Law and Courts

I've lost track by now, but Sonia Sotomayor must almost be done with her Senate meetings, right?

Here's who the nominee will be meeting with today:

Senator Jim Bunning (R-Ky.)
Senator Mike Johanns (R-Neb.)
Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.)
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.)
Senator James Risch (R-Idaho)

Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said Wednesday she was "pleased" that Judge Sonia Sotomayor would add more female representation to the Supreme Court should she be confirmed by the Senate.

"Of course I'm pleased that we will have another woman on the court," O'Connor said during an appearance on NBC this morning. "I do think it's important to have not just one."

O'Connor, who was the first woman on the Supreme Court, has been a longtime advocate for more gender representation on the bench.

"About half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers," she said.

O'Connor also wished Sotomayor, who would be the third woman to join the Supreme Court in U.S. history, good luck through what she characterized as a "miserable" process.

O'Connor also deflected criticisms of "judicial activism" ahead of the confirmation hearings, explaining that few understand the meaning of that term.

"I don't think the public understands what's meant by it," she said. "It's thrown around by many in the political field."

Watch the video here:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

The focus on Judge Sonia Sotomayor's gender and ethnicity drives Sen. John Cornyn crazy, the Texas Republican said Tuesday.

"One thing that just drives me crazy is that once Sotomayor was rolled out as the nominee, all the focus was on her sex and her ethnicity," Cornyn told conservative bloggers at a briefing organized by the Heritage Foundation and broadcast online.

Cornyn, the head of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), said that Sotomayor's life story is "compelling," but accused the Obama administration of trying to "obscure" the Supreme Court nominee's record.

"The White House would like to obscure issues like judicial philosophy, which I think is one of the most important parts of the nomination process," Cornyn said, adding that her decision in an affirmative action case involving Connecticut firefighters "raises questions about her commitment to equal justice under the law."

The Texas senator, a former state Supreme Court justice, said that there was a "remarkable" difference in treatment between how Hispanic Judge Miguel Estrada's nomination was received by Democrats during the Bush administration, and how Sotomayor is being treated now.

Cornyn also disputed reports that the GOP would take it easy on Sotomayor out of concern that strenuously opposing her nomination might hurt Republicans' standing with Hispanic voters.

"Some inferred from that there was a lack of will or desire from Republicans to question her vigorously," he said. "I would say that inference is not correct."

Cornyn also said he's undecided about how he'll vote on Sotomayor's nomination, explaining that he's withholding judgment until the Senate Judiciary Committee has had a chance to hold hearings.

Americans view the Supreme Court much differently when a new President takes office, even if the composition of the court is unchanged.

Those are the findings of a fascinating but strange Gallup poll released last night.

For example, 70% of Democrats now approve of the job the Supreme Court is doing, compared to 49% of Republicans.

But just before President Obama took office--when the composition of the court was the same, but while Bush was president--those numbers were reversed.



And this isn't a one time deal. Gallup observed a similar shift during the Clinton-Bush transition. (That one makes more sense--the Supreme Court helped seal the election for Bush, which obviously made Republicans happy.)

I'd venture two explanations for this wacky phenomenon. First, Americans may tend to identify the courts with the administration (though that would make the founding fathers shudder.) Second, people may be approving or disapproving in ANTICIPATION--i.e. Democrats now approve of the Supreme Court because they anticipate Obama will shift if toward the left during his term.

But as Gallup points out, you can observe this trend with other government institutions. Views of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke flipped by party ID as well when Obama took office.

Read about the full poll here.

It would have been a waste for Judge Sonia Sotomayor to meet with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), because, the Oklahoma lawmaker said Monday, he'd already decided how to vote on the nomination.

Inhofe said that Sotomayor's views had not changed since he'd previously voted against her in 1998 so as to cross a "higher bar" for a Supreme Court nominee.

"Given the higher bar, and the fact that her views of the court have not changed, it only stands to reason that I would vote against her once again," Inhofe told National Review Online in a statement.

Inhofe had declined to meet with Sotomayor last week. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) also declined to meet with President Obama's pick to join the high court after the hobbled jurist, who recently broke her ankle, was late to the meeting.

"I declined to meet with Judge Sotomayor out of deference to her busy schedule," Inhofe explained. "She has been very busy meeting with many other Senators, and she still has many more to meet with. I did not wish to waste her time."

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) has no patience for tardiness. Just ask Sonia Sotomayor.

The SCOTUS nominee was scheduled to meet with the Tennessee Republican on Thursday, but after 10 minutes of waiting, Corker decided he'd had enough.

"I decided to proceed on to the next meeting," Corker told the Tennessee Press Association this weekend.

I've got a call in to Corker's office to see if they're re-scheduling. If not, Corker may end up like Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who decided not to meet with Sotomayor at all, since his vote against her was a "foregone conclusion."

UPDATE: Corker spokesman Laura Lefler says the meeting is back on.

"Sen. Corker's meeting with Judge Sotomayor has been rescheduled for tomorrow," Lefler said. "Sen. Corker was originally scheduled to meet with Judge Sotomayor last week, but when he arrived at the Capitol for the meeting, the Judge was running behind. It was decided that rather than rush or cut short his meeting with Judge Sotomayor and be late for his next meeting, it would be best to reschedule."

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is dead set on voting against Sonia Sotomayor's nomination. In fact, he's so certain of his position that he refuses to even meet with her.

Sotomayor has been meeting privately with Senators over the last few weeks, but when it was Inhofe's turn, he declined.

Inhofe's spokesman explained that since the Senator has already decided to vote against the nomination, there's no reason to waste time on a sit-down discussion.

Earlier this week, Inhofe called his vote against Sotomayor a "foregone conslusion," citing his vote against her nomination to a circuit court in 1998.

"If you voted against anyone on the circuit [court], I have never been able to see how you turn around when the bar is actually higher and support it at a higher level," Inhofe said, according to the Tulsa World.

Inhofe's Oklahoma colleague Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) did meet with Sotomayor, however, and had some kind words.

"She's got the demeanor of a judge," Coburn told NewsOK.com. He added that the two had a "philosophical discussion [about] life, problems in our country, difficulties we face."

Senators have been focusing too narrowly on Sonia Sotomayor's positions on social issues and not enough on the impact she might have on free enterprise, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) said today.

"This narrow focus on Justice Souter's rulings on social issues has led to the claim that Mr. Obama is merely trading one liberal for another," Vitter wrote in a Washington Times op-ed.

"But there were other areas, such as those affecting free enterprise, where Justice Souter's decisions were much more constrained and deferential to government's two other branches, specifically relating to determinations that markets needed to be protected from overreaching liability, litigation risk or federal regulation," Vitter continued.

Vitter is one of the most socially conservative members of the Senate. His emphasis on free enterprise might signal the GOP hopes to avoid a polarizing confirmation hearing that focuses on abortion, an issue where Sotomayor has a slim record anyway.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), in answering a question Sunday about filibustering Sonia Sotomayor on CBS's Face the Nation, offered this:

"It's way too early to be talking about whether or not anybody opposes this nominee," he said.

One wonders if that applies to McConnell's GOP colleague, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), who announced more than two weeks ago that he would vote against Sotomayor.

Or whether it applies to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who earlier this month suggested strongly that he would oppose Sotomayor.

Bush administration lawyer John Yoo can be sued over his role in crafting the administration's terror policies, a federal judge ruled Friday.

According to multiple reports, inmate Jose Padilla will be allowed to proceed with his suit because, according to the judge, Yoo exceeded his role as an attorney when he counseled the president to use any means necessary to capture terrorists and extract information from them.

Human rights advocates and some liberal groups had hope to see Yoo made available to testify on his role, if not stand outright prosecution.