The Judiciary

Much has been made about the retirement of David Souter from the Supreme Court a few weeks back, and a great deal more about the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor. He was considered odd by the mainstream because he didn’t do lunch or watch TV; because he drove a reasonable car (if he drove at all); because he lived in a modest shack up in the hills that would have suited Henry David Thoreau. Although The New York Times found him quaint. Read more...

A.B. Stoddard gets opinions from Republican pundit John Feehery & Democrat Pundit Chris Kofinis on how the public and lawmakers are responding to President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

During the past presidential campaign I wrote several times that the key issue for the next administration would be court appointments. It didn’t take long into the Obama administration for that point to be made quite clear.

The nomination of appellate court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a brilliant, accomplished and colorful choice to replace Justice David Souter, will clear Senate confirmation, no doubt. No doubt, as well, Republicans and their media cheerleaders will harp and complain about some feature of Judge Sotomayor’s career, forgetting they lost the election, ignoring the preposterous Harriet Miers nomination of their last president and looking for anything to complain about, no matter how farfetched. Read more...

I was in the East Room of the White House on Tuesday when President Obama announced his choice to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.

She is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, whom the president called an “inspiring woman” who proves that “no dream is beyond the reach of any American.”

First, and most importantly, she is eminently qualified for the Supreme Court. She was both a district attorney and corporate litigator. She was named to the federal bench by the first President Bush, and elevated to the Appeals Court by President Clinton. She’s already been confirmed by the Senate twice. Read more...

Republicans won’t stop the president from appointing Sonia Sotomayor from being the next Supreme Court nominee.

The media is already warning Republicans not to anger Hispanic voters by opposing her nomination.

And there is some political risk in opposing Ms. Sotomayor. Republicans need to be cognizant of that risk. Read more...

The Republican Party faces a supreme test in the coming weeks that goes far beyond when Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed as a Supreme Court justice (and let’s be honest — given Judge Sotomayor’s qualifications, it really is a question of when, not if). The real test is whether the Bush-Rove-Cheney-Steele-Limbaugh party that is currently leading Republicans into the political abyss decides to unleash its name-calling right-wing dogs, or whether Republicans do what is smart and realize that Judge Sotomayor is immensely qualified to be on the Supreme Court and let it go. And by “let it go,” I mean realize that this battle is all but over and that you don’t win political points by attacking an incredibly accomplished legal scholar who, aside from being the first Latina to be nominated to the court, is one of the most experienced and pragmatic legal minds to be put forth as a nominee in a very long time. Read more...

One of the flip responses I sometime make about whether or not I’m in favor of capital punishment is that I am, if I can choose who gets it.

There is a serious idea behind the flippancy: Most people can think of someone they’d like to see receive the ultimate punishment — Hitler, say. But this is a slippery logic. If you can imagine it fits for one person, the idea is sound, and only the application is subject to debate. And, akin to that logical notion is a constitutional theory that some liberal thinkers ascribe to: that civil liberties protections are designed to protect deplorable people — good citizens rarely need such protection. Read more...

The Hill's A.B. Stoddard talks with John Feehery and Chris Kofinis of The Hill's Pundits Blog about where Republicans need to focus their energies in the coming months.

I’ve read the now-notorious Aug. 1, 2002, memo by federal judge and then-Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee to CIA acting General Counsel John Rizzo. The Top Secret Memo includes 18 single-spaced pages (mildly redacted), but it suggests more than it states. It purports to be a legal opinion about the applicability of 18 USC 2340A (the prohibition against torture) to proposed investigative techniques, waterboarding being the most notorious. Relying on “oral advice” provided by investigators who wished to move into the “increased pressure phase” of their interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, a high-ranking al Qaeda operative, the memo provides the CIA with the legal OK to proceed with the proposed “techniques.” Read more...

As all-powerful as the U.S. Supreme Court has been in shaping our society, it is usually ignored by we the people whose actions are controlled by its interpretations of the rules. In large part, that's due to media indifference to any story that can't be told in news snippets.

Only when it deals with abortion or when it helps steal a presidential election do we pay attention. Or when someone leaves the court. Read more...