 |
          
  |
|
|
Curt
Levey explains how the cause of judicial restraint may have been advanced
in the Sotomayor confirmation despite the fact that another activist judge has
reached the Supreme Court.
Mario
Diaz finds similar encouragement in the possibility that the “living
Constitution” fallacy may have taken a beating during the confirmation process.
Marco Rubio
explains why Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court should be
opposed based on her judicial philosophy and demonstrates why opposing
Sotomayor is not anti-Hispanic.
David
McIntosh explains. Excerpt:
As Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation
hearing began last week, many commentators predicted that she would portray
herself as a moderate judge committed to judicial restraint. True to these
expectations, Judge Sotomayor described her judicial philosophy as quite
simple: “fidelity to the law.” Yet the judge’s history on the Second
Circuit—not to mention her earlier speeches—suggest that she believes judges
can go beyond the law to make policy decisions. For this reason, a vote to
confirm Judge Sotomayor is almost certainly a vote in favor of restricting
Second Amendment protections and property rights, upholding racial preferences,
and providing unlimited abortion on demand.
The
Washington Times editorial board explains why the Senate Judiciary
Committee should vote down Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme
Court. Excerpt:
Senators of both parties should be offended
by the evasive and misleading answers Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
provided to written questions senators submitted following her July 13 through
17 public hearings. The Senate should not accept such evasiveness.
Of particular note is Judge Sotomayor's
dodge of a highly important question from Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions, the
ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, concerning her dissenting
opinion that murderers and rapists have a right to vote while still behind
bars. The relevant part of the question read as follows: "Doesn't your
dissent in [the case] ignore the fact that the convict's crimes and not any
state-based racial discrimination made the felons ineligible to vote?"
Read
the full
editorial here.
If
you have time during the day to watch the important confirmation hearings being
held in the Senate Judiciary Committee, please do. Nominations to the Supreme Court have drastic
implications for the future of our nation and our freedom. Concerned citizens should be watching their
elected officials carefully and encouraging their fellow citizens to
contemplate the proper role of judges in our constitutional form of government.
You
can watch
the hearings live on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website.
Your
local PBS station will be carrying the
hearings live, and the major cable news networks (C-SPAN, Fox News, and CNN) will likely provide much coverage
of the hearings as well.
Photo source: LA
Times
Jan
LaRue explains why the Sotomayor nomination needs to be slowed down. Excerpt:
The White House and Senate Democrats want a
vote on Sotomayor's nomination before the August congressional recess. If
Senate Republicans surrender to the Democrats' race pace card, it means a fast,
uninformed vote on a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court.
Americans aren't stimulated by uninformed
voting in Congress. Republicans should also know by now that Americans consider
Supreme Court appointments supremely important. It explains why Samuel Alito is
on the Supreme Court and Harriet Miers isn't.
Democrats are hustling the vote because
they don't want to give Americans time to be fully informed about Sotomayor.
What we already know calls for the Senate to proceed with caution, not
full-speed ahead. A Supreme Court nomination shouldn't be a summary,
rubber-stamp decision. Sotomayor's record including 3,600 opinions, hundreds of
speeches and other writings needs serious and thorough review.
Judicial
Watch sent a letter to the leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding
their concerns over potential judicial and ethical misconduct by Judge Sonia
Sotomayor. Read
the letter here.
Michael
G. Franc explains at NRO’s Bench Memos blog.
Ed
Whelan explains one particular reason Sonia Sotomayor’s approval ratings
could be dropping. He argues that her
positions in favor of racial preferences and her opposition to the “colorblind
ideal” are vastly out of step with the majority of Americans.
As
Reuters reports, Judge Sonia Sotomayor (President Obama’s nominee for the
Supreme Court) was given the American Bar Association’s highest rating, a
unanimous vote of “well-qualified.”
It
is interesting to note that another Hispanic nominee named Migel Estrada also received
this rating when he was nominated to a high appellate court by George W. Bush,
but his nomination was shamefully stalled by Senate Democrats for political
reasons. Senate Democrats apparently
felt that allowing a conservative Hispanic to sit on a court often known as the
“stepping stool to the Supreme Court” was politically undesirable.
It
would appear that an amazing life story and ethnic minority background are only
positive qualities for liberal activist judges and not for conservatives or
originalist judges.
The
Washington Times explains. Excerpt:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the
"inherent physiological ... difference" line -- expressing a belief
that Judge Sotomayor said she does not "abhor" or
"discount" -- is an assertion one would have expected to hear more
from 1960s race-baiters like George Wallace than from somebody nominated for
the Supreme Court.
Then there's the line about "facts
that I choose to see as a judge." It's a dangerous standard to assert that
a judge is allowed to "choose to see" certain facts and not others.
The
New York Times reports on some crucial information pertaining to Sonia
Sotomayor’s ethical standards that has not been fully disclosed. Excerpt:
The judge’s choice of the name Sotomayor
& Associates is regarded by some legal ethicists as a confusing departure
for someone generally regarded as meticulous about preparation and following
the rules.
Byron
York reports. Excerpt:
A spokesman for Republican Sen. Jeff
Sessions says documents provided by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund show that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor played a
"deeper than previously thought" role in controversial positions
taken by the PRLDEF. And Sessions'
office says the White House and PRLDEF have still not turned over all the
material requested by the Senate Judiciary Committee for Sotomayor's
confirmation hearing. PRLDEF turned over
some material last night -- just two weeks before the scheduled beginning of
the Sotomayor hearing -- and Republicans say there is still more material that
needs to be examined.
The
AP has more on Sotomayor’s ties with this controversial Puerto Rican civil
rights organization.
Besides
the obvious reverse discrimination inherent in the Ricci case, many legal experts (including Supreme Court Justices) are
troubled by the reasoning expressed by Judge Sonya Sotomayor and her fellow
panel judges.
Here
are links and excerpts from several journals and news sources on the subject:
National
Review
The decision is a sharp rebuke for Second
Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Pres. Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice
David Souter when the Supreme Court convenes in October. Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion that was joined by the Court’s three other reliable
liberals (Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer), and thus administration
spinners are already whirring about how the 5-4 majority purportedly shows that
Sotomayor’s handling of the case was in the mainstream. That rhetorical sleight
of hand, however, misstates both the facts and the nature of the complaint
against Sotomayor.
The only consensus the nine justices found
was that the handling of case by Sotomayor’s three-judge appeals-court panel
was shoddy. Even the four dissenting justices agreed that the Second Circuit
applied the wrong legal standard. The majority was less charitable, rehearsing
the machinations by which the lower courts tried to bury the firefighters’
discrimination claims: While conceding evidence of intentional discrimination,
a district judge disposed of the claims in an unpublished order, which
Sotomayor’s panel then rubber-stamped in an unpublished summary order of its
own. That maneuver prompted a withering protest from Second Circuit judge Jose
Cabranes, a highly respected Clinton appointee, who was startled at his court’s
cavalier treatment of such profound legal issues.
Roll
Call reports. Excerpt:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
(R-Ky.) on Sunday said the Senate needs more time to review the record of
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor after new material surfaced from her time
with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.
“Just a day or so ago, we discovered that
there are 300 or so boxes of additional material that has just been discovered
from her time working with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund,” McConnell said
in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.”
“The committee needs to have access to that
material and time to work through it so we know all the facts before we vote on
a person who is up for a lifetime job,” McConnell said.
Call
both
your senators today and urge them to slow down the important Sotomayor
nomination process so that enough time can be given to fully examining her
record and judicial philosophy. Also
tell your senators that you want them to vote against liberal, activist judges
who legislate from the bench while relying on their personal perspectives or “life
stories” rather than upholding the plain meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
Roger
Clegg explains how Sonia Sotomayor’s reading of the Ricci case indicates her judicial activism. Excerpt:
The classic instance of judicial activism
is making up a constitutional guarantee that is not actually in the
Constitution, and using that to strike down a state law. But judicial activism
can also involve ignoring a guarantee that in the Constitution to uphold a
statute that violates it.
And this gives us reason to suppose that
this distortion of the legal texts involved was driven by Sotomayor’s personal
policy preferences, the definition of judicial activism. Her now
well-publicized extrajudicial pronouncements in these areas suggest that she is
deeply immersed in identity politics. In particular, she has been very
aggressive in her support for affirmative action and other selection policies
to ensure politically correct numbers.
The
Washington Post reports that the Supreme Court today overturned the Ricci decision of the appellate court on
which Sotomayor served. Excerpt:
…the appellate judges [including Sototmayo]
have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with
"indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the
words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.
"This perfunctory disposition rests
uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said,
in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.
Charmaine
Yoest explains how Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s position on abortion could be
considered worse than David Souter, whom President Obama has chosen to replace
with Sotomayor.
One
of the founding fathers of modern conservatism, Richard
Viguere, explains. Excerpts:
The confirmation fight over Judge Sonia
Sotomayor shouldn't be approached as merely about filling a vacancy on the
Supreme Court. Even as important as that
is, this confirmation fight is bigger than that. It is a fight about whether the Constitution
any longer constrains the power of government by and according to its
terms. It is about President Obama's view
of government power versus the view held by most Americans.
…
Those who see this confirmation battle as
about just Judge Sotomayor miss the larger point. This is really about President Obama's
harmful and dangerous view of government power.
President Obama wants to remake and thereby
weaken America by avoiding the constraints in the Constitution and its
structure for political accountability.
He is faced with circumstances that make that possible: (1) economic turmoil, (2) a sycophantic
press, (2) a passive and sympathetic Congress, and (4) a judiciary that too
often refuses to insist that the other two branches act within their enumerated
powers. He has taken advantage of those
circumstances to expedite his government power grab at a dizzying pace. If Americans had time to absorb what he was
doing and the freedoms they were losing, he would not succeed.
We are distracted by Obama's blitz because
we have too many attacks on our system to confront effectively at once. That is why it is important for conservatives
to focus foremost on the Sotomayor confirmation fight. Within that one fight alone we can address
the very reasons why, as polls show consistently, conservatism is twice as
popular as liberalism. This confirmation
fight can weaken Obama's march to a form of government inconsistent with the
Constitution if conservatives grasp the challenge.
The New York
Times reports. A blog post by Ilya
Somin also looks at this case and what it says about Sotomayor’s views on property
rights.
The
Washington Times editorial board also weighs in on Sotomayor and property
rights. Excerpt:
Judge Sotomayor served as the senior judge
on one 2006 case, Didden v. Village of Port Chester, which respected University
of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein described as "about as naked an
abuse of government power as could be imagined." Her judicial panel's
ruling might be the worst violation of property rights ever approved by a
federal appeals court. It is part of a pattern of Judge Sotomayor's
pro-government rulings that run roughshod over the most basic of private
property rights.
Kellyanne
Conway and David McIntosh explain why President Obama and Senate Democrats
keep trying to portray Judge Sonia Sotomayor as an “originalist” and not a
liberal activist, because that’s who Americans want on the bench by an
overwhelming majority. Opponents of
judicial activism should take heart that American public opinion is with them
and that their elected representatives in the Senate should be held accountable
for whether they thoroughly examine Sotomayor and how they vote on her
nomination. Excerpt:
In a national post-election survey of 800
actual voters, the polling company, inc. found that 70% of respondents
preferred that judges not base their decisions on personal views and feelings.
Only 23% favored judges who would go beyond the law and take their own personal
views and feelings into account.
These poll numbers explain why -- despite
the President's personal popularity and a 60-vote majority in the Senate -- the
White House must address the fact that Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of
the President's standard for picking judges, as well as the standard
articulated by Sotomayor throughout her career.
Her previous writings cast doubt on her
willingness to neutrally apply the law. It is also difficult to square
Sotomayor's latest overtures as a defender of restraint with the fact that
President Obama already committed to picking judges with a willingness to tip
the scales of justice in favor of particular parties involved.
Ilya Shapiro offers examples
of five important questions that Sotomayor needs to address. Hopefully, Senators on the Judiciary
Committee are paying attention and plan to take their job seriously.
Here
are the five questions:
- Can the government rewrite
leases, mortgages, and other contracts?
- Can the government regulate
activity that is neither commerce nor crosses state lines?
- Where in the Constitution is
the right to privacy – and other unspecified rights – located?
- What does the nominee think of Kelo v. City of New London?
- Should the Supreme Court refer
to foreign court decisions to help interpret US law and the Constitution?
Read
all the commentary on why these and other questions are so important here.
Byron
York reports. Excerpt:
Senate Republicans involved in the Sonia
Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination say there are significant gaps in the
172-page questionnaire Sotomayor sent recently to the Senate Judiciary
Committee -- omissions the GOP says will require more time to examine than is
possible under the Democrats' hurry-up schedule for Sotomayor's confirmation.
As
Bryon’s Senate source said in exasperation, “We don't know what we don't know….” This is the very reason we need a thorough
and unhurried debate on Sotomayor in the Senate Judiciary Committee and in the
full Senate.
Take Action: Call both
your senators today and urge them to promote a thorough debate on
Sotomayor, and tell them that you oppose appointing radical activist judges to
the Supreme Court.
The
AP reports. Many are deriding the
Senate’s haste in holding hearings and are calling for a reasonable amount of
time to consider Sotomayor’s record.
OneNewsNow
reports. Excerpt:
The Alabama senator leading the GOP's
vetting of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said the American tradition of
impartial courts is "under attack" and the pivotal question in her
nomination should be whether she allows personal views to color her decisions
as a judge.
As
the Washington
Post and the Baltimore
Sun report, despite President Obama’s assertions that Judge Sonia Sotomayor
simply “misspoke” when she said a Latina woman would make a better judge than a
white man; such racially charged statements were common for Sotomayor.
The
Heritage Foundation’s Brian
Darling explains Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s weaknesses
on the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
Excerpt:
Sotomayor shouldn’t be allowed to skirt the
Second Amendment issue, because she cosigned a decision in a case earlier this
year that exhibited a dismissive and hostile view of the right to bear arms. If
Sotomayor’s view becomes the view of the Supreme Court, your right to own the
weapon of your choice in your home may be taken away.
Mario
Diaz explains. Excerpt:
For the Democratic leadership to feel they
are fulfilling their “advice and consent” duties by having lunch with Judge
Sotomayor and then voting is one thing, but they should at least not stand in
the way of those faithful Senators who have respect for the Constitution and
their constituents and want to take the time to examine legitimate and
well-documented concerns in the nominee’s record.
Kimberley A. Strassel
explains. Excerpt:
President Barack Obama has laid down his
ground rules for the debate over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. The big
question now is whether Republicans agree to play by rules that neither Mr.
Obama nor his party have themselves followed.
Matt
Benchener explains. Excerpt:
But President Obama and Judge Sotomayor
share more than inspirational life stories. They share a troubling and
dangerous view of jurisprudence, informed by a liberal ideology that places
emotional activism ahead of rational objectivity.
LifeNews reports. Excerpt:
Gibbs largely ducked questions about
Sotomayor's abortion views or her position on a so-called "right to
privacy" that has been used to validate abortion. He retreated to his
boilerplate language saying that Obama and Sotomayor have essentially the same
outlook on the Constitution.
"He felt comfortable that they shared
a philosophy on that interpretation ... [of] the living document of the
Constitution of the United States of America," he added.
With Obama taking a clear pro-abortion view
that a "right" to abortion is somehow found in the Constitution, that
should send a signal to the pro-life movement that Sotomayor is prepared to
vote to uphold Roe v. Wade if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
Kevin
Williamson takes another look at the Left’s double standard on judges,
illustrating how “compelling personal stories” are only an asset for liberal
judicial nominees, not conservatives.
Stuart
Shephard, Focus on the Family’s resident wit, offers a
humorous illustration about why “impartiality” and not a misguided sense of
“empathy” should be the most important quality in a judge. Today’s episode of “Stoplight” shows why Chief
Justice Roberts’ philosophy of “impartial umpire” is preferable to Judge
Sotomayor’s “policy making appellate judge.”
Linda
Chavez explains what’s at state with the Sotomayor nomination. Excerpt:
Presidential elections have consequences --
and few are more important than the power to shape the federal judiciary. With
the selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter
on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Barack Obama has begun the process of
altering the federal courts.
Cal
Thomas exposes the Left’s “biography” double standard when it comes to
judicial nominees. Excerpt:
If these humble beginnings mattered, as
they relate to Sotomayor's view of the Constitution, Clarence Thomas should
have sailed through his confirmation hearings instead of being subjected to
"a high-tech lynching," as he famously put it. Clarence Thomas also
came from humble beginnings (as did George W. Bush's Hispanic Attorney General
Alberto Gonzales), but biography matters only if you're a liberal. If you
evolve into a conservative, it is irrelevant, at least to the elites.
Andrew
McCarthy explains what’s
at stake with the Sotomayor nomination.
Will we be a “nation of laws” in which all have a right to “equal
justice under law” or will become a nation where unelected judges dictate
policy regardless of the plain meaning of our Constitution? Excerpt:
Obama and the lawyers in his administration
are fond of invoking the rule of law. Yet that golden standard stands on the
conceit, honored more in the breach than in the observance, that “we are a
nation of laws, not of men.” It holds that there is an objective corpus of law
— of the community’s reasoned consensus, shorn of passion, fear, or favor —
under which we’ve agreed to be governed and to which those chosen to represent
us owe their fidelity. It’s a nice ideal. Increasingly, though, our real
governing standard is the one made infamous by the legendary litigator Roy
Cohn: “Don’t tell me what the law is. Tell me who the judge is.”
Our ideal of judging was perhaps best
explained by John Roberts during his 2005 confirmation hearings. The judge is
like an umpire, Roberts mused. The umpire calls balls and strikes; he doesn’t
design or alter the rules of the game. That’s how it’s supposed to work. The
judge’s courtroom is the level playing field where even the visiting team can
win if the law — the objective law — is on its side. Sure, the crowd and the local
paper will root, root, root for the home team. The rules, however, don’t have a
rooting interest. Justice is blind. The umpire is there to see that justice is
done — not manufactured.
As
The
Hill reports, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee has called
for a thorough and deliberate examination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s record,
temperament, and judicial philosophy.
This is exactly what is needed.
As
the nation begins to examine President Obama’s first nominee for the Supreme
Court, an examination of his stated criteria in selecting a judge is
important. Obama has stated that an
important concern for him when considering a judicial nominee is that person’s
capacity for “empathy.” There is grave
concern that “empathy” is merely Barack Obama’s code word for liberal
activism. Several conservative commentators
have examined the “empathy” standard and what it means for the Constitution and
our liberty. Here’s a sampling:
Thomas
Sowell, “Sotomayor:
‘Empathy’ in Action”
You might think that this was some kind of
popularity contest, instead of a weighty decision about someone whose impact on
the fundamental law of the nation will extend for decades after Barack Obama
has come and gone.
…
For those who believe in the rule of law,
Barack Obama used the words "rule of law" in introducing his nominee.
For those who take his words as gospel, even when his own actions are directly
the opposite of his words, that may be enough to let him put this dangerous
woman on the Supreme Court.
Even if her confirmation cannot be stopped,
it is important for Senators to warn of the dangers, which will only get worse
if such nominations sail through the Senate smoothly.
Rich
Lowry, “A
Bad Day for Impartiality: Obama Uses Empathy as a Code Word for Judicial Liberalism”
Impartiality has been supplanted by
empathy. The old-fashioned virtue of objectivity — redolent of dusty law books
and the unromantic task of parsing the law and facts — is giving way to an
inherently politicized notion of judging based on feelings. Lady Justice is to
slip her blindfold and let her decisions be influenced by her life experiences
and personal predilections.
Jonah
Goldberg, “Empathy
vs. Impartiality: When they Conflict, the Supreme Court must Choose the Latter”
But Obama has something specific in mind
when he talks about empathy. He wants the justice’s oath to in effect be
rewritten. Judges must administer justice with respect to persons, they must be
partial to the poor, and so on.
Curt
Levey at the Committee for Justice answers
some common concerns about the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the
Supreme Court. He particularly addresses
concerns over Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment right to bear
arms. Excerpt:
Obama’s choice of one of the few federal
judges with a bad record on gun rights is particularly perplexing. Earlier this
year, Sotomayor and two of her Second Circuit colleagues ruled that Americans
have no individual Second Amendment rights in the face of state or local
regulation of firearms – that is, unless they happen to live in the District of
Columbia. Even the liberal Ninth Circuit ruled the other way. Now every red and
purple state Democratic senator who considers voting for Sotomayor will be
forced to explain to his constituents why he’s supporting a nominee who thinks
those constituents don’t have Second Amendment rights. Because they can send
red state Democrats running for cover, gun owners are the one interest group
that could completely change the political equation on judicial nominations if
they’re drawn into the debate. Obama’s selection of Sotomayor makes that
virtually certain.
As
mentioned by Levey, Ken
Blackwell also examines Sotomayor’s record on gun rights. Excerpt:
She [Sotomayor] is one of only three
federal appellate judges in America to issue a court opinion saying that the
Second Amendment does not apply to states. The case was Maloney v. Cuomo, and
it came down this past January.
That means if Chicago, or even the state of
Illinois or New York, wants to ban you from owning any guns at all, even in
your own house, that’s okay with her. According to Judge Sotomayor, if your
state or city bans all guns the way Washington, D.C. did, that’s okay under the
Constitution.
Stuart
Taylor explains at the National Journal.
Excerpt:
Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal
duty of judges to be impartial as a mere "aspiration because it denies the
fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
And she suggested that "inherent physiological or cultural differences"
may help explain why "our gender and national origins may and will make a
difference in our judging."
So accustomed have we become to identity
politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court
candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously
suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
George
Will also
examines the identity politics of the Sototmayor nomination.
 This morning President Barack Obama announced
Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on
the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite
Sotomayor’s inspiring life story of overcoming hardship, her record indicates
that she is a radical liberal who seriously misunderstands the proper role of
the judiciary. In a snickering response at a
Duke University forum, she said that “the court of appeals where policy is made”
indicating that she takes for granted that judges (and not the elected
representatives of the people) take an active role in shaping public
policy. She has scorned the idea of judges
remaining impartial in rulings. And
in a controversial case now before the Supreme Court, she upheld
a racially discriminatory policy in Connecticut.
AdvanceUSA
(and many other organizations and concerned citizens) urge the Senate to take
their constitutional responsibility to provide “advice and consent” to the
president on judicial appointments seriously.
They should thoroughly and carefully examine Sotomayor’s record and
judicial philosophy in Judiciary Committee hearings, on and off the Senate
floor, and in the forum of public debate.
Despite
a substantial Senate majority for the President’s party, Sotomayor’s
confirmation is not a certainty. If
enough concerned citizens raise objections to her nomination, Senators could
feel pressure to oppose her nomination.
But
even if Sotomayor is nominated, a robust debate over her qualifications (specifically)
and of the proper role of judges (generally) will be of great benefit for this
nation and for conservatism.
Keep
checking AdvanceUSA Blog for the latest information on Sotomayor’s nomination
and on the proper role of judges in our constitutional representative
democratic republic. You should also
check the Bench Memos blog at
National Review Online for more insightful commentary.
President Obama
announcing his Supreme Court nominee
|
|
|
| |