Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor
redo Jump to...
print Print...
(by Charlie McCarthy, Newsmax) – Democrat U.S. senators and other party members are mulling convincing Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor to resign so President Joe Biden can replace her with another [activist] judge before President-elect Donald Trump takes office on Jan. 20.
The 70-year-old Sotomayor, nominated by then-President Barack Obama in 2009, is the oldest Democrat-appointed justice on the court.
She’s also a life-long diabetic. In 2018, paramedics were called to her home after the justice suffered “symptoms of low blood sugar.”
Lawmakers long have known about Sotomayor’s health issues, but…refrained from admitting potential problems caused by the condition.
Democrats see [replacing] Sotomayor now as a way to seat someone on the high court before Trump takes office when Republicans will be in control of the Senate once again. The GOP won a majority in the chamber during Tuesday’s elections.
A Democrat senator told Politico that the topic has been discussed by members, who realize making an attempt to replace Sotomayor would be “a risky play,” according to the outlet.
Also, no senator appears to be willing to be the first person who publicly calls for Sotomayor to step down.
However, Democrats have discussed possible replacements, with D.C. Circuit Judge J. Michelle Childs being mentioned.
Biden considered Childs before nominating Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace former Justice Stephen Breyer. Seen as moderate, Childs was vetted and even received backing by a few GOP senators such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
Even before all the states were called on Tuesday night, some Democrats were suggesting that Biden be given the chance to nominate one more Supreme Court justice.
“Sotomayor should retire tomorrow and let the lame duck Senate confirm her replacement,” Miranda Yaver, an assistant professor of health policy and management at the University of Pittsburgh, posted Tuesday night on X.
“This would probably be a good day for Sotomayor to retire,” David Dayen, editor of The American Prospect, wrote on X.
Time, though, is not on Democrats’ side when it comes to trying to replace Sotomayor in little more than two months.
“We would have to have assurances from any shaky senator that they would back a nominee in the lame duck, because what do you do if she announces she’s going to step down and then [West Virginia independent Sen. Joe] Manchin doesn’t support her and then [Republican Sens.] Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski back off and say they’re not going to support a new nominee?” one source told Politico. “Do you just rescind that [Sotomayor resignation] letter?”
The outlet added that Democrats might be better off focusing on confirming lower-court judges, filling vacancies Trump wouldn’t be able to fill.
Sotomayor is the first Latina and the third woman [appointed] to serve on the Supreme Court.
Published at newsmax .com on Nov. 8, 2024. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. May not be reproduced on other websites without permission.
Questions
1. The first paragraph of a news article should answer the questions who, what, where and when. List the who, what, where and when of from the article. (NOTE: The remainder of a news article provides details on the why and/or how.)
2. a) List the names and ages of the current Supreme Court justices, the president who nominated each, along with the year nominated.
b) In what way did Sonia Sotomayor make history when she was confirmed to the Supreme Court?
3. For what reasons have some Democrats been considering asking Justice Sotomayor to resign?
4. Which judge has been discussed as a possible replacement for Justice Sotomayor?
5. What problems do Democrats face in trying to replace Justice Sotomayor before Trump and the new Republican majority Senate take office in January?
6. a) Why do you think no Democratic senator appears to be willing to be the first person who publicly calls for Sotomayor to step down?
b) Do you think Democrats should attempt to convince Justice Sotomayor to resign? Explain your answer.
7. It has been suggested that there should be an age limit for judges/Supreme Court justices. (Many justices were in their 80’s when they retired. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was 87 when she died in office. Justice John Paul Stevens was a justice until he was 89.) What do you think? Should there be an age limit? If so, what age? Explain your answers.
b) It has also been suggested that Supreme Court Justices should be term limited – that they should be appointed to 18 year terms. What do you think? Ask a parent the same question.
8. Read the information under “Background.” Do you think the role of a judge is that of judicial activist or to be a Constitutionalist (also called an originalist)? Explain your answer.
Background
Constitutionalist, also called originalist judges interpret the law as written; they determine what the original intent was when the founders wrote the Constitution. Republicans generally appoint constitutionalist judges.
The other type of judge is known as an activist judge. Black’s Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a “philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions.” Democrats generally appoint activist judges.
On the Role of Judges:
Judges are like umpires in baseball or referees in football or basketball. Their role is to see that the rules of court procedures are followed by both sides. Like the ump, they call ‘em as they see ‘em, according to the facts and law-without regard to which side is popular (no home field advantage), without regard to who is “favored,” without regard for what the spectators want, and without regard to whether the judge agrees with the law. (from the American Bar Asociation)
“One of the big confusions in the…Senate fight over the confirmation of judicial nominees is that this is an issue about ‘liberal’ judges versus ‘conservative’ judges. The vastly more important issue is whether people who go into court should expect their cases to be decided on the basis of the law or on the basis of the particular judge’s own philosophy…Liberals have rooted for judicial activism because this activism has favored liberal causes and liberal views on such issues as abortion, the death penalty, gay marriage, and racial quotas. But activism can be used by any judge for any purpose.” Thomas Sowell, Hoover Institution
“The role of a judge is to be a neutral interpreter of already established law, not legislator of new law or social policy. A judge can have his or her own opinions, even strong ones, and still read the law neutrally. Fundamentally, judges are expected to not bring their personal politics and philosophies to the bench. Judges are expected to read the law in its clear intent and apply it without regard to result. Changing the law should be left to the people and their legislators.” Sean Rushton, Committee for Justice Executive Director, from the WashingtonPost .com.
NOTES ON PROCEDURE FOR NOMINATING AND CONFIRMING FEDERAL AND SUPREME COURT JUDGES:
*The President nominates a person, and sends the name to the Senate Judiciary Committee,
*The nominee is questioned by the Senate Judiciary Committee (confirmation hearings). If confirmed,
*The name goes to the Senate for a vote.
*If the full Senate votes to confirm a nominee by 51 votes (a simple majority) or more, the nominee is confirmed.
On the types of cases the Supreme Court hears:
Approximately 7,500 cases are sent to the Supreme Court each year. Out of these, only 80 to 100 are actually heard by the Supreme Court. When a case comes to the Supreme Court, several things happen. First, the Justices get together to decide if a case is worthy of being brought before the Court. In other words, does the case really involve Constitutional or federal law? Secondly, a Supreme Court ruling can affect the outcome of hundreds or even thousands of cases in lower courts around the country. Therefore, the Court tries to use this enormous power only when a case presents a pressing constitutional issue. … (from bensguide.gpo.gov)
The phrase judicial philosophy refers to the underlying set of ideas and beliefs of a particular judge or justice that shapes his or her rulings on particular cases. It refers to the ways that judges interpret the law.
Some judges develop a philosophy of activism, using the bench to enact social and political change.
The main types of contrasting judicial philosophies include judicial activism versus judicial restraint (originalist/constructionism) – viewing the Constitution as a living document versus making judgements based on original intent (what the founders meant when they wrote the Constitution).
(Ballotpedia and Spark notes)
Resources
Read brief biographies of the current justices at: supremecourt.gov.
Daily “Answers” emails are provided for Daily News Articles, Tuesday’s World Events and Friday’s News Quiz.
