Response from Alexander

[Guest dlstewart01]

Mr. Donald Stewart

Dear Donald,

Thanks for getting in touch with me and letting me know what's on your mind regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to serve as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

On August 6, 2009, the Senate confirmed Judge Sotomayor by a vote of 68 to 31. Even though Judge Sotomayor's political and judicial philosophy may be different than mine, especially regarding Second Amendment rights, I voted to confirm her because she is well qualified by experience, temperament, character and intellect to serve on the Supreme Court.

In 2005, I said on the Senate floor that it was wrong for then-Senator Obama and half the senators on his side of the aisle to vote against John Roberts - a superbly qualified nominee - solely because they disagreed with what Senator Obama described as Roberts' "overarching political philosophy" and "his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's office" that "consistently sided" with "the strong in opposition to the weak." Four years later, it would have been equally wrong for me to vote against Judge Sotomayor solely because she is not "on my side" on some issues.

Courts were never intended to be political bodies composed of judges "on your side" who would reliably tilt your way in controversial cases. Courts are supposed to do just the opposite: decide difficult cases with impartiality. The oath Judge Sotomayor has taken three times says it best: ". I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and . I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . under the Constitution and laws of the United States."

During her confirmation hearings, Judge Sotomayor expressly rejected then-Senator Obama's view that in a certain percentage of judicial decisions "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in a judge's heart . and [in] the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In answer to a question from Senator Jon Kyl, she said, "I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can't rely on what's in their heart. They don't determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law. And so it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law. The judge applies the law to the facts before that judge."

Giving broad Senate approval to well-qualified nominees helps to increase the prestige of the Supreme Court and confirm its impartiality. For that reason, until the last few years senators on both sides of the aisle, after rigorous inquiries into the fitness of nominees, have given those well-qualified nominees an overwhelming vote of approval. For example, no justice on the Supreme Court that Chief Justice John Roberts joined in 2005 had received more than nine negative votes. Four were confirmed unanimously. All but three senators voted for Justice Ginsburg, a former General Counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. Every single senator voted for Justice Scalia. In truly extraordinary cases, senators, of course, reserve the prerogative - as I do - to vote "no" or even to vote to deny an up-or-down vote.

During the eight years I was governor of Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges. In doing so, I looked for the same qualities that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for law and respect for those who came before the court. I did not ask one applicant how he or she would rule on abortion or immigration or taxation. I appointed the first female circuit judge in our state, the first African American court chancellor and the first African American Supreme Court Justice. I appointed both Democrats and Republicans. That process served our state well and helped to build respect for the independence and fairness of our judiciary. In the same way, it is my hope that my vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor will help to return the Senate to the practice only recently lost of inquiring diligently into qualifications of a nominee and then accepting that elections have consequences, one of which is to confer upon the president the constitutional right to nominate justices of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Even in cases where we may disagree on issues, I do weigh carefully the opinions of Tennesseans on both sides of an issue before casting a vote in the Senate. Your comments help me to know where the people of Tennessee stand, and they are very helpful to me in making decisions. I appreciate hearing your thoughts on Judge Sotomayor's nomination, and I hope that you will continue to get in touch with me and let me know what's on your mind regarding the important issues facing our nation.

Sincerely,

Lamar

[G27]

Friggen scumbag.

[Guest kdpate]

[LagerHead]

Playing the devil's advocate here: One thing is for certain. Obama was going to appoint a liberal judge to that spot. It was going to happen. Sotomayor is FAR from my first choice, but to be blunt, she's pretty far from my last as well. She's bad, but I feel it coulda been worse.

Just sayin'.

[ukerduker]

During the eight years I was governor of Tennessee, I appointed about 50 judges. In doing so, I looked for the same qualities that Judge Sotomayor has demonstrated: intelligence, good character, restraint, respect for law and respect for those who came before the court.

Putting aside her ridiculous comments that could be considered racists, it appears that she was not making her rulings IAW the Constitution. IMO, I think she comes to the bench with an agenda.

A sample of her rulings:

• Affirmative Action (New Haven firefighter case): Sotomayor was part of a three-judge panel that ruled in February 2008 to uphold a lower court decision supporting the City of New Haven's decision to throw out the results of an exam to determine promotions within the city's fire department. Only one Hispanic and no African-American firefighters qualified for promotion based on the exam; the City subsequently decided not to certify the results and issued no promotions. In June 2008, Sotomayor was part of a 7-6 majority to deny a rehearing of the case by the full court. The Supreme Court agreed to review the case and heard oral arguments in April 2009. Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008)(Her ruling was overturned)

• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the "best technology available" must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the "best technology" regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)

• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)

• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to "wasteful, duplicative litigation." Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

• Health Insurance (Reimbursement of insurance benefits): In 2005, Sotomayor ruled against a health insurance company that sued the estate of a deceased federal employee who received $157,000 in insurance benefits as the result of an injury. The wife of the federal employee had won $3.2 million in a separate lawsuit from those whom she claimed caused her husband's injuries. The health insurance company sued for reimbursement of the benefits paid to the federal employee, saying that a provision in the federal insurance plan requires paid benefits to be reimbursed when the beneficiary is compensated for an injury by a third party. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 opinion. Justices Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, and Alito dissented. Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005)

• Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as "Bivens," which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)

• Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databases and archives such as "Lexis/Nexis" without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)

[Magiccarpetrides]

Well no matter how you take what was wrote you gotta admit it was well written.

[Guest jwb68]

What the .......

How did you get into my email account and copy my letter from Lamar?

[Guest Ghostrider]

Only the names have been changed...

Hey, wouldn't that make a good opener for a cop show?

[Guest thorn]

Well no matter how you take what was wrote you gotta admit it was well written.

Yeah, but just once. I got the same thing. I'll respond to it when I have something better to say that just calling him a pocket filling bag

[Guest GhostHunter]

and I hope that you will continue to get in touch with me and let me know what's on your mind regarding the important issues facing our nation.

Sincerely,

Lamar

And what good would that do??? His track record clearly shows he does not vote his constituents wishes...He is an A$$clown!!!