On Wednesday, May 27th, the White House held a press conference to discuss the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. The panelists, who were legal experts selected by the White House, were Paul M. Smith, Partner at Jenner & Block, LLP, Professor William P. Marshall, law professor at North Carolina School of Law, Professor Martha L. Minow from Harvard Law, Kevin K. Russell, Partner at Howe & Russell, LLP, and Professor Scott Moss, from the University of Colarado School of Law.
Minow began the introductions, repeatedly speaking about Sotomayor's great knowledge as a litigator. "She shows her knowledge as a litigator about the importance of procedural rules and using the factual record," she said. She further called Sotomayor a "lawyer's lawyer," and a "superb appointment." Later, Ms. Minow analyzed Sotomayor's judicial style as one in which there is a "close reading of statutes applied to the particular facts in a particular context."
Paul Smith, Partner at Jenner & Block and former classmate of Judge Sotomayor, also thought of her as the "lawyer's lawyer." "I think of her as a lawyer's lawyer," Smith said, "I do a lot of free speech and free press cases. She looks very much for the details of the facts to see where the constitutional analysis should go." Smith further spoke about Sotomayor's opinions in two cases- Pappas v. Giuliani, a case in which a police officer was fired for using offensive speech, and another case in which a student was disciplined for an off-hours blogpost. In the Pappas v. Giuliani case, Sotomayor dissented, saying in Smith's words, "Not so fast, it's a radical idea to fire for private off-hours speech." In that case, a police officer from the New York City Police Department had been fired for sending mail anonymously to political and other groups that had solicited donations from him. After discussing briefly Sotomayor's judicial opinions in these cases, Smith called her, "A careful person who can go either way, by seeing how the doctrine applies to factual situations."
Marshall, a professor at North Carolina law school, spoke similarly about Sotomayor, calling her a "cautious lawyer, who cares about judicial craft." He also called her someone who "holds people to terms of contracts" and is "bound to make no new law, simply bound by previous decisions of the court." Russell, partner at Howe & Russell LLP, characterized Sotomayor as promoting "judicial modesty" and "very respectful of binding precedent."
"She does not think her opinion is the only one that matters," Russell also said.
When the Q&A session began, various journalists questioned the ambiguous judicial philosophy of Sotomayor, despite other characterizations of her judicial philosophy from the panelists. Deb Price, a journalist from The Detroit News, asked, "Given the range of descriptions of this candidate are judicial modesty, not an activist, not a creative lawyer, I'm curious what Paul Smith would think of her if she was basing issues around gay rights as well as the issue of merit and military." Smith responded, "I guess I would have to say with the second amendment it's hard to answer a question like that because we have no specific indications of whether she would more aggressively regulate what the government can do in this arena or not." He continued, "She would certainly take it on a case by case basis."
Tom Lebanco, a journalist from the Washington Times, directly asked Moss whether he had argued any cases over Judge Sotomayor, and to characterize her judicial temperament. Moss responded, "I did not, I did not have any occasions." Minow added her opinion, stating, "She's an actively engaged judge, she's extremely prepared. She does not let any ambiguity go by in the oral argument." She also finished, "She will make sure you stand by what you have said."
Be the first to comment on this article!