Convicted DC sniper John Allen Muhammad execution is on track for Tuesday, Nov. 10, 2009 after the Supreme Court rejected his bid for a stay or to hear his appeal. (AP Photo/Virginia Department of Corrections)

By Frank James

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to block the execution of John Allen Muhammad, the former Army enlisted man who, along with a teen-aged accomplice, conducted a series of sniper shootings in the Washington D.C. area in 2002. The court also refused to hear an appeal filed on behalf of Muhammad.

The convicted killer's execution by lethal injection is scheduled for Tuesday at 9 pm ET.

Many people who lived through those terrible three weeks when the fear of being shot dead while fueling a car or walking to a restaurant was palpable, no doubt have little sympathy for Muhammad.

As someone who covered his trial and saw the gruesome, nightmarish photographs prosecutors showed in the courtroom of some of his victims, it's still hard to fathom the wanton cruelty he and Lee Boyd Malvo so casually delivered from their shooting position in the trunk of a 1990 Chevrolet Caprice.

According to Scotusblog, three liberal members of the court, who agreed with their conservative colleagues to turn a deaf ear to Muhammad's stay of his execution, nevertheless pointed out the problem of executing the condemned before they've exhausted all their appeals:

Three Justices filed a separate statement saying the case "highlights once again the perversity of executing inmates before their appeals process has been fully concluded." Justices John Paul Stevens wrote the statement, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. The statement, however, pointedly added that those Justices did not dissent from the Court's refusal to hear Muhammad's legal claims.

By Frank James

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized overnight after falling from her jetliner seat as she prepared to head to London where she and other justices were to represent the American judiciary at the inaugural ceremonies for Britain's brand new Supreme Court institution.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was released from hospital after passing out after she boarded a flight to London. (Charles Dharapak / AP Photo)

Here's the press release the Supreme Court issued Thursday morning:

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was taken to the Washington Hospital Center at approximately 11:15 p.m. Wednesday evening after an apparent adverse reaction to a sleeping aid combined with cold medication she took immediately after boarding an overnight flight bound for London. Prior to the plane taking off, the Justice experienced extreme drowsiness causing her to fall from her seat. Paramedics were called and the Justice was taken to the Washington Hospital Center as a precaution.

Justice Ginsburg was evaluated at the hospital and she was found to be in stable health. Doctors attributed her symptoms to a reaction caused by the combination of a prescription sleeping aid and an over-the-counter cold medication. She was admitted overnight for observation and was released this morning.

Continue reading "Justice Ginsburg Out Of Hospital After Passing Out On Plane " >

Jeffrey Skilling after his October 2006 conviction on 19 counts related to the collapse of energy giant Enron.(Houston Chronicle, Brett Coomer / AP Photo )

By Frank James

Jeffrey K. Skilling who was convicted on fraud and other charges related to the collapse of one-time energy colossus Enron will have another day in court, this time the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his appeal.

Among the problems Skilling claims occurred during his 2006 trial was intense negative pretrial news coverage which he said made it impossible for him to receive a fair trial.

Skilling, who was Enron's president and also at different times served as its chief operating and executive officers, also claimed he was unfairly convicted under the "honest services" fraud statute. That statute was used by federal prosecutors who charged him with depriving shareholders of his honest services.

The "honest service" charge was one of 19 counts on which he was convicted. He is currently serving a 24-year term at the Federal Correctional Institution in Englewood, Colo.

The Justice Department unsuccessfully argued against the high-court review, arguing that Skilling had indeed received a fair trial.

By Frank James

There was a moment during Supreme Court oral arguments Wednesday in the case involving a cross in the Mojave National Preserve sure to add to Justice Antonin Scalia's reputation as one of the fiercest advocates for a certain world view to sit on the court in recent memory.

Justice Antonin Scalia on Wednesday made the controversial argument that the Christian cross honors all war dead. (Charles Dharapak / AP Photo)

Scalia got into a heated disagreement with an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer over whether the Christian cross is a religious symbol specific to a particular religion.

It would seem like an odd thing to argue about since it's doubtful anyone thinks of Islam or Judaism when he or she sees a cross.

But Scalia clearly holds a different view.

JUSTICE SCALIA: The cross doesn't honor non-Christians who fought in the war? Is that -- is that --

MR. ELIASBERG: I believe that's actually correct.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Where does it say that?

MR. ELIASBERG: It doesn't say that, but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins, and I believe that's why the Jewish war veterans --

JUSTICE SCALIA: It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead. It's the -- the cross is the -- is the most common symbol of -- of -- of the resting place of the dead, and it doesn't seem to me -- what would you have them erect? A cross -- some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Moslem half moon and star?

MR. ELIASBERG: Well, Justice Scalia, if I may go to your first point. The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.

(Laughter.)

MR. ELIASBERG: So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians.

Continue reading "Scalia's Stance That Cross Honors All Dead Strains Belief" >

By Frank James

We previewed earlier today one of the highest profile cases on the Supreme Court's docket this fall, the animal-cruelty case that was argued today.

Based on the pattern of questioning by justices on both sides of the court's ideological spectrum, it appears the law that makes it illegal to have or sell photos or videos depicting animal cruelty is likely to be struck down.

Here's part of NPR Supreme Court watcher, Nina Totenberg's report heard on All Things Considered.

Defending the statute today, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal contended that Congress wrote its ban narrowly by creating exemptions from prosecution for depictions that have a serious educational, scientific, or artistic purposes.

Chief Justice John Roberts bore in on those exemptions as evidence that prosecutions would depend on the views of the speaker: How can you tell these aren't political videos, he asked. You have organizations like PETA, that use these videos to generate support for their efforts to ban certain conduct. Why, he asked, couldn't Mr. Stevens videos be seen as an effort to legalize the same conduct?

Justice Sotomayor: What's the difference between this video and David Roma's documentary expose about pit bulls and dogfighting? That footage, she observed, was far more gruesome.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Seems Set To Kill Ban On Animal Cruelty Images" >

By Frank James

A lot of speculation in Supreme Court watching circles about whether Associate Justice John Paul Stevens' hiring of just one clerk to date means he's preparing to step down from the court.

Justices John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor at an Aug. 12, 2009 White House reception in her honor. (Alex Brandon / AP Photo)

Stevens. 89, is the second oldest justice to serve on the court. Only Oliver Wendell Holmes, who served until he was 90, was older.

Stevens is a reliable member of the liberal wing on a court that has trended conservative over a number of years, with the court tending towards 5-4 decisions in many cases that split the nation ideologically. A Chicagoan, Stevens joined the court in 1975.

The Associated Press' Mark Sherman reports that the speculation that Stevens could be stepping down soon arises from his having hired only one clerk, according to court watchers, at a time by which he should've hired four.

NPR's SCOTUS expert, Nina Totenberg, differs with the AP, saying that Stevens normally hires three, not four, clerks. Since the 1970s, the justices have been authorized to have four clerk positions but Stevens typically uses one of those positions to hire someone who serves as more of an administrator.

Continue reading "Justice Stevens' Minimal Clerk Hiring Spurs Retirement Speculation" >

By Frank James

The Supreme Court took the unusual step of weighing into a controversial Georgia death-penalty case today, ordering a new hearing for Troy Anthony Davis, who's on Georgia's death row for the 1989 killing of an off-duty police officer.

Troy Anthony Davis. ( AP Photo/Georgia Department of Corrections)

Davis has long protested his innocence and several witnesses have recanted testimony that he was the shooter. Former President Jimmy Carter and retired South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu have both asked for Davis's life to be spared.

Acknowledging that doubts have crept in, the Supreme Court declared that Davis should get another day in court. It was the first time in nearly 50 years that the Supremes ordered a district court to hear evidence of state prisoner's innocence claim.

Writing for the court, Justice John Paul Stevens said:

The substantial risk of putting an innocent man to death clearly provides an adequate justification for holding an evidentiary hearing.

But in a strong dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the majority for essentially allowing the court to shirk its duty. He said, in part, that if they believed so strongly in the possibility of Davis' innocence, then the Supreme Court should take up the case itself instead shipping it back to a district court which might not be able to do anything, even if it determined that Davis was likely to be innocent.

Scalia, who was joined in his dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, also called Davis's post-conviction evidence "stale" and pointed out that the courts in Georgia and the state's pardon and clemency board had all looked at it and found it unpersuasive.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Orders Rehearing For Convicted Georgia Cop Killer" >

Screen shot of closed-circuit television coverage of Senate floor after Judge Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed to the Supreme Court. (AP Photo/C-SPAN)

By Frank James, updated

Federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor won Senate approval to the U.S. Supreme Court with a vote of 68-31 in a somewhat bipartisan vote, receiving nine Republican votes. Justice Sotomayor becomes the first Hispanic to take a place on the nation's highest court.

Her confirmation was never in doubt even though a majority of Republicans opposed her, calling the 55-year old judge a judicial activist or questioning her impartiality because of comments of hers they found troubling, including her infamous "wise Latina" statement.

Sotomayor's confirmation is a victory for President Barack Obama who nominated the federal judge to the court after Justice David Souter resigned from the court.

Obama spoke to the media in the White House Diplomatic Reception Room after the Senate vote. He said, in part:

These core American ideals -- justice, equality and opportunity -- are the very ideals that have made Judge Sotomayor's own unique American journey possible. They're ideals she's fought for throughout her career. And the ideals the Senate has upheld again today in breaking yet another barrier and moving us yet another step closer to a more perfect union.

Like so many other aspects of our nation, I'm filled with pride in this achievement and great confidence that Judge Sotomayor will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice.

This is a wonderful day for Judge Sotomayor and her family but I also think it's a wonderful day for America."

As he left the podium a reporter asked Obama if he was "happy with the 68 votes" Sotomayor garnered in the Senate.

"I'm very happy."

Continue reading "Sotomayor Wins Senate OK To Supreme Court; Will Be Its First Hispanic" >

By Frank James

Before today's Senate hearing even began, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, was doing fairly well at least in the court of public opinion.

Gallup's pollsters reported her approval rating at 53 percent versus 33 percent against her.

That contrasts greatly with a Rasmussen poll cited by Sen Jon Kyl, an Arizona Republican who is on the Senate Judiciary Committee and appeared on ABC's "This Week" program on Sunday.

Continue reading "Sotomayor Winning In Court Of Public Opinion " >

By Frank James

NPR's David Welna is reporting a July 13 start date for Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Sotomayor, a federal appellate court judge in New York, would replace Justice David Souter, who is retiring from the court.

By Frank James

In a blow to the Obama Administration and the auto industry, the U.S. Supreme Court has sided with the Indiana pension funds request to delay Chrysler's sale to Fiat. More to come.

Update: 4:12 pm:

The Associated Press has this report:

WASHINGTON (AP) - Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has temporarily delayed Chrysler's sale to Fiat.

Ginsburg says in an order Monday that the sale is "stayed pending further order."

The action indicates that the delay may only be temporary.

Chrysler has said a delay could scuttle the deal.

A federal appeals court in New York had earlier approved the sale, but gave opponents some time to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

By Ken Rudin

If nothing else, the Tweet from the Drudge Report certainly caught my attention:

Sotomayor joined elite secretive, women-only group...

What is this secretive group, I wondered? The Illuminati? Opus Dei? An NPR member station?

The link sent me to Kenneth Vogel's piece in Politico, where I learned that Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to succeed David Souter on the Supreme Court, has joined the Belizean Grove, "an elite but little-known women's-only group."

Founded nearly 10 years ago as the female answer to the Bohemian Grove -- a secretive all-male club whose members have included former U.S. presidents and top business leaders -- the Belizean Grove has about 125 members, including Army generals, Wall Street executives and former ambassadors. ...

The group -- which on its website describes itself as "a constellation of influential women who are key decision makers in the profit, nonprofit and social sectors; who build long-term, mutually beneficial relationships in order to both take charge of their own destinies and help others to do the same" -- hosts periodic meetings around New York, as well as an annual off-the-record three-day retreat in Central or South America at which its members attend cocktail parties with U.S. diplomats and host-country officials and participate in panel discussions on public policy and business affairs. ...

While conspiracy theorists have cast the Bohemian Grove as a cog in a shadowy right-leaning globalist cabal, [Stony Brook University dean Mary] Pearl said the Belizean Grove is nonpartisan and stressed, "There's nothing nefarious about it."

And [group founder Susan] Stautberg brushed off a question about whether the Grove's women-only membership could generate controversy as the Bohemian Grove's exclusively male membership did in 1979, when the state of California sued the club for not hiring female employees as its facility there.

Prediction: This will not affect her chances for confirmation.

By Frank James

The White House is in full damage-control mode in dealing with Judge Sonia Sotomayor's 2001 "wise Latina" versus "white male" comment.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today that if Sotomayor had it to do all over again, she would have chosen different words so that her critics wouldn't now be obsessing on this line from her speech at the University of California, Berkeley law school:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Here's how Gibbs answered the question today:

GIBBS: ... You know, she's been here. She's made calls. Look, I think that -- I've not talked specifically with her about this, but I think that -- I think she'd say that her word choice in 2001 was poor; that she was simply making the point that personal experiences are relevant to the process of judging; that your personal experiences make you -- have a tendency to make you more aware of certain facts and certain cases; that your experiences impact your understanding -- I think we all agree with that; and that on a court that's collegial, that it can help -- that it can help others that are trying to wrestle with the facts of those cases.

Continue reading "Sotomayor Wants A Verbal Do Over: Gibbs " >

By Frank James

Sen. Orrin Hatch at an April 19, 2007 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the long-time Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was very much on the high road today when he told NPR's David Greene that he wants Senate Republicans to turn the other cheek and not treat Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination as shabbily as he believes Democrats treated Republican picks.

Hatch pointed out to Greene how President Barack Obama, as a senator, voted against Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, even though Obama himself acknowledged that the men were highly qualified.

Hatch said:

Let's be honest about it. Let's start with President Obama. President Obama called both Roberts and Alito, now Chief Justice Roberts and now Justice Alito, a compelling life story. He said they were brilliant men, high qualified, and then voted against both of them.

Now there are those in the Republican Party who say shouldn't we apply the same standard the Democrats applied to us? Now I don't personally agree with that. But, on the other hand, I can't blame anybody... if they use the standard that the Democrats used and in some cases smear the Republican nominees. I can just assure you of one thing. There were dozens of people who were treated like crap as they came before the committee. I don't want our side doing that... Our nominees were treated pretty poorly."

So Hatch essentially seems to be saying he hopes his Republican colleagues won't respond in kind but if they do, well, he certainly would understand. Sounds like some real mixed signals there.

By Frank James

Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor's diabetes a problem in terms of what would be a life-time appointment to the Supreme Court? In other words, might her disease significantly shorten her time on the court? They're somewhat indelicate questions, but people have been asking them.

The answer to those questions appears to be "not necessarily." And, according to a piece on All Things Considered today, the answer may even be no, depending on how well she takes care of herself.

An excerpt from the web version of the piece:

Before the appointment, some in the blogosphere raised her health as an issue, noting that Supreme Court justices may serve for life -- often several decades.

But diabetes experts say that not all diabetics live shorter lives.

"To automatically jump to the conclusion that it's going to shorten her life span, of course, is not at all fair," says University of Washington endocrinologist Paul Robertson.

He says the shorter life span happens when some people with diabetes don't take care of themselves. With proper treatment, Sotomayor and others can live long lives.

"I think the pertinent question is how is she dealing with it, how's she taking care of it? Is she doing a good job?" says Robertson. "Those kinds of questions make sense because you'd ask the same questions of somebody with a chronic disease like heart disease or cancer or leukemia."

By Frank James

The Senate Judiciary Committee released its questionnaire for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court seat now occupied by Justice David Souter whose retirement from the court takes effect when the court's current term ends next month.

While it looks daunting, keep in mind she'll have a platoon of White House lawyers to help her fill it out.

Sotomayor Questionnaire Blank

By Frank James

Even before she appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her confirmation hearings, Judge Sonia Sotomayor can expect Senate Republicans to grill her on the wise-Latina-versus-white-man line in her by now famous 2001 speech.

In this Nov. 6, 1998 file photo, Peter White helps newly-inducted Judge Sonia Sotomayor put on her robe shortly after she took the oath of office as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals at the U.S. Courthouse in New York. AP Photo/Adam Nadel, file

If she's really the wise Latina she seems to think, she's probably wishing right about now that she had never uttered those words since they give her political opponents a very exploitable angle of attack they otherwise wouldn't have. And she will have the somewhat uncomfortable situation of explaining what she meant to the mostly white men in the Senate who will vote on her confirmation.

The line come from a speech Sotomayor gave during a symposium at the University of California School of Law at Berkeley. The conference's theme was: Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.

One point of Sotomayor's speech was that the life experiences of women and minorities in the law often informs their work leading to an ultimate outcome of greater overall justice.

She was taking on the views of a colleague, federal district court judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum who, among other things, was the judge who threw the book at Martha Stewart.

Sotomayor describes conversations she had with Cedarbaum in which her colleague had opined that judges should strive to scrupulously keep their gender and race or ethnicity from impacting their decisions.

To this, Sotomayor said:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

Continue reading "Sotomayor's 'Wise Latina' Line Maybe Not So Wise " >

By Frank James

Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is being hailed as a proud moment for Hispanic Americans. But it makes all of us former Project Americans very warm inside, too.

Butler Houses project, The Bronx, NY. From New York City Housing Authority website

Sotomayor and I grew up in two different housing projects in the South Bronx, she in the Bronxdale buildings, I in the Butler buildings at roughly the same time, the 1960s and 1970s.

It was a period of transition in the Bronx and New York City as a whole. The projects started out as integrated. There were middle-class services like milk and newspaper delivery. Yes, children, milk was once delivered to households just like newspapers.

But as middle-class whites fled the borough for the suburbs, only to be replaced by the poor and near poor, the projects became high-rise hellholes. Delivery services vanished. Elevators broke down constantly. Some residents began using the darkened stairwells as restrooms.

Crime, drug use, you name it, became rampant. There were the passed-out heroin addicts in the stairwells. A teenager who lived on my floor was severely beaten by a gang for wanting out. A friend's young sister was raped and killed. It wasn't all horror but there was horror. Too much of it. So many people raised in the projects have their own version of these stories. No doubt Sotomayor does too.

The Bronx was sliding towards the chaos that later became the stuff of movies, both fictional and documentary, like "Ft. Apache, the Bronx" and "The Bronx is Burning."

Continue reading "Sotomayor A Triumph For Project Alums, Too" >

The Supreme Court in Washington, Tuesday, May 26, 2009. AP Photo/Susan Walsh

 

By Frank James

The Supreme Court ruled that police can now continue to question criminal suspects in some instances even after they've asked for a lawyer. It was a five to four decision, the typical split in cases where the court's conservative majority lines up against its liberal bloc.

But those on the political left who would rail against the court's conservatives should keep in mind that the Obama Administration was on the same side as the court's conservatives on this one.

As NPR's Laura Sullivan reports:.

The decision was close - five to four -- and the result is that suspects waiting for a lawyer can still be questioned by authorities. The decision overturns a 23-year old ruling that once a suspect asks for an attorney, all bets are off until a lawyer arrives.

In writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that old ruling was quote "poorly reasoned." He argued that a suspect can sit silently if he chooses to. But just because a suspect's waiting for an attorney, doesn't mean police have to remain silent.

The ruling comes in the case of Jesse Montejo, a Louisiana man convicted of murdering an acquaintance who volunteered information before his attorney arrived. In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the ruling will "diminish the public's confidence in the reliability and fairness of our system of justice. "

And this is how Lyle Denniston reported the court's decision on Scotusblog.

Splitting 5-4, the Supreme Court on Tuesday overruled its 23-year-old ruling in Michigan v. Jackson on the rights of a criminal suspect in police custody who has asked for a lawyer. The Court did so in Montejo v. Louisiana (07-1529), in an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia. After Scalia announced the decision, Justice John Paul Stevens spoke orally for the dissenters -- a somewhat unusual gesture. Stevens was the author of the 1986 decision that was cast aside; he was the only member of the Court then who is still sitting.

Continue reading "Supreme Court Rules For Police On Interrogations" >

By Frank James

As my fellow blogger Mark Memmott noted earlier, some conservative critics of Sonia Sotomayor are using a clip of her participation in February 2005 on a Duke University Law School panel. She was explaining the difference between clerking for district and and appellate court judges:

Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they're looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. Um, um -- [laughter] -- I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, and, I'm ... you know.

Her conservatives critics are hoping to gain traction on this. Their argument is that her off-hand comment proves she's an unreconstructed proponent of judicial activism.

Ed Morrissey of the conservative Hot Air blog wrote:

If she's that erudite in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee when answering this question, the Republicans won't have to push hard to bounce Sotomayor out of the Supreme Court. She knew she'd overreached and couldn't even explain herself in front of a friendly audience, who realized quite well that her backpedaling was entirely self-serving and incoherent.

But watch the somewhat longer clip of the same panel discussion and it appears Sotomayor did indeed explain herself in a way that will likely hold up under tough questioning from Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans. Morrissey's smoking gun turns out to be anything but.

Continue reading "Sotomayor Video No Smoking Gun After All" >

By Frank James

Among the many debates to occur since it became clear that federal appellate court judge Sonia Sotomayor was on President Barack Obama's short list to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter is the question will she be the court's first Hispanic?

Those who say "no" point to Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo who served on the court from 1932 to 1938. Cardozo hailed from a Sephardic Jewish family thought to have Portuguese roots. Since Portugal is on the Iberian peninsula some argue that Portuguese are Hispanics and thus Cardozo is of Latino ancestry.

As Cardozo's biographer, Harvard Law professor Andrew Kaufman, wrote to Ashby Jones of the WSJ.com's law blog in response to a question, there's no documentation the Cardozos came from Portugal though there's circumstantial evidence that may have been the case.

The Cardozos and the Nathans [Cardozo's maternal ancestors] came to the American colonies in the eighteenth century via Holland and England. The family legend is that the Cardozos came from Portugal but there is no firm documentation about the particulars. The family tree is filled with names like Seixas, Mendes, Gomez, Riveiro, Navarro, Peixotto, and Pachecho, indicating their heritage as Sephardic Jews from the Iberian Peninsula.

Continue reading "Sotomayor The High Court's First Hispanic? Yes" >