5:49 p.m. – Leahy recesses the hearing until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow. Liveblogging will resume then in a new post, with special coverage of AUL President & CEO Charmaine Yoest’s testimony before the committee.
5:44 p.m. – Cardin asks Sotomayor a general question on her views about freedom of religion.
“I don’t mean to be funny,” she says, but it is indeed a “fundamental right,” in that it is incorporated into the states. (She is self-conscious on this because she has said many times during the hearing that she does not see the Second Amendment as a fundamental right.)
5:38 p.m. – Sen. Cardin (D-Md.) begins questioning. He will be the last questioner of the day.
5:33 p.m. – Sotomayor is talking about how laws change because society develops, technology develops. (But, earlier today, she refused to discuss whether courts should consider how technology has developed that pushes back the age of viability for the unborn.)
5:30 p.m. – Grassley quotes a law-review article in which Sotomayor says, “Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.”
Sotomayor says she was talking about how lawyers have an obligation to explain to the public the reasons behind what seems unpredictable about the law; one reason for this is because Congress makes new laws.
5:26 p.m. – Grassley brings up her statement in which she wondered whether “ignoring our differences as women and men of color” does judges a disservice. How is being impartial a disservice to the law and to society?
Sotomayor says she doesn’t believe judges should consider the gender or races of any group before them. (But what about their own gender or race, which was the subject of her statement?)
5:22 p.m. – Grassley brings up the Defense of Marriage Act. Does she agree with those state courts that have upheld it? Sotomayor says she cannot comment on it, as it is a pending case.
5:18 p.m. – Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) takes the microphone and discusses Baker v. Nelson (1972), a Supreme Court decision regarding state marriage laws.
Does she agree marriage is a question to be reserved to the states, based on Baker v. Nelson?
Sotomayor says she can’t answer because it is an issue pending in many courts. Grassley presses her. She says she hasn’t reviewed Baker in a while.
Then, Grassley asks, what sort of process might she go through if a marriage case came to the Supreme Court? If Baker is a precedent, would she follow it?
Sotomayor says that in a given case, one side might cite Baker as a precedent, while the other side might cite a different precedent.
Grassley notes that Sotomayor didn’t hesitate to describe other Supreme Court cases as being precedent; why won’t she do so with Baker v. Nelson? The nominee says she may not have examined that case since law school. She says she would be happy to revisit the case and answer him tomorrow.
5:13 p.m. – Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) has the microphone and speaks at length about election spending, particularly the pending Austin case. Asks a terribly general question about Supreme Court precedents regarding corporations. Sotomayor says it would be inappropriate for her to answer because it would seem to reflect a prejudgment.
Feingold: “I appreciate the opportunity to express what I wanted to say about that.
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
It seems to me that she is an artful dodger playing the political field. I read that she said the president had not asked her about abortion! Please!!!! She obviously thinks that she is a wise Latino in hiding the truth from us not so wise caucasians.
I am proud of my senator from Iowa grilling Sotomayor on her view marriage law-probably the biggest issue that will come before the court in the next few years. It’s just a shame that Iowa no longer has a defense of marriage act(not an enforceable one anyway) thanks to our own “brilliant” state court.
In contrast, I am embarrassed by my senator from Wisconsin!