My guess is that a smattering of RINOs will bail, too.

Politically speaking, they may as well, particularly if they can trade those votes for something later on. They can't stop her from being confirmed- they don't have the juice. Better to try and get something for not making waves than get nothing at all...

...and when have the conservatives EVER gotten ANYTHING from the libs for "not making waves" ??

The Republican party needs to continue to stick to principle. Argh!

Over at Simple Justice, by the way, Scott's been arguing that she shouldn't be confirmed because she really doesn't get other parts of the Bill of Rights, either -- she's far too, in his view (which I share), prosecution-oriented, and that's not a good thing for a judge or justice to be.

Dear Senator Blank,

Just a brief e-mail to follow up on my telephone call this morning, regarding the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

President Bush was rightly chided for proposing Harriet Myers because while she was and is a perfectly adequate jurist, 'adequate' is not good enough to sit on the Court. I am afraid that Judge Sotomayor has not displayed the legal acumen required of a Supreme Court Justice.

Specifically, in her testimony she twice stated that a right is 'fundamental' if it is 'incorporated' against the states by the 14th amendment. This is completely backwards from what the Supreme Court has stated, to wit that a right is incorporated against the states if it is fundamental.

On another occasion when Sen. Coburn asked her if a citizen has "a right to personal self- defense?" Judge Sotomayor stated:

"I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

The Supreme Court has heard over a dozen cases on this issue, ranging from Thompson v. United States in 1894 where it ruled that arming yourself for legitimate self defense does not constitute premeditation, to the classic "[d]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" of Brown v. United States in 1921 and more recently Heller v. DC (a case which Judge Sotomayor should have been very familiar with since she recently ruled on its application in Maloney v. Cuomo) where the court held that "[t]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right". Note the use of the term 'inherent right' which Barron's Law Dictionary defines as "a right that exists by reason of an individual's status as an individual and is not derived from any other source."

In addition her ruling (albeit as junior judge) in the Maloney v. Cuomo ruling cited the precedent of Presser v. Illinois to state that "it is settled law … that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose ...", ignoring the fact that Presser was heard before the courts began to incorporate the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment and also ignoring the Supreme Court's twentieth century incorporation cases.

I have gone on rather longer than I'd planned in part because I do not wish to be dismissed as someone with a 'knee-jerk' reaction against Judge Sotomayor, and also in the hopes that the Senator may find my thoughts useful.

Thank-you for your time and attention.

Peace,

Bruce W. Krafft

Dear Bruce:

Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I appreciate all of the input I have received from Minnesotans like you.

Along with my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, I had the opportunity to review Judge Sotomayor’s nomination, her background and her views. Judge Sotomayor impressed me as someone who knows the Constitution and the law, but who also knows America. I believe that Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court a unique combination of legal experience as a prosecutor, a private lawyer, a trial judge and an appellate judge. In fact, she has more experience as a federal judge than any nominee in 100 years.

As the former Hennepin County Attorney, I was particularly interested in Judge Sotomayor’s previous experience working as a local prosecutor. I believe that experience helps judges understand exactly what’s at stake in legal decisions. Judge Sotomayor saw firsthand how the law has a real impact on people’s everyday lives. Based in part on her law enforcement experience, Judge Sotomayor’s nomination has been endorsed by the National Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, and the Major Cities Chiefs Association – as well as many other organizations.

Many writers expressed concern about comments Judge Sotomayor has made in some past speeches. I understand these concerns. However, I believe that Judge Sotomayor’s long judicial record provides the best evidence for what kind of a judge she will be. Her record demonstrates that she reads factual records carefully and follows precedent diligently. Her record also shows that she respects appropriate limits on the judicial role and follows the rule of law. In cases where Judge Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican President were on the same three-judge panel, they agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business and to serve the people of our state. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator

Dear Senator Klobuchar,

I appreciate you prompt reply. I would appreciate it more, however, if your letter had given *any* indication that someone had actually read my letter and attempted to address my concerns.

In your letter you state:

"Judge Sotomayor impressed me as someone who knows the Constitution and the law, but who also knows America."

In my note I pointed out several fundamental mistakes Judge Sotomayor made in her testimony. From my letter:

Specifically, in her testimony she twice stated that a right is 'fundamental' if it is 'incorporated' against the states by the 14th amendment. This is completely backwards from what the Supreme Court has stated, to wit that a right is incorporated against the states if it is fundamental.

On another occasion when Sen. Coburn asked her if a citizen has "a right to personal self- defense?" Judge Sotomayor stated:

"I'm trying to think if I remember a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question. Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

The Supreme Court has heard over a dozen cases on this issue, ranging from Thompson v. United States in 1894 where it ruled that arming yourself for legitimate self defense does not constitute premeditation, to the classic "[d]etached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife" of Brown v. United States in 1921 and more recently Heller v. DC (a case which Judge Sotomayor should have been very familiar with since she recently ruled on its application in Maloney v. Cuomo) where the court held that "[t]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right". Note the use of the term 'inherent right' which Barron's Law Dictionary defines as "a right that exists by reason of an individual's status as an individual and is not derived from any other source."

You also stated:

"I believe that Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court a unique
combination of legal experience ... In fact, she has more experience as a federal judge than any nominee in 100 years."

This only makes her ignorance of case law and Constitutional errors worse.


"Many writers expressed concern about comments Judge Sotomayor has made in
some past speeches."

I was certainly not one of the individuals who took out of context statements directed at a specific audience as evidence of anything.


"Her record demonstrates that she reads factual records carefully and follows precedent diligently. Her record also shows that she respects appropriate limits on the judicial role and follows the rule of law."

But her record does not demonstrate this at all. She either uses the *excuse* of outdated precedent to reach preconcieved conclusions, or she is completely ignorant of the true nature of precedent. For instance in the ruling in Mahoney v. Cuomo, she relied on Presser v. Illinois to reach her conclusion that "the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose" while completely ignoring the fact that Presser was decided before the courts began to incorporate the Bill of Rights through the Fourteenth Amendment and ignoring a century of incorporation "precedents" from the Supreme Court. So either she was idealogically driven to reach that conclusion, or she is so ignorant that she was unable to follow more complicated legal reasoning from later cases. In either case she is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court.


You go on to say:

"In cases where Judge Sotomayor and at least one judge appointed by a Republican President were on the same three-judge panel, they agreed on the outcome 95% of the time.:

Which is either completely immaterial or shows that she is not idealogical, merely a poor legal scholar.

You close by saying:

"Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me."

Again, I would feel better if your letter showed the slightest indication that you (or your staff) had done what you agree is one of the most important parts of your job: To wit, listening to me.

Peace,

Bruce W. Krafft

Nice rebuttal Bruce. Let us know if you get a reply.

Dear Bruce:

Thank you for taking the time again to contact me about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. I realize the importance of this issue, and I appreciate hearing from you.

To keep track of what I am doing both in Washington and in Minnesota, please visit my website at http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov. You may also like to track legislation through the Library of Congress legislative information website at http://thomas.loc.gov.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation’s capital to do the public’s business and to serve the people of our state. I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.


Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar
United States Senator