The Senate Judiciary Committee is voting on the Sotomayor nomination this morning.   It’s a full committee vote which will then send the nomination out to the Senate as a whole for a floor vote.

Senators are giving a little colloquy on the reasons for their vote along with their actual vote.

I initially tried to watch this via the committee’s webcast, but I couldn’t get the sound to work, so I’m coming in mid-speech from Sen. Sessions.  I’ll try to summarize a bit as we go forward.

Sen. Leahy’s statement is posted already on the SJC website.  Votes yes.

Sen. Sessions statement can be summed up by reading his USAToday op-ed from earlier. And then reading some NRA fundraising literature. That pretty much covers it.  Votes no.

Sen. Kohl sure does like her.  And he’d like tougher hearings in the future.  Votes yes.

Sen. Hatch sure does think having an Hispanic nominee is nifty, but he can’t vote for her even though he sure does like her as a person.  Votes no.

Sen. Feinstein:  word of the day for DiFi is impressive.  Votes yes.

Sen. Grassley cannot support the nomination. Andrew Cohen’s commentary on Grassley gives some background on the utter inconsistency of this vote from him.

And this pretty much sums up what I’m thinking: this is all future nomination kabuki and positioning to throw up markers for future Obama nominations to the federal bench.  I’d say more, but Grassley’s monotone delivery is making me comatose.  And I think he may be repeating some of his speech.  Or maybe it just all sounds the same.  He’s voting no. (more…)

Tree at sunset via joiseshowaa. Lovely!

What are the duties of a judge in the federal courts? On the Supreme Court? Let’s go all the way back to Marbury v. Madison for an answer:

‘No person,’ says the constitution, ‘shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.’

Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words: ‘I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.’

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him. (more…)

Crashing wave; Curaçao – N.Antilles via lapidim.

Here is my biggest current fear in a legal nutshell.  It’s laid out succinctly by Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve Law School:

If a Senate with sixty Democrats would be wary of confirming an overt and unapologetic liberal — as this Senate has thus far been regarding the confirmation of Dawn Johnsen to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel — does this mean there is little political support for a progressive constitutional vision? It seems conservatives are winning the larger war over the judiciary, even if losing the battle over this nomination. President Obama’s nominee will be confirmed, but not because she embraced his philosophy of judging. Indeed, it seems she will be confirmed, in part, because she rejected it.

It’s all the more disheartening because, having read a number of her cases, I was fairly happy with how she reasoned through the results in many of them.

But we rarely got a glimpse of that Sonia Sotomayor.  Partly, it’s because the questions focused on Ricci, the 2nd amendment and "wise Latinas" by design to obscure and blur the political lines on both sides of the aisle. 

Which is exactly what worries me in terms of the Democrats and the Obama Administration’s legal strategy. Something Digby tapped into as well talking about the pitfalls of bipartisan kumbaaya.

You can win an individual battle, yet cede the larger war.  And I worry we are doing just that, as Adler says.

Liberals should not be afraid to stand up and say they are liberal. Nor should we cower in fear over speaking in unabashedly liberal terms or fighting for the ideals that made us turn toward liberal politics in the first place.

Robyn Blumner made that exact point in a feisty op-ed regarding choice recently. It was an article that made me really stop and think about compromises and courage. (more…)

11:36 am ET: LEAHY gavelling back into session after the break. Yields to Coburn. COBURN SECOND ROUND: Read your speech on foreign law and want to ask you the same question I asked Alito and Roberts. Asks her to agree not to use foreign law. Sotomayor says that she will use American law, except in situation where American law directs courts to look at foreign law.

Liveblogging the Sotomayor confirmation hearings continues. The endless political posturing is getting on my last nerve. Who doesn’t know that whomever the president nominates for a seat on any federal bench is going to meet with right-wing pushback?

It sucks when reality is caught on tape, doesn’t it?

Final first round of questioning for Sotomayor — just Specter and Franken remaining for the first round. Once this finishes, they are going to break for a closed door session to go over whatever FBI and other personnel reports they have to go over with her. (They do this with every judicial candidate for a federal judgeship, btw.)

More Sotomayor confirmation questions, Round I.