(This item was revised since it was originally posted.)

By Frank James

Chief Justice John Roberts is back in the news one week after Internet rumors of his imminent retirement proved greatly exaggerated.

This week, of course, he's made headlines for complaining about President Barack Obama picking on the Supreme Court during his State of the Union for the court's 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case which freed corporations from venerable limits that had restricted their political advertising.

As most news junkies know by now, Roberts told law students at the University of Alabama that it's not that he's opposed criticism of the Supreme Court; he isn't. But it was the venue that bothered him. His response to a student's question:

"On the other hand, as you said, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum. The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court, according to the requirements of protocol, has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling. And it does cause you to think whether or not it makes sense for us to be there. To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we're there."

Maybe the Supreme Court is there because it represents one of the three co-equal branches of the federal government and the SOTU has become the one time every year that all three branches meet under one roof in a powerful symbol of the august majesty of the federal government. The symbolism of the top officials of the three branches meeting once a year would seem reason enough for justices to attend the SOTU. Their continued appearance would demonstrate they respect that symbolism.

Continue reading "The Case For Chief Justice John Roberts Attending SOTUs" >

By Mark Memmott

As those who follow the Supreme Court closely -- or perhaps just read lots of blogs -- have heard, Chief Justice John Roberts is not retiring. At least not now.

Why do we bring up such non-news?

Because for a while yesterday, thanks to the mostly tabloid site RadarOnline.com, there was a big buzz on the Web about Roberts supposedly planning to step down from the bench, giving Democratic President Barack Obama a chance to replace the Republican appointee.

Radar jumped to that conclusion (and got lots of folks to follow it off the cliff) because it believed some tweets or blog posts apparently published by students at the Georgetown University Law Center. Ironically, in a class about confidential informants the students had spread a story their professor made up (as part of the class) about Roberts planning to step down.

Above the Law, a legal blog, tracked down how this all happened.

This afternoon, Above the Law founder David Lat talked with All Things Considered's Melissa Block about the bogus Roberts rumor. As he told her, "the Internet is a very flat form of communication" that allows for the quick spread of information:

Lat also said he and others who cover the High Court suspected immediately that there wasn't any support for the story -- though they still had to check it out. But as a source told Above the Law, the 55-year-old Roberts would "probably sooner die than give President Obama a chance to name his successor":

Moral of the story: Look before you leap when it comes to what you read on the Web (even here, I suppose).

More from Melissa's conversation with Lat will be on ATC today. Click here to find an NPR station that broadcasts the show. Later, the as-broadcast version of the interview will be posted here.

By Mark Memmott

Good morning.

There was breaking news overnight about a triple suicide bomb attack in the Iraqi city of Baquoba, as we reported earlier. At least 30 people were killed and many more wounded.

As for other stories making headlines, they include:

-- The Associated Press -- After Impasse Ends And Senate Votes, Obama Signs Extension Of Jobless Benefits: "The Senate on Tuesday passed a $10 billion measure to maintain unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless and provide stopgap funding for highway programs after a holdout Republican dropped stalling tactics that had generated a Washington firestorm. Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning had been holding up action for days but conceded after pressure intensified with Monday's cutoff of road funding and extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless. Bunning wanted to force Democrats to find ways to finance the bill so that it wouldn't add to the deficit. ... The bill passed by a 78-19 vote and Obama signed it into law late Tuesday."

Related story on Morning Edition -- "Bunning relented after Democrats threatened to keep the Senate in session throughout the night to wear him down. His main objection was that the bill added to the deficit." NPR's David Welna reports:

At Senate.gov -- How the senators voted. The 19 "nay" votes came from Republicans.

-- The Washington Post -- "Obama Reaches Out To Republicans" On Health Bill: "As Democrats on Capitol Hill prepared a risky effort to muscle sweeping health-care legislation to final passage, President Obama on Tuesday made a last gambit to split Republicans on the issue, proposing to incorporate a handful of GOP ideas into his signature domestic initiative. On Wednesday, Obama plans to call on Congress to bring the year-long debate to a swift close, and congressional leaders expect him to signal support for a strategy that includes a special budget maneuver known as reconciliation."

Related story on Morning Edition -- "President Barack Obama gives a speech Wednesday outlining what he sees as the way forward on health care. The president declared the issue his top domestic priority a year ago, and once again, this moment is being called the last, best chance to move forward." NPR's Mara Liasson spoke with co-host Renee Montagne:

-- Reuters -- "Chile Steps Up Search For Victims In Quake Areas": "Chilean rescue crews fanned out with sniffer dogs on Wednesday around quake-ravaged cities and villages, some still hoping to find survivors and others facing the daunting task of recovering bodies buried under mountains of rubble. Four days after the 8.8-magnitude earthquake rocked south-central Chile and killed nearly 800 people, police and troops managed to quell the looting and violence that brought chaos to the hard-hit city of Concepcion, 70 miles southeast of the epicenter."

On patrol in Concepcion. (Natacha Pisarenko/AP)

-- The Wall Street Journal -- "Greece Unveils Plan To Save 4.9 Billion Euros": "The Greek government on Wednesday announced a new austerity plan that will yield 4.8 billion euros in savings, as Prime Minister George Papandreou called on the European Union to show its support amid the country's worst economic crisis in recent times."

-- Politico "Rangel On The Brink Of Losing Ways And Means Chairmanship": "Charlie Rangel is on the verge of losing his Ways and Means gavel -- by choice or by force, permanently or temporarily -- and is taking (Tuesday) night to review his options, according to Democratic insiders. ... Republicans plan to force a House floor vote this week on whether to remove Rangel (D-N.Y.) from the chairmanship following last week's finding that he violated House gift rules by accepting a corporate-sponsored trip to the Caribbean."

-- The New York Times -- "Investigators Are Told Of Paterson Bid To Quiet Accuser": "A key figure in the domestic abuse scandal bedeviling Gov. David A. Paterson told investigators that the governor phoned to enlist her help in quieting the accuser, according to a person with knowledge of her account."

Update at 9:55 a.m. ET.

-- BBC News -- "Ethiopia Famine Aid 'Spent On Weapons' ": "Millions of dollars in Western aid for victims of the Ethiopian famine of 1984-85 was siphoned off by rebels to buy weapons, a BBC investigation finds. Former rebel leaders told the BBC that they posed as merchants in meetings with charity workers to get aid money."

By Mark Memmott

Good morning.

Rescue, recovery and aid operations continue in Chile, where Saturday's powerful earthquake caused extensive damage -- though the death and destruction was checked by the country's modern building codes and disaster planning.

As we just reported, the situation seems especially serious in Concepcion, where bands of looters roamed the streets yesterday.

Other stories making headlines include:

-- Morning Edition -- "Supreme Court To Hear Chicago Gun Rights Case". "The U.S. Supreme Court steps back onto the firing range, so to speak, as it takes up the controversial question of gun rights Tuesday. At issue is whether the Second Amendment right to bear arms puts constitutional limits on state and local laws as well as federal laws": NPR's Nina Totenberg reports:

From a related story by the Chicago Tribune: "On one side, gun-control groups argue that lifting the decades-old ban will increase the prevalence of guns and the level of violence that Chicago-area students such as Sanders face daily. On the other side, gun-rights groups have said the prohibition prevents law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. They also point out that the illegal gun trade has continued to flourish in Chicago despite the ban."

-- The New York Times -- Some Toyota Camrys That Were Not Recalled Also Had Problems, Data Show: "Toyota has recalled six million cars in the United States over concerns about sudden acceleration. But an analysis of government documents shows that many Toyota Camrys built before 2007, which were not subject to recalls, have been linked to a comparable number of speed-control problems as recalled Camrys."

From a related story by USA TODAY: "A majority of Americans think Toyota has failed to respond quickly enough to potential safety defects, and a significant minority -- 31% -- think it is unsafe now to be in a Toyota or Lexus, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll over the weekend."

From a related story by the Detroit Free Press: "Toyota's top engineer will tell a U.S. Senate committee this morning that the automaker's electronic engine controls have been designed with 'absolute reliability' and that Toyota does not believe the system has ever caused sudden unintended acceleration."

-- Detroit News -- "GM To Recall 1.3 Million Cars For Steering Fix": "General Motors will recall 1.3 million compact vehicles to correct a power steering problem, the company announced late Monday. ... The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration launched a preliminary investigation in late January into more than 905,000 Chevy Cobalts, after receiving more than 1,100 complaints from consumers related to power steering failures. In addition to the 2005-2010 Cobalts, GM also is recalling 2007-2010 Pontiac G5s, 2005 and 2006 Pontiac Pursuit models, sold in Canada, and the 2005 and 2006 Pontiac G4, sold in Mexico."

-- Morning Edition -- "Marjah Effort Shows Values, Flaws Of Afghan Forces": While Afghans are leading in the planning of the operation against the Tailban in the southern Afghan crossroads of Marjah, they are not leading in the combat there. NPR's Tom Bowman reports:

From a related story by The Washington Post: "The initial phase of the military offensive in southern Afghanistan to wrest Marja from insurgent control has largely ended, but the more daunting task of building a credible government in the place of Taliban rule has just begun, according to senior U.S. and Afghan officials."

-- The New York Times -- "Paterson Is Said To Have Ordered Calls In Abuse Case": "Gov. David A. Paterson personally directed two state employees to contact the woman who had accused his close aide of assaulting her, according to two people with direct knowledge of the governor's actions. ... Mr. Paterson's office declined to comment on Monday, citing the pending investigation." In the wake of earlier revelations about the contacts with the accuser, Paterson, a Democrat, announced last week he would not run for the office in November.

-- Austin American-Statesman -- "It's Primary Day In Texas": Polls are open until 8 p.m. ET for primaries that include the hotly contested race for the GOP gubernatorial nomination between current Gov. Rick Perry and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

-- San Francisco Chronicle -- "Jerry Brown To Announce Bid For Governor Today".

By Mark Memmott

Convicted Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling gets another day in court today.

As NPR's Nina Totenberg reported earlier for the network's newcast, the U.S. Supreme Court is taking up the issue of whether the "honest services" law that Skilling broke is too vague:

That law, as SCOTUSBlog writes, "makes it a crime to commit fraud that deprives someone, such as one's company, of 'the intangible right of honest services.' "

Last fall, NPR's Wade Goodwyn reported for Morning Edition that federal apeals courts "have upheld some honest services convictions and thrown out others," making the issue "ripe for the nation's highest court":

Even if the court sides with Skilling, that doesn't necessarily mean he'll be a free man any time soon. He was convicted on 19 counts, including (as the Houston Chronicle writes) conspiracy, securities fraud, insider trading and lying to auditors, and is three years into a 24-year term in a federal correctional institution. Enron was an energy company.

As Nina reminds us, "Enron's (2001) collapse put more than 5,000 people out of work, wiped out more than $2 billion in employee pensions and rendered worthless $60 billion in Enron stock." She's due to have more on the story later today, on All Things Considered. Click here to find an NPR station. After the broadcast, the as-aired story will be posted here.

By Korva Coleman

Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor warns last week's high court decision overturning part of a campaign finance law poses a threat to judicial independence - in state courts. NPR"s Nina Totenberg points out that more than 80 percent of state judges run for election.

By Frank James

Will the Supreme Court's landmark campaign-finance decision allow foreign interests to have an impact on U.S. elections?

That's the intriguing question being asked by the Center for Public Integrity. When the Supreme Court ruled it was unconstitutional for Congress to ban corporations and unions from contributing money directly to political-advertising campaigns for and against clients, it may have cleared the way for foreign-owned multinationals to pump money in U.S. campaigns in an attempt to influence the outcome of elections.

An excerpt from a CPI piece:

But it's one thing for U.S. firms to have their say. What about foreign companies that operate U.S. subsidiaries? Many of these, like American businesses, are owned by ordinary shareholders -- but a host of others are owned, in whole or in part, by the foreign governments themselves.

One prominent examples is CITGO Petroleum Company -- once the American-born Cities Services Company, but purchased in 1990 by the Venezuelan government-owned Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. The Citizens United ruling could conceivably allow Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who has sharply criticized both of the past two U.S. presidents, to spend government funds to defeat an American political candidate, just by having CITGO buy TV ads bashing his target.

And it's not just Chavez. The Saudi government owns Houston's Saudi Refining Company and half of Motiva Enterprises. Lenovo, which bought IBM's PC assets in 2004, is partially owned by the Chinese government's Chinese Academy of Sciences. And Singapore's APL Limited operates several U.S. port operations. A weakening of the limit on corporate giving could mean China, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, and any other country that owns companies that operate in the U.S. could also have significant sway in American electioneering.

Continue reading "Campaign Money From Foreign Firms May Be Coming " >

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) in 2002, architects of the campaign-finance law the Supreme Court reined in Thursday. (Lauren Victoria Burke / AP Photo)

By Frank James

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday opened the door for much more political spending by corporations and unions by lifting a federal ban on spending by corporations and labor organizations on independently produced political ads that advocate the election of a candidate for president or the Congress.

The court, in a 5 to 4 opinion with the conservatives ruling the day, also erased a ban on corporations and unions paying for so-called issue ads 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. That ban was part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance.

Citizens Opinion

NPR's Ari Shapiro provided the following background on the network's newscast:

The case started out as a narrow challenge to campaign finance laws.

But after it was argued the first time, the justices said they wanted to look at a broader issue.

So the lawyers argued again, this time debating whether the distinction between individual and corporate donations to elections is a fundamental violation of free speech rights.

The Obama Administration argued that if the court overturned campaign finance restrictions, corporate money would flood elections, taking the political process out of the hands of voters. Businesses argued that they should have the same right to express their political views as anyone else.

Now a divided Supreme Court has overturned longstanding restrictions on campaign contributions to political campaigns.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said "the Government cannot suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity."

Continue reading "High Court Partly Lifts Corporate Campaign Money Limits" >

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" >