pm 2:33 pm
Tom, It depends on how long down the pike the next nominee for the SC is. My guess is Paul Stevens will probably be replaced (die or retire) before Obama’s first term is complete, and definitely before Obama’s second term if he’s reelected. Ginsberg will be nearly 80 by 2012 and she’s got some health problems. My guess is Obama will try to be moderate after Sotomayor’s appointment.
Posted by: LongT | July 12, 2009, 2:35 pm 2:35 pm
“why cant we simply appoint Justices based on the demographic makeup of the country? Use census data to tell the ethnic, racial, religious, sexual, and income information of the US population” – Ed
Is this a joke?
Posted by: paul | July 12, 2009, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
I hope it does not get ugly. Sotomayor would not be my choice for the highest court and I am not terribly impressed with her credentials. HOwever, that’s how the system works. A liberal president was elected and he gets to chose liberal judges. It’s the way the system balances things out. If she is not outrageously unqualified– and she is not– then she deserves to be approved.
But Tom, please do not pretend she is a conservative. She is not. And that’s okay. I want a judicious mix of philosophies on the court, including conservatives, liberals, and moderates. And then I want those judges to be able to make their determinations without prejudice.
I do not want the Sotomayor hearings to become a circus and I hope mature Republican leaders like John McCain and Orrin Hatch are able to prevail and make sure that she gets a fair hearing and a vote in the full Senate based on her qualifications. Republicans need to turn the other cheek rather than exact pay-back for the way Obama and others responded to Sam Alito and John Roberts.
Posted by: moderate | July 12, 2009, 2:41 pm 2:41 pm
Re: The CNN poll. The question was phrased is such a way (Would a senator be -justified- in opposing Sotomayer?)that a person who thinks she should be confirmed might still think Sessions was justified in not supporting her.
Posted by: joe west | July 12, 2009, 2:43 pm 2:43 pm
I really, really hope it doesn’t get ugly.
The Alito hearings were a low point I’d like not to see repeated. Ever.
Posted by: MayBee | July 12, 2009, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
Although the Thomas hearings were a low point too, that I didn’t want to see repeated.
I hope it doesn’t get ugly.
Posted by: MayBee | July 12, 2009, 2:45 pm 2:45 pm
yawn,
This will be an easy confirmation. Political suicide to the one who votes against her nomination.
So any who wants out the congress…. vote against her.
you will be toast!!!
Posted by: Omentum | July 12, 2009, 3:03 pm 3:03 pm
It won’t get ugly. She’s obviously less ideological than Roberts, and equally clearly more distinguished professionally than Alito (who wasn’t really a slouch). This is not a Harriet Myers – there just is not any legitimate reason to block her. Republicans in office are mostly not idiots; they aren’t going to send a gift wrapped “proof we’re purely obstructionists!” package of soundbites to the Democrats for 2010.
Posted by: jhw539 | July 12, 2009, 4:15 pm 4:15 pm
===She’s obviously less ideological than Roberts===
Obviously? To you, maybe. Not to me.
Posted by: Axey | July 12, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
===She’s obviously less ideological than Roberts===
Obviously? To you, maybe. Not to me.
Posted by: Axey | July 12, 2009, 4:29 pm 4:29 pm
Axey:”===She’s obviously less ideological than Roberts===
Obviously? To you, maybe. Not to me.”
:Shrug: Their official judgments are public record.
Posted by: jhw539 | July 12, 2009, 4:53 pm 4:53 pm
who cares what this racist thinks….she is already in…she is racist just like Obama and Holder…and the rest of us are a nation of cowards..
Posted by: Badboy | July 12, 2009, 6:14 pm 6:14 pm
feel sorry for what’s left of the legitimate right wing in the United States.
This kind of hate spamming, only serves to further alienate decent, thinking Americans.
I SAID stop whining liberals and what do you do??whine even more…oh well, I tried…by the way…you mean there is a LEGITIMATE right wing of the US??!!!
Posted by: Badboy | July 12, 2009, 6:31 pm 6:31 pm
Sotomayor is a highly qualified judge and she will be confirmed.
The Republicans on the court stopped the 2000 vote count which stole the election for Dubya, so those hypocrites should shut up about judicial activism.
They gave us a war and a global recession.
Posted by: bubbles | July 12, 2009, 6:43 pm 6:43 pm
“Axey:”===She’s obviously less ideological than Roberts===
Obviously? To you, maybe. Not to me.”
:Shrug: Their official judgments are public record.”
Exactly Axey’s point, I’m thinking.
Posted by: moderate | July 12, 2009, 6:56 pm 6:56 pm
They gave us a war and a global recession.
Actually the global recession was caused by skyrocketing oil prices and the depression in this country was caused by the Clinton administration and liberal congress passing laws requiring banks to provide home loans to people who didn’t qualify them…
this in turn caused the housing bubble..which eventually burst…DUH
Posted by: Smartguy | July 12, 2009, 6:58 pm 6:58 pm
The bad economy was caused by Dubya and deregulation. Now it seems there is no end in sight. Unemployment is skyrocketing and Republicans like the barbarain Arnold are using this crisis as an excuse to slash education, ensuring that people remain in poverty. I wonder if the Kennedys are embarassed by this riff-raff. He poaches their family’s legacy all the time in his speeches.
Furthermore Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006 and they pushed hard for deregulation. They still are.
I wish Hillary had won. But the limousine libs turned on her and now we are stuck with a President who doesn’t know how to stand up to the Republicans or to the crooks on Wall St.
Posted by: bubbles | July 12, 2009, 7:25 pm 7:25 pm
Smartguy….There were 6 years FOLLOWING the Clinton administration where the Republicans had majorities in both the House and Senate in addition to a sitting Republican President.
If what Clinton did was so awful, why didn’t they overturn it?
btw – look up the Home Ownership Society. Bush campaigned on it heavily for re-election. He wanted everyone to be able to own a home…….
Posted by: JKS | July 12, 2009, 7:26 pm 7:26 pm
Members of the SupreamCourt should NOT be there for LIFE. Eight years sshould be the limit. After that time, they become dead fish.
.
Posted by: Larry Wallace | July 12, 2009, 8:30 pm 8:30 pm
“On Friday, the (Soros funded) liberal group People for the American Way sent e-mails to journalists saying they needed to look into Ricci’s ‘troubled and litigious work history,’”
It’s getting ugly alright. The left is going to pull out all the stops and try to smear Ricci like they did with Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin.
“We fully support her,” said NAACP President Benjamin Jealous. “An attack against one of us is an attack against all of us.”
Just curious, who is included in “one of us”?
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | July 12, 2009, 8:52 pm 8:52 pm
===Just curious, who is included in “one of us”?
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | Jul 12, 2009 8:52:15 PM===
Sotomayor, obviously.
Posted by: Axey | July 12, 2009, 9:12 pm 9:12 pm
Ricci has no business there whining like a baby. lol
Posted by: kelly | July 12, 2009, 11:37 pm 11:37 pm
The GOP has had no shame and no class so far in its attacks on Sotomayor. Why would they stop now?
Posted by: matt | July 13, 2009, 8:02 am 8:02 am
“… whining like a baby.”
And, so it begins. The treatment of Ricci will be derisive and vicious. His personal and tax records will get rifled through by enthusiastic, zealous and lawless followers of Obama.
The Supreme Court affirmed that you cannot change the rules for promotion after you’ve already meddled with the test to try to influence the outcome. Ricci and the others deserved the promotions that they qualified for by passing the test.
Posted by: WhereWasThePress? | July 13, 2009, 8:51 am 8:51 am
This is repubs revenge for Harriet Miers…..remember her? She was the one dubya selected who had no qualifications except being one of bushie’s cronies. The ‘pubs were upset because she was forced to back out. That was funny!
It’s all about revenge!!
Posted by: js45601 | July 13, 2009, 9:50 am 9:50 am
Just another waste of time. We know she will be confirmed we know Obama picked a Latino for political purposes so that the Republicans couldn’t really object without losing the Latino vote.
Another game of Political posturing.
Posted by: karen | July 13, 2009, 10:27 am 10:27 am
Seeing I cant say anything about sonia because of the censors here………. Is Obama done apologizing to the world?
Posted by: American Infidel | July 13, 2009, 10:43 am 10:43 am
matt…”The Dems have no shame and no class as far as in its attacks on Miguel Estrada, GOP nominee for Federal Appeals Court. Why should they stop now.”…LOL All Politics..All the Time..Nothing changes, EVEN for the Dems..
Posted by: Parallex View | July 13, 2009, 12:24 pm 12:24 pm