Courtwatch
July 28, 2009 9:02 AM

Senator Grassley's Curious Journey

By
Andrew Cohen
Topics
Sonia Sotomayor
(AP)
Very few things—in law or in life—surprise me anymore. But I was shocked Monday afternoon when Sen. Charles "Chuck" Grassley (R-Iowa) announced that he will vote "no" on the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. When he so votes this morning before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it will be Sen. Grassley's first "no" vote on a Supreme Court confirmation in his 29 years in the Senate.

This means that Sen. Grassley voted "yes" on Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both of whom were nominated (and confirmed) during the Clinton years, and both of whom currently anchor the Court's "liberal" wing. And Sen. Grassley voted "yes" for the first woman ever to serve on the Court, Sandra Day O' Connor, but not until famously raising doubts about her too-liberal views on abortion rights. O'Connor, remember, was a 1981 Reagan appointee and remains today one of the most beloved Justices of all time.

During her confirmation hearings back in 1993, much was made of Ginsburg's link to the American Civil Liberties Union, where she had served as a member of the Board of Directors before serving as a federal appeals court judge. Much more was made about Ginsburg's card-carrying ties, in fact, than was made about Judge Sotomayor's link, which was far more tenuous, to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. Both candidates, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, doggedly refused to specifically answer substantive questions about controversial legal topics. So, for that matter, did nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Sen. Grassley voted for them, too.

Ginsburg's ties to the embattled liberal group—back in 1993 it was the poster-child for liberalism, remember-- didn't stop Grassley from acceding to a Democratic president's request. Grassley voted for Ginsburg. And he voted, one year later, for Stephen Breyer, the last Supreme Court pick of the 20th Century. At the time, Sen. Grassley praised then-President Clinton for choosing someone, namely Breyer, "with judicial experience and who understands the limited role of a judge in our democracy."

If you can identify for me any substantive differences in the relative "understandings" of Judge Sotomayor in 2009 and Judge Breyer in 1994 about the "role of a judge in our society" I will bake you cookies for a year. I really will. If anything, Judge Sotomayor has been significantly more conservative in her rulings, and her ideology, than was Breyer back when he was a 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judge. Sotomayor, remember, was a Bush I appointee back in 1992. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) helped shepherd her nomination through the Senate. Now, Sen. Hatch, too, is a "no" vote.

Unlike most of his colleagues, Sen. Grassley voted for Robert Bork. When President Obama this past spring placed Judge Sotomayor's name into nomination for Court spot, replacing David Souter, Sen. Grassley immediately mentioned Bork's demise in 1987, and the nasty confirmation of William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice a year earlier, as examples of partisanship on the Committee. He also expressed regret and remorse for the Souter selection. You may recall that Justice Souter, like Judge Sotomayor, was a Bush I appointee, a fellow Republican nomination.

That was then. This is now. Gone is the deference Sen. Grassley has given the past four Presidents; gone is the benefit of the doubt he's given to nominees who are both more conservative, and more liberal, than Judge Sotomayor. "My vote must be based on the nominee's respect for and adherence to the Constitution and judicial restraint," Sen. Grassley announced in a press release. "I question if Judge Sotomayor will be able to set aside personal biases and prejudices to decide cases in an impartial manner and in accordance with the Constitution."

"At her confirmation hearing," Sen. Grassley continued, "I was not convinced that Judge Sotomayor understands the rights given to Americans under the Constitution, or that she will refrain from expanding or restricting those rights based on her personal preferences. I am not certain that Judge Sotomayor won't allow those personal beliefs and preferences to dictate the outcome of cases before her." And then he seemed to suggest that his vote on Sotomayor was a direct consequence of, and reaction to, his disappointment with Justice Souter's tenure on the Court.

"Nearly 20 years ago," Grassley wrote, "then Judge David Souter talked during his confirmation hearing about courts 'filling vacuums' in the law. That concept greatly worried me, because courts should never fill voids in the law left by Congress. Since Justice Souter has been on the Supreme Court, his decisions have proven that he does believe that courts do indeed fill vacuums in the law. My vote has come back to haunt me time and time again. So, I've asked several Supreme Court nominees about courts filling vacuums at their hearings. Her lukewarm answer left me with the same pit in my stomach I've had with Justice Souter's rulings…"

Judge Sotomayor doesn't need Sen. Grassley's vote. She is going to be confirmed by the Senate next week and she is endorsed by the Committee on Tuesday. But it says something very profound about the man, and the current state of partisan politics on Capitol Hill, that a generation of nonpartisanship on Supreme Court nominees has come crashing to an end with a woman who clearly is competent, dedicated and, based upon her record, much more centrist and practical than most of her recent predecessors.



(CBS)
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter.

Add a Comment
by daisyjingles August 18, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
Senator Grassley (Iowa Republican) is not representing the Republican Party. They did not vote him in. He is supposed to represent Iowans and Iowans want health care. If Grassley would not vote for a bill on its merits, he should resign. It is cowardly for a Senator to vote against a bill because his buddies do not like it. This makes me sick.
Reply to this comment
by daisyjingles August 18, 2009 12:02 PM EDT
Senator Grassley (Iowa Republican) is not representing the Republican Party. They did not vote him in. He is supposed to represent Iowans and Iowans want health care. If Grassley would not vote for a bill on its merits, he should resign. It is cowardly for a Senator to vote against a bill because his buddies do not like it. This makes me sick.
Reply to this comment
by ticho66 August 7, 2009 1:22 PM EDT
I've voted for Grassley every time he's ran. I'm done. He's selling out his country and his constituents for his party. Thirty years and he's done squat about health-care except take industry money. He votes to confirm every supreme court nominee but this one? How does he explain this other than selling out his logic and conscience for party politics? Finally, and the most absurd to me, he criticizes Clinton's humanitarian gesture for "legitimizing" North Korea's dictator. Wow, really? I would have thought a US senator would know that Kim has nuclear weapons. Doesn't that give him legitimacy? Where was Chuck when Bush declared North Korea as part of the axis of evil? Senator Grassley you are officially part of the problem and you must go!
Reply to this comment
by stn_sage July 29, 2009 9:07 AM EDT
Grassley has voted in favor of all the nominees for which he was eligible to vote on, including Robert Bork!

But, for some perverse reason, he feels Sotomayor is less qualified or deserving than some of these prior nominees?! That's simply ridiculous!

With this vote, he is NOT representing the best interests of either America or his native Iowans! And, he has shown that HE is the one not qualified to hold his position any longer!

Iowans need to elect a new senator in 2010!
Reply to this comment
by noloyalisti July 28, 2009 4:59 PM EDT
This racist right wing wacko would vote against his own mother for feeding him. Taking food would be socialism for this moron. Is there really any excuse for being Republican? It's embarrassing.
Reply to this comment
by humanalien2 July 28, 2009 3:58 PM EDT
End Of Planet Earth Interview Video

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/M7GxVxTH5Do&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/M7GxVxTH5Do&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Reply to this comment
by humanalien2 July 28, 2009 3:57 PM EDT
Friendly Message Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GxVxTH5Do

http://gabster.fm1071.com/blog_browse.one
Reply to this comment
by sjc_1 July 28, 2009 2:04 PM EDT
Yes, this is CYA time for Chuck. He does not want his opponents to use a yes vote against him. This is odd and perverse politics, but it is the way it is played and unless we do something about it, it will be played this way forever.
Reply to this comment
by daisyjingles July 28, 2009 1:58 PM EDT
Senator Charles Grassley is up for re-election next year in 2010. This vote against Judge Sotomayor does not reflect the Iowans Senator Grassley represents.

Another issue is public health care. The Washington Post had a quote from Grassley recently: "Grassley, the Finance Committee's ranking Republican, received more than $2 million from the health and insurance sectors since 2003. "

I am astounded that Senator Charles Grassley took this money. He should give all that money to a free health clinic in Iowa. People in Iowa are suffering because of the lack of heath care, but Senator Grassley does not support a public plan.

I saw a video about a "town meeting" atmosphere where there was a clip of Senator Grassley telling a questioner that if he wanted the same health care plan that the Senator had, he should go to work for the government. This flippant answer is shameful.
Reply to this comment
.

Follow Courtwatch

Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook