June, 23 2009, 01:04pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Charles Hall, Justice at Stake, (202) 588-9454; chall@justiceatstake.org
Senators Urged to Probe Sotomayor on Proper Role of Impartial Courts
WASHINGTON
A national court-advocacy group has called on U.S. senators to pose
10 questions to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, to gauge her
views on insulating courts from "inappropriate political influence."
In a June 19 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice
at Stake Campaign said the questions "will help Americans to understand
Judge Sotomayor's perspective on the significance of a fair and
impartial judiciary. We encourage you to bring these pertinent issues
to the public's attention."
The list of questions includes general queries about Sotomayor's
attitudes on the separation of powers, judicial impartiality and the
importance of an independent judiciary. It also cites cases Sotomayor
and other judges have faced, to gauge her attitudes on when a judge
should avoid a case to prevent ethical conflict; the right to bail
during certain immigration proceedings; judicial discretion in
sentencing; and FBI investigative powers under the Patriot Act.
The Judiciary Committee is scheduled to begin hearings on
Sotomayor's nomination July 13. Justice at Stake is a nonpartisan
national partnership that works to protect courts from special interest
and partisan pressure.
"The confirmation process is a unique opportunity to urge nominees
to educate the public on the importance of courts that are fair,
impartial and independent," said Bert Brandenburg, executive director
of Justice at Stake. "These questions, like many others being submitted
to senators, stand in contrast to recent trends in state judicial
elections, where questionnaires are sometimes used to threaten ballot
box retribution if judges don't rule on behalf of interest group
agendas."
Excerpts from the letter and the full questionnaire are as follows:
June 19, 2009
The Honorable [NAME] Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate [ADDRESS]
Dear [NAME]:
As the U.S. Senate prepares to consider the nomination of Judge
Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States, Justice at
Stake is pleased to offer ideas for questions that could help
illuminate the nominee's views on an increasingly important public
policy issue - protecting the integrity of our courts from
inappropriate political influence. We believe that this nomination
offers a tremendous opportunity to educate Americans about the
importance of a fair and impartial judiciary.
Justice at Stake is a national, nonpartisan partnership of more than
50 organizations working to keep courts fair and impartial through
citizen education, civic engagement and reform. We have built a
coalition to help Americans protect the courts that protect their
rights, shield our courts and judges from excessive partisan pressure,
and reduce the power of money and special interests over the judicial
selection process. Justice at Stake does not endorse or oppose specific
nominees or candidates.
We think the following ten questions will help Americans to
understand Judge Sotomayor's perspective on the significance of a fair
and impartial judiciary. We encourage you to bring these pertinent
issues to the public's attention by asking the following:
- What conditions do you think characterize a fair and impartial
judiciary? How important is such an institution to the functioning of
our democracy? What principles guide you to fairly and impartially
apply the law as a judge? - The Supreme Court recently ruled in Caperton v. Massey
that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment sometimes
requires judges to recuse themselves in cases where they have received
a significant amount of campaign support from a party in a pending
case. In your answers to the questionnaire for this committee you
informed us that you have recused yourself well over 100 times for a
variety of reasons. Can you explain to us your own thinking regarding
when and why you will remove yourself from a case? What
disqualification standards should Americans expect from their Supreme
Court justices? - Can you share some of your views regarding the separation of powers
among the three branches of government? What is your philosophy on the
proper role of the judiciary as a check on the executive and the
legislature? What principles would guide you in cases before the
Supreme Court? - What criteria should the Congress use in applying its
Constitutional power to impeach a federal judge? What norms should be
used to balance the need for accountability with the need to insulate
judges from improper political pressure? - In a 2007 case entitled Kraham v. Lippman, 478 F.3d 502
(2d Cir. 2007), you held that a judicial rule preventing leaders of
political parties, their families, or their law firms from receiving
appointments to state courts did not violate the First Amendment right
to freedom of association. You wrote that the rule "further[ed] the
rational and legitimate goal of eliminating corrupt court appointments"
and that the interest in "protecting the integrity and the appearance
of integrity" of the courts was "not merely legitimate, but
compelling." Can you expand upon your view of the importance of a fair
and impartial court system in our democracy? - During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts opined
that "Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply
them." Do you agree with this view? Why or why not? - In Elkimiya v. DHS, 484 F.3d 151 (2d Cir. 2007), you held
that an applicant for lawful permanent residence in the United States
could apply for bail from detention, though you denied the petitioner
the privilege in that case. Others have disagreed with your decision
on the general right to apply for bail, reasoning that the REAL ID act
had given the Attorney General the unreviewable authority to release or
detain applicants for asylum. See e.g., Bolante v. Keisler,
506 F.3d 618 (2007). How important do you think access to the court
system is in our system of government? In what ways do you believe the
constitution ensures access to the court system for non-citizens? - In a recent case, U.S. v. Cavera, 550 F.3d 180 (2d Cir.
2008), you wrote an opinion dissenting in part. You said that
"arbitrary and subjective considerations, such as a judge's feelings
about a particular type of crime, should not form the basis of a
sentence ...[y]et a serious danger exists that sentencing judges will
dress their subjective views in objective trappings ... . We only
encourage [...] confusion if we signal that our review is arbitrary." 550
F.3d at 219. As a former assistant district attorney and federal
sentencing judge, you have particular experience with the need to
balance judicial discretion in particular cases with standard
guidelines and appellate review of lower court decisions. Can you share
with us your
philosophy about the proper role of judicial discretion in federal
sentencing? - You recently joined a unanimous opinion in John Doe Inc. v. Mukasey,
549 F.3d 861 (2d Cir. 2008), that invalidated portions of the PATRIOT
Act giving FBI agents the authority to release so-called "gag-orders"
without judicial approval. What do you think the specific role of the
judiciary ought to be in protecting civil liberties from potential
government overreach? - Two of the cases among those you consider your most significant opinions involved protecting First Amendment rights. In United States v. Quattrone,
402 F.3d 304 (2nd Cir. 2005), you maintained the right of the press to
release the names of jurors in an open courtroom, and in Ford v. McGinnis,
352 F.3d 582 (2d Cir. 2003), you sided with a prisoner's right to
celebrate a religious holiday he deemed subjectively important. In
light of these cases, what is your view on the role of the courts in
upholding constitutional rights and the rule of law?
Sincerely,
Bert Brandenburg
Executive Director
Justice at Stake
Deanna Dawson
Director of Federal Affairs
Justice at Stake
We're a nationwide, nonpartisan partnership of more than forty-five judicial, legal and citizen organizations. We've come together because across America, your right to fair and impartial justice is at stake. Judges and citizens are deeply concerned about the growing impact of money and politics on fair and impartial courts. Our mission is to educate the public and work for reforms to keep politics and special interests out of the courtroom--so judges can do their job protecting the Constitution, individual rights and the rule of law.
LATEST NEWS
Israel Bombs Yemen Saturday in Escalation with Houthis
The attack came a day after the Houthis claimed responsibility for a drone attack on Tel Aviv
Jul 20, 2024
Houthi-run media say Israeli air strikes Saturday targeted oil storage facilities in the Yemeni port city of Hodeidah and that there are an unspecified number of fatalities and injuries.
The attack came a day after the Houthis claimed responsibility for a drone attack on Tel Aviv that killed one person and struck just yards from a U.S. Embassy branch office.
Israel’s air strikes will not stop the Houthi's military operations in support of the Palestinian people, Houthi political bureau member Mohammed al-Bukhaiti said in a post on X, warning they will instead increase until the war in Gaza ends. “The Zionist entity will pay the price for targeting civilian facilities, and we will meet escalation with escalation,” al-Bukhaiti wrote.
Military and political analyst Elijah Magnier told Al Jazeera, “Is this going to change the course of action of a non-state actor that is motivated to support the people of Gaza? Certainly not,” Magnier said. “They’ve been given a perfect reason to increase the attacks. We have not seen the end of it – far from it,” he said.
In another post on X, the Houthis’ spokesman, Mohammed Abdulsalam, called the Israeli air strikes “a brutal Israeli aggression against Yemen that aims to deepen people’s suffering and to pressure Yemen to stop supporting Gaza.” Abdulsalam called the attack an Israeli “dream that will not come true. We affirm that this brutal aggression will only increase the determination of the Yemeni people and their valiant armed forces to be steadfast and to continue their support for Gaza. The Yemeni people are able to face all challenges for the sake of victory for oppressed Palestine and the people of Gaza, whose cause is the most just on earth.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Urges DOJ to Investigate US-Bound Netanyahu for Genocide
"We believe ample credible evidence exists to sufficiently establish that serious crimes falling within U.S. criminal jurisdiction are systematically being perpetrated in Gaza," said the Center for Constitutional Rights.
Jul 19, 2024
As Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prepares to visit Washington, D.C. next week, an American legal group on Friday pressured the U.S. Department of Justice to open a criminal investigation into him and other officials for committing or authorizing genocide, war crimes, and torture targeting Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Since Israel launched its retaliation for a Hamas-led attack on October 7, Israeli forces partly armed by the U.S. government have killed at least 38,848 people and wounded another 89,459—according to Gaza officials—while destroying civilian infrastructure and restricting the flow of humanitarian aid into the Palestinian enclave.
"We believe ample credible evidence exists to sufficiently establish that serious crimes falling within U.S. criminal jurisdiction are systematically being perpetrated in Gaza," says the Center for Constitutional Rights' (CCR) 23-page letter to Hope Olds, who leads the Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (HRSP) of the DOJ's Criminal Division.
"Given the frequent travel of Israeli officials and citizens to the United States resulting in their presence within U.S. jurisdiction, and recalling that HRSP is part of a coordinated, interagency effort to deny safe haven in the United States to human rights violators," the letter states, "the Department of Justice must urgently investigate and hold accountable those responsible for war crimes and other serious crimes being committed on a wide-scale basis in the occupied Gaza Strip, including potentially U.S. and U.S.-dual citizens."
The Israeli prime minister is expected to be in the United States from at least next Monday to Wednesday for a meeting with U.S. President Joe Biden—who is currently isolating in his Delaware home due to a Covid-19 infection—and to address a joint session of Congress, despite objections from critics of Israel's war including some lawmakers.
"Netanyahu has killed more than 14,000 precious Palestinian children with U.S. weapons and support and is starving all of Gaza—and now sycophants in the White House and Congress are rolling out the red carpet for him," Maria LaHood, CCR's deputy legal director, said in a statement. "DOJ's Human Rights and Special Prosecution Section must exercise its mandate to investigate Netanyahu and hold him to account for his heinous crimes, just as it would an international criminal from any other country."
The group's letter says that "in light of Netanyahu's imminent visit, HRSP should prioritize investigating him... There is overwhelming evidence that under Netanyahu, Israeli forces and authorities are committing genocide, war crimes, and torture against Palestinians in Gaza, acts that are proscribed under federal criminal statutes and prosecutable by HRSP."
"As the most powerful political figure in Israel, Netanyahu also leads the Security Cabinet, as well as the recently dissolved War Cabinet—the two bodies responsible for setting the strategy for and directing the military assault on Gaza since October 7, 2023," the letter stresses. "He therefore bears criminal responsibility for the serious international crimes committed against the Palestinian population over the past nine months."
Various developments this week have elevated concerns for the people of Gaza. The World Health Organization said Friday that poliovirus has been detected in sewage samples at six locations in the strip, and Amnesty International on Thursday published interviews with 27 former detainees who described being tortured by Israeli forces.
A Wednesday report from Oxfam detailed what the group called Israel's "water war crimes" in Gaza. That same day, Israeli lawmakers overwhelmingly passed a resolution opposing "the establishment of a Palestinian state" west of the Jordan River—widely seen as an effort to send a message to Netanyahu ahead of his trip to D.C.
International Criminal Court Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan is seeking arrest warrants for Netanyahu, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and three Hamas leaders, and Israel faces a South Africa-led genocide case at the International Court of Justice—which on Friday issued a nonbinding advisory opinion that Israel's occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful and must end "as rapidly as possible."
So far, legal efforts to hold the Biden administration accountable for enabling Israel's genocidal violence against Palestinians have been unsuccessful. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the president, Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.
CCR attorney Katherine Gallagher, who represented plaintiffs in the case, said that "this stunning abdication of the court's role to serve as a check on the executive even in the face of its support for genocide should set off alarm bells for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Death of 40 Haitians in Boat Fire Shows 'Crucial Need' for Safe, Legal Migration: UN
"Haiti's socio-economic situation is in agony," said one advocate. "The extreme violence over the past months has only brought Haitians to resort to desperate measures even more."
Jul 19, 2024
United Nations experts on Friday renewed calls to protect migrants following the death of at least 40 Haitians in a boat fire in the Atlantic Ocean.
The New York Timesreported that over 80 people were packed into the vessel when it caught fire off the coast of Cap-Haïtien en route to the Turks and Caicos Islands.
The United Nations' International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that 41 migrants were rescued by the Haitian Coast Guard, with 11 of the survivors including burn victims rushed to the nearest hospital.
"This devastating event highlights the risks faced by children, women, and men migrating through irregular routes, demonstrating the crucial need for safe and legal pathways for migration," said Grégoire Goodstein, IOM's chief of mission for Haiti. "Haiti's socio-economic situation is in agony. The extreme violence over the past months has only brought Haitians to resort to desperate measures even more."
Haiti is enduring a humanitarian and security crisis in which over 1,000 people have been killed, wounded, or abducted by members of gangs that control much of the capital, Port-au-Prince. Hundreds of Kenyan police officers have been deployed to Haiti as part of a multinational force tasked with restoring order.
According to IOM:
The lack of economic opportunities, a collapsing health system, school closures, and the absence of prospects are pushing many to consider migration as the only way to survive... IOM research found that 84% of migrants returned had left to seek job opportunities abroad. For the vast majority of Haitians, regular migration is an extremely challenging journey to consider, let alone pursue, leaving many seeing irregular migration as their only option, a particularly life-threatening one in most instances.
IOM said the Haitian Coast Guard "has observed an increase in the number of attempts and departures by boat" in recent months.
"Coast guards from countries in the region, including the United States, the Bahamas, the Turks and Caicos Islands, and Jamaica have also reported a growing number of boats originating from Haiti being intercepted at sea," the group said. "More than 86,000 migrants have been forcibly returned to Haiti by neighboring countries this year. In March, despite a surge in violence and the closure of airports throughout the country, forced returns increased by 46%, reaching 13,000 forced returns in March alone."
Amid pressure from hundreds of advocacy groups—and alleged abuse of Haitian migrants by U.S. border authorities—the Biden administration in 2022 extended deportation protections, known as Temporary Protected Status (TPS), for more than 100,000 Haitians already in the United States through this August 3. This marked a departure from the administration's earlier mass deportation of Haitian asylum-seekers.
Last month, the administration further extended TPS eligibility for over 300,000 Haitians in the U.S. for an additional 18 months, a move hailed by migrant rights advocates.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular