Advertisement
YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollectionsNational

Legal experts' views on the Sotomayor hearing

REACTIONS

The Supreme Court nominee answers questions about her 'judicial philosophy' on abortion and gun control.

July 16, 2009|Carol J. Williams

"To the extent that there is judicial activism, it exists on both sides of the political spectrum. There are conservative activist judges, and there are liberal activist judges. To me, Sotomayor doesn't appear to be either one. What she is showing is a type of judicial restraint, and that's true across the board, whether she is asked about 2nd Amendment cases or abortion, she's going to be faithful to the precedent.


Advertisement

"For those who are critical and find problematic the holding in Roe vs. Wade, I don't think she could have said anything that would please those senators. She was saying she is going to apply the law as it is. What you have is both sides [in the abortion issue] wanting assurances from her. She's saying she is going to apply current precedent, which means the status quo. She hasn't gone farther in setting out what would be the standard for changing the law, and that could be frustrating for those who want her to acknowledge how long [a woman's right to choose] has been Supreme Court precedent."

--

Erwin Chemerinsky

Constitutional law scholar, dean of UC Irvine School of Law and former visiting professor at Duke University School of Law

"What was most telling was her exchange with Sen. [Tom] Coburn [R-Okla.]. I think she did a masterful job of drawing a distinction between her own personal views and what she would do as a justice, explaining why her personal views don't matter, and that what she would do as a justice would depend on the facts of the cases that would come before her, that she couldn't articulate a general policy on positions she would take.

"I think she said all that she possibly could say on the 2nd Amendment cases. She said in the 2nd Amendment case that came before her circuit that the 2nd Amendment didn't apply to the states, and that was based entirely on a 19th century decision of the Supreme Court that the court of appeals was obliged to follow. You can't read her decision as anything other than that of a good judge following Supreme Court precedent.

"She did what every nominee since Robert Bork has done in not giving any indication of what she is likely to do on the issues before her, and this carries forward on the most hot-button issues like abortion and guns.

"She did great. She came off as composed and poised through the whole thing, as well as very knowledgeable. She basically followed the script. I think she did exactly what she needed to do to get confirmed."

-- Carol J. Williams

Los Angeles Times Articles
|