(A fascinating analysis - promoted by kindler)
The witness list for the Minority members of the Senate Judiciary Committee shows that they are going after Sotomayor on two issues -- affirmative action (the Ricci v. DeStefano case) and guns. I understand going after her on Ricci -- she did join in the decision that got overruled. But I have not yet seen anything that she has said or done on the Second Amendment. I am not aware of any reason why the NRA would be standing up to say, "Judge Sotomayor has a track record of being against gun rights."
First, here's the list of witnesses:
Linda Chavez, President, Center for Equal Opportunity
Sandy Froman, Esq., former President, National Rifle Association of America
Dr. Stephen Halbrook, Attorney
Tim Jefires, Founder, P7 Enterprises
Peter Kirsanow, Commissioner, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
David Kopel, Esq., Independence Institute
John McGinnis, Professor, Northwestern University School of Law
Neomi Rao, Professor, George Mason University School of Law
Frank Ricci, Director of Fire Services, ConnectiCOSH (Connecticut Council on Occupational Saftey and Health)
David Rivkin, Esq., Partner, Baker Hostetler
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor, Georgetown University School of Law
Ilya Somin, Professor, George Mason University School of Law
Lieutenant Ben Vargas, New Haven Fire Department
Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life
Now, what does this list tell us? |
| Linda Chavez is going to start off by saying, "We Latinas don't need no stinking affirmative action." You may remember Ms. Chavez as having been George W. Bush's choice to be Labor Secretary until it was revealed that she had been paying undocumented aliens for who lived in her home, presumably as domestic workers. She is now a Fox News commentator and since 1985, she has served as President of the Center for Equal Opportunity, a non-profit public policy research organization in Washington, DC.
Then we get the headof the NRA. 'nuff said.
The listing of "Dr. Stephen Halbrook, attorney," is interesting to me for a purely personal reason -- lawyers who call themselves "doctor" are usually ridiculously pompous and full of themselves. A look at Halbrook's website confirms that assessment. He is a Second Amendment nut who opposed the confirmation of Eric Holder to be Attorney General because he had authored an amicus brief in support of the D.C. government in D.C. v. Heller, the US Supreme Court decision that held that private possession in the home of a firearm may not be prohibited. Halbrook had authored an amicus brief on the other side. He argues in many of his publications that if only the Jews had been armed, there never would have been a Holocaust.
I think that the reference to Tim Jefires, of P7 Enterprises, is meant to be Tim Jeffries; either way, I can't see anything in Googling him that suggests a reason for him to testify. The only aspect of his background that seems at all relevant is that he is active with some groups who are concerned for the victims of crime. He is on the Board of Arizona Voice for Crime Victims (AVCV), Inc., and the Board of Directors of the National Organization For Victims Assistance (NOVA) where he serves as Chairman of the Human Resources Committee; and the National Board of Trustees of Parents of Murdered Children (POMC). I'll have to wait and see whether there is a particular reason to go after Judge Sotomayor on this basis.
Peter Kirsanow, Bush appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, is a regular here; he testified for John Roberts and Samuel Alito, for no apparent reason. He is a bit of a right-winger on race; he wrote an an article in 2006 for the National Review entitled "A Pandora's Box of Ethnic Sovereignty:
Race-based Hawaii, an island we don't want to travel to." Too much recognition of ethnic Hawaiians for his taste.
Dave Kopel, of the Independence Institute, is another gun nut. Looking at his website, we learn that his latest obsession is that Obama is appointing anti-gun people to government. Koh, No! President Barack Obama continues to fill his administration with devout gun-ban advocates, this time appointing transnationalist Harold Koh as legal adviser to the Department of State. America's 1st Freedom. July 2009. I can see why a paranoid right-winger would worry about appointing a "transnationalist" (whatever that means) as legal adviser to the Department of State, but why would it matter for that job if he didn't like guns? But I digress. The Koh nomination is the right wing's hot topic this month; I'll write more on that some other time.
Then we get John McGinnis, Professor, Northwestern University School of Law. McGinnis is your basic Federalist Society law professor. The most intriguing thing that he has written (aside from some absolutely mind-numbing stuff about federalism) is an article that was published in the National Review Online entitled: "The Origin of Conservatism -- Evolutionary theories suggest that conservative politics are necessary to govern a fallen man." I don't know what ax he is to grind here, though I think it is interesting that they can't get any bigger name in the law prof world to lead them off.
I really can't figure out what Neomi Rao has to do with anything here; she is a young George Mason law professor who clerked for Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson on the Fourth Circuit, and for Justice Clarence Thomas. She figures to be conservative, but her only writings so far have been about international arbitration, so I don't know what she has to offer.
Frank Ricci will talk about how terrible it is to be a white guy in America, and how judges like Judge Sotomayor should never get promoted.
David B. Rivkin is an attorney in the Washington office of Baker and Hostetler, LLP. He served during the Reagan and George H. W. Bush Administrations in the Office of the Counsel to the President in the White House and in the Departments of Justice and Energy. He is an expert member of the United Nations Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. I wonder why he is testifying; he last testified on Capitol Hill on June 9 before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, talking about "The Legal, Moral, and National Security Consequences of 'Prolonged Detention.'"
Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Professor, Georgetown University School of Law, is a Federalist Society member. I find nothing in particular that is obvious for him to be talking about. And I know that it's outside the scope of his testimony, but I'd sure like to ask him a few questions about his service in the Office of the Legal Counsel from 2002 to 2004, when John Yoo was writing those torture memos...
Rosenkranz has written on a topic that is a right-winger's nightmare, though it seems to have little to do with Sotomayor. Justices Kennedy and Ginsburg, in particular, have referred to international norms of civilized governance in recent cases where the Court struck down the death penalty for the mentally retarded and for juveniles. This is a thought that sends original intent folks absolutely up the wall. Might the Republicans want to be using this hearing as an opportunity to air that grievance, and to demand that Sotomayor shut out all influences from beyond our borders?
Ilya Somin, Professor, George Mason University School of Law, may have more to say about that issue, judging by his writings. Somin is a John McGinnis fellow traveler. Many of his articles were co-authored with McGinnis. His particular interest in the law seems to be eminent domain, an issue that should have little impact on Sotomayor.
Then we have Lieutenant Ben Vargas, New Haven Fire Department; I assume he will continue the Ricci drumbeat.
And we end with Dr. Charmaine Yoest, Americans United for Life, who will no doubt fuss about whatever Sotomayor says in response to questions about abortion.
So --
Affirmative action, guns, and abortion. This hearing will be nothing more than an attempt to frame wedge issues for 2010 and beyond. |
