While Judge Sotomayor should not be called upon to state whether she thinks Roe v. Wade should be reversed, she should be asked whether she acknowledges that since the Supreme Court took the right to regulate abortion away from Americans, more facts about fetal development have come to light. We now know, for example, how early the heartbeat and brainwaves begin. Can she evaluate the changing landscape related to abortion with an open mind, and a philosophy grounded in the laws of our country?
By contrast, questions not only ethically acceptable, but vitally necessary to reveal Sotomayor’s understanding of constitutional principles, would direct Sotomayor to explain her view of the judge’s role. Senators should ask Sotomayor about her understanding of the limited constitutional role that judges serve, as well as the methodology that she would use when deciding cases before the Supreme Court. They should also seek out her views on interpreting the Constitution – specifically whether new “rights” may be “found” in its language. They should also ask her to explain what she meant when she said “personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”
It is also appropriate to ask Sotomayor to explain her statement that she supports maintaining “settled law.” Does she simply mean that she respects precedent, or does she believe that the Court should never revisit past decisions, even to reverse itself when it becomes clear that it overstepped its bounds into policy making?
Under questioning from Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter, who supports legalized abortion, Roberts accurately described how to examine whether a precedent should be overturned:
ROBERTS: “The principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors, settled expectations . . . whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable . . . whether the doctrinal bases of a decision have been eroded by subsequent developments. “... I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent . . . . It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided.”
However, he added, “[T]he principles of stare decisis recognize that there are situations when that’s a price that has to be paid.”
Sometimes reversing “settled law” is the best way to serve our democracy and maintain the Court’s legitimacy. No one would argue that it was wrong for the Court to reverse Dred Scott v. Sandford and Plessy v. Ferguson. Nominee Alito stated it well when he told the committee that sometimes stare decisis can be overcome. It is, he said, “not an inexorable command.”
A nominee’s judicial philosophy goes to the heart of her qualifications to serve on the Court. Judge Sotomayor has said she sees judicial impartiality as an "aspiration." But impartiality is not merely an aspiration. It is a discipline, and its necessity is enshrined in both federal law and the judicial oath. The American people deserve to know whether Judge Sotomayor will faithfully apply our laws or whether she will direct policy that fits her own agenda.
New White House Push: Sign Up For Obamacare Because It Will Give Your Mother "Piece of Mind" | Daniel Doherty
Heartbreaking: Dad Gives Up Trying to Obtain Health Insurance For His Ailing Son on the Exchanges | Daniel Doherty
CNN to Carney: Say, Why Didn't Obama Press Congress with Gun Control Like He Did with Syrian Intervention? | Greg Hengler
Maine Democratic Representative Belittles Truck Drivers; Says They're Brainless | Christine Rousselle