WASHINGTON, July 15, 2009
Sotomayor Dodges Abortion Questions
Supreme Court Nominee Maintains That Obama Did Not Ask About Her Abortion Views
-
Play CBS Video Video Franken's 'Mason Moment' Katie Couric reports on a comedic moment during Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court Justice confirmation hearing, as Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) had a "Perry Mason" moment.
-
Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are using Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing to raise doubts about her fairness, while Democrats are portraying the 55-year-old New Yorker as a model jurist. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
-
Blog Court Watch CBSNews.com Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen's new blog on the big issues and analyzes important cases of the day.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor declined repeatedly at Senate confirmation hearings Wednesday to talk about her views on abortion rights, and said President Obama never asked her about the issue before he chose her for the bench.
"I can't answer ... because I can't look at it in the abstract," she told Republican Sen. Tom Coburn as he sought to draw her out with questions about hypothetical cases.
Even if she knew more about the specifics of a case, she added, "I probably couldn't opine because I'm sure that situation might well arise before the court."
"Would you think that Roe might be a super-duper precedent?" probed Sen. Arlen Specter, D-Pa, pointing out that the landmark 1973 case that established the right to an abortion has been upheld in 38 cases. She did not answer directly, saying instead it was a settled precedent, a phrase she first used on Tuesday.
Coburn also asked whether technological improvements that help premature babies survive might "have any bearing on how we look at Roe v. Wade," the 1973 court ruling that first established abortion rights.
"I can't answer that in the abstract," Sotomayor said. "The question as it would it come before me wouldn't be in the way that you form it as a citizen, it would come to me as a judge."
Earlier, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, asked about a published report that administration officials had sought to elicit her views on abortion.
"I was asked no question by anyone including the president about my views on any specific legal issue," she said.
Cornyn specifically queried the judge about quotes in the news from George Pavia, a senior partner at the private firm Pavia & Harcourt, where Sotomayor as an associate and then partner from 1984 to 1992. Pavia said support for abortion rights would be in line with Sotomayor's "generally liberal instincts."
"I never spoke to him on my views on abortion," Sotomayor said in response. "I have no idea why he's drawing that conclusion."
She said all of her legal decisions pertaining to abortion issues were ruled according to the law. She pointed out that she upheld the "Mexico City policy," which prohibited foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds from performing or supporting abortions.
As on Tuesday, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee are using Sotomayor's confirmation hearing to raise doubts about her fairness, while Democrats are portraying the 55-year-old New Yorker as a model jurist.
Sotomayor, tapped as the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court, also sidestepped when asked whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to state laws as well as the federal government.
And she avoided being drawn into a discussion about Congress' authority under the Constitution to regulate financial markets.
Her reticence reflected a traditional concern among high court nominees about straying into areas where they may soon have to rule - gun rights and abortion among them in Sotomayor's case.
But it also appeared to reflect a calculation by Sotomayor and administration officials in charge of shepherding her nomination that she was well on her way toward confirmation and thus had nothing to gain by providing detailed answers that her critics could use.
"She took their best shots and at the end of two days was left standing, or left sitting anyway, leaving many of the senators of both parties frustrated with her failure or refusal to answer substantively on legitimate questions," said CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "But we learned from Roberts and Alito and Ginsburg and Breyer that that’s the pass to confirmation." (Read more.)
The Judiciary Committee hearings are expected to conclude Thursday.
A vote by the full Senate to confirm Sotomayor is expected in early August, allowing her to don the robes of a justice before a scheduled hearing on Sept. 9 on a case involving federal campaign finance law.
Obama nominated her to succeed retired Justice David Souter. Because Souter generally sided with justices who favor abortion rights and affirmative action, her confirmation is not expected to alter the court's balance.
The cavernous Senate hearing room was filled for the third straight day, and tourists waited in line outside for their few moments as witnesses to history.
Inside, the audience included a small group of New Haven, Conn., firefighters, including Frank Ricci, whose reverse discrimination claim was rejected by Sotomayor's appeals court panel. The Supreme Court subsequently reversed that panel's ruling.
Though there was little suspense about the ultimate outcome of the confirmation hearings, senators still pressed Sotomayor closely in their 30-minute turns questioning her about her rulings and her views.
There also were periodic references to baseball - Sotomayor is a Yankees' fan - as well as other light moments.
Coburn observed at one point that the 55-year-old appeals court judge would have "lots of splainin" to do if she were to get a gun and shoot him - words that evoked memories of the 1950s TV show "I Love Lucy" featuring a Cuban-American bandleader and his madcap wife.
Sotomayor had just spoken humorously and hypothetically about doing just that, part of a response to a question about the constitutional right to self-defense.
Under questioning Tuesday, Sotomayor tried to take away one line of Republican attack when she distanced herself from the man who nominated her, President Barack Obama.
Asked whether she shared Mr. Obama's view - stated when he was a senator - that in some cases, the key determinant is "what is in the judge's heart," Sotomayor said she does not.
"I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the president does," she said. "Judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law."
Time and again, she put her record on display to answer charges of bias.
Sotomayor backed away from perhaps the most damaging words that had been brought up since Mr. Obama nominated her seven weeks ago - a comment she made on several occasions suggesting that a "wise Latina" judge would usually reach better conclusions than a white man. She called the remark "a rhetorical flourish that fell flat."
"It was bad because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that's clearly not what I do as a judge," Sotomayor said.
Republicans were not satisfied with her answers.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said he could end up voting for Sotomayor but wants to make sure she is the judge with what he called a moderately liberal record, not a liberal activist.
"That's what we're trying to figure out - who are we getting here?" he said.
Despite the Republican attacks, Cohen says, "you get the sense that even they don't really have a ton of ammunition to use against her - remember she was twice confirmed by this same Committee in the 1990s."
More coverage of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings:
Live Video and Analysis
Senator Loves Lucy, Evokes Ricky Ricardo
Sotomayor Defends Speeches
Sotomayor Pressed on Gun Rights
Sotomayor Goes to Rope-a-Dope Strategy
Republicans Aren't Sold on "Wise Latina" Explanation
Analysis: Sotomayor Has Been Very Cautious
Sotomayor: Abortion Law Is "Settled"
Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law"
© MMIX, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More From Politics
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 214 CommentsOh, stick your Bible up your fundament, lady. Why would I care about your interpretation of it?
It's not MY interpretation of it! The scriptures I gave you were copied directly and word for word from the Holy Bible which I had open in front of me!
By the way, you ******, my parents were both very proud of me. They never tolerated fools, and would have loved seeing you ridiculed for your extremist views.
So bite me
Calling someone a fool is one thing that I can give you scripture and verse on and in Jesus' own words!
Matthew 5: 22 says " But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
There is also one other scripture you might want to read and think about. It is Psalm 14: 1 It says "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good." Remember you're the one who doesn't believe in God!
It's not my opinion that you're an ass. It's a fact.
I'm more than a decent, well-brought-up little dweeb; I'm actually an educated, accomplished professional who has a brain and doesn't buy every half-assed religious idiocy some dick-witted pastor feeds me.
Good luck, numbnuts. You'll need it.
When your parents were paying for the education that you claim to have it's a shame they didn't take the time to discipline you and teach you to be a decent human being!
Idiots like you are the reason Obama was elected. The religious extremists, like you, have turned the stomachs of those who view the separation of church and state as one of the foundations of this country are fed up with your attempts to force-feed your religious nonsense to everyone.
You've failed
You can brag now but our time is coming in the 2012 election. Have you checked Obama's approval rating lately? This last Monday, July 20th, his approval rating had slipped below 60%. That is the lowest it's been since his inauguration and it's going down!
The public's honeymoon with Obama is over and the American people are finally beginning to wake up and see what a huge mistake they made when they voted for him! They see now what a failure and mistake his bailouts were and they also have serious doubts about his health care reform program that he is trying to rush through congress.
If he continues on his present path he might as well not even run for the presidency again. It will be a waste of the taxpayer's money and a waste of his time. He will be a one term president.
Also we Christians are not about to allow you atheists and agnostics to take over this country any more than you already have! Just because some of us Christians didn't get out and vote last fall doesn't mean that we won't in 2012! We are tired of what is happening to this country and we are going to stand up and make ourselves known in 2012! We have had enough of you atheists trying to force your ungodly beliefs down our throats, too! We are Americans with the same constitutional rights that you have and we intend to fight to keep them!
And another thing, you might think I'm an uneducated failure and an idiot but you are a failure at something more important! You are a failure at being a decent, well mannered and well brought up human being!
You're an uneducated moron. The CONTRACTION ( not 'abreviation', which is also misspelled--it's "abbreviation") "it's" is short for "it is". Either you've misquoted, or your dictionary's editor is illiterate. You used "it's" in "it's practice" incorrectly, moron. Give it up. You aren't terribly well-educated, and it shows. It's also "argument", you stupid ass, not "arguement". And it's "whose", *******, not "who's". The fact that you're ignoring, from your own dictionary, is that a theory is based on "observation". I pointed that out to you, but of course, being an ass, you chose to ignore it.
You're an idiot and an uneducated nitwit. Thanks for proving it
Thanks for proving my point about your upbringing, too!
You're an uneducated moron. The CONTRACTION ( not 'abreviation', which is also misspelled--it's "abbreviation") "it's" is short for "it is". Either you've misquoted, or your dictionary's editor is illiterate. You used "it's" in "it's practice" incorrectly, moron. Give it up. You aren't terribly well-educated, and it shows. It's also "argument", you stupid ass, not "arguement". And it's "whose", *******, not "who's". The fact that you're ignoring, from your own dictionary, is that a theory is based on "observation". I pointed that out to you, but of course, being an ass, you chose to ignore it.
You're an idiot and an uneducated nitwit. Thanks for proving it.
You weren't "terribly well" brought up either! You call people morons, idiots, nitwits, etc.! I wonder how your parents would feel about you if they knew that you call people those names and that you've said the things that you've said about me? I don't imagine that they'd be very proud of you! It's an obvious flaw in your upbringing and a failure of your parents to discipline you!
I rest my case. You aren't familiar with the term as it is used scientifically.
By the way, you might want to look for a better dictionary if the one you're using doesn't exhibit the correct usage of the words "it's" and "its", sweetcheeks.
By the way, what is it you think is not "factual" about observation as a basis for a theory?
My dictionary has served me well for many years, thank you! Also the word it's is simply an abreviation of the words it is. When used in the sense that I used them and not indicating ownership, they are correct and can be used anytime instead of it's.
Also I have observed many things in my life, including I once observed a king snake swallowing a copperhead, but that doesn't mean that the things that I've observed are the basis for a theory!
You can call them watermelons for all I care; you'll still be incorrect both medically and legally. And abortion will still be a legal medical procedure about which you have no say.
I don't care if it is a legal medical procedure and I don't care about being correct medically or legally. Abortion is the taking of a human life and morally wrong even if it is legal! I'm going to repeat again that it is nothing but legalized murder!
Dearie, I'm not the one who made the original claim. Try to figure out who's on first and what's on second before you blow a gasket
You responded to the "original claim"! Therefore you must agree with them, so, therefore I gave you the same responce that I would give them! I want to see your stats! Where is your proof that republicans have more abortions than democrats?
And you would again be wrong. "Murder" is a legal term. Murder is illegal. Abortion is not. Abortion is not murder. Disagree all you want. You'll still be wrong
My dictionary defines a fetus as an ANIMAL embryo during it's later stages of development. Since I do not believe in Darwin's THEORY of evolution, I don't believe human beings are animals. Since the dictionary defines a fetus as animal it is debatable that unborn human babies are fetuses. I personally don't believe they are and I refuse to call them fetuses. To me they are unborn human beings with souls and spirits and created by God.
Why? You've been doing exactly that.
Come on! I want to know your stats! Exactly where do you get it that republicans have more abortions than democrats! Tell me! You can't and you know it!
by SpinningLiberals July 15, 2009 2:17 PM EDT
.
I SUPPORT A LIBERALS 'RIGHT TO CHOOSE'
(although for reasons liberals may not like ,, read on)
Liberal democrats train their children
to grow up to be liberal democrats.
The way I see it, if liberals want to have an abortion,
then I am all for it.
The fewer liberal democrats there are,
the better off our country will be.
So please liberals, abort as many of your babies as you can.
Your 'mother earth' and the USA will thank you.
I SUPPORT A LIBERAL'S "RIGHT TO CHOOSE"
(and as often as possible)
please !!
That just shows how little you know about Democrats, We have fewer abortions than do Repigs. The reason for that is.. We aren't crazy enough to have 'unprotected sex' like the Repugs.. We 'want' our children!!!!!
Show me your proof! Where do you get your stats? If you can't prove it, you shouldn't say it!
Killing in self-defense? So the Bible says that's okay? Where?
Are you saying that you wouldn't defend yourself if someone were trying to kill you or someone you love? If you are, then you are a liar!
Then perhaps you should leave it to him to decide whether what others do is right or wrong, and quit attempting to do it for him. If your own Constitutional rights or those of any other person (not fetus) are not being infringed upon, what someone else does is not up to you.
I don't attempt to. I let the Bible do that for me! I tell people what the Bible says about what their doing and let the Bible, the Holy Word of God, speak to them! Then if they don't want to accept what the Bible says about it then there is nothing I can do about it but pray for them. When I have told them what the Bible says I have done my job as a Christian.
Jesus told his disciples in the Great Commission to go unto all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. We Christians are His disciples in today's world. We would not be doing our job as Christians if we didn't spread the gospel of Jesus Christ and tell people what the Bible says about what they are doing. We will continue to preach the gospel and spread the word of God until God calls us home. Until then you have got us to contend with whether you like it or not!
pirate lady: That is not murder but the killing of a defenseless unborn baby is, no matter if the government or the constitution does say it's legal, it's still not right and it's still the taking of a innocent human life!
That's what YOU believe. That doesn't make it so. I don't believe abortion is wrong. Why should your religious beliefs hold sway for anyone but you? The answer is that they don't, nor should they. If you believe abortion is wrong, then you needn't have one. You do not, however, have any say in someone else's medical choices.
My religious beliefs don't hold sway for anyone but me but the Holy Bible, the Holy Word of God does and should! Whether you like it or not and whether you want to admit it or not, the Bible and the laws of God are the foundation that our government was founded upon even though Roe vs Wade was not. I pray for the day when Roe vs Wade is overturned!
How do you know? Did your god put you in charge?
I know because I read His word, the Holy Bible and He doesn't need to put me in charge! He's doing well enough by Himself!
No, it's a fetus. The Constitution guarantees rights to those who are born. The rights of a woman trump those of the fetus, as they should. A fetus is not a person under the law, and your wishing it were won't make it so.
It's alive, it's human, but it is not a person with rights.
No, according to God's law it's a person with rights! His laws trump any laws that we might have! The Ten Commandments say "Thou Shalt Not Kill"! That includes unborn babies!
Also if a woman doesn't want the baby she's carrying she can always have it and then give it up for adoption! There is no excuse for murdering that baby!
How would you know? You're stuck in the past yourself
No, I'm very much in the 21st century too! I just don't agree with you! I've said before and I'll say it again, abortion is nothing but legalized murder whether you want to admit it or not! It is the taking of a human life!
Keep making yourself feel better Libs.....it's not human, it's a fetus !!!
The point is, its a fetus, not a person. A parasite, if you will.
On the contrary, it's human life! It might not be fully and formed and might not look like a baby but it's still a baby just the same!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 11
- next
See all 214 Comments