I hope no one is surprised. He basically calls her a liar in a USA Today op-ed:
U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions will vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination for the U.S. Supreme Court during Tuesday’s committee vote, calling her recent pledge of fidelity to the law a disingenuous attempt to mask a judicial philosophy that would push the court to the political left.
“I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism,” Sessions, R-Ala., wrote for an op-ed scheduled to appear today in USA Today. “She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent.”
Apparently he’s found three decisions (out of hundreds, if not thousands, that she’s issued in her 17 years on the bench) that he doesn’t like. The article doesn’t specify, mentioning only that they involved property rights, racial discrimination and gun control. I don’t know which property rights case got his undies in a bunch, but I assume the discrimination one is Ricci, in which a three-judge panel upheld a lower court ruling – the definition of judicial conservatism, unless one doesn’t like the outcome. The gun control case is probably the nunchuck ruling in which the court upheld states’ rights and Supreme Court precedent, which again is the definition of judicial conservativism, unless…well, you get my drift. Anyway, aren’t southern lawmakers all about states’ rights?
Not that his vote will make any difference. Sotomayor will be confirmed, he’ll get to grandstand for his winger base, and most of the country will read this:
Sotomayor was twice nominated for federal judgeships, once by a Republican and once by a Democrat, and she’s been on the bench for 17 years, most recently the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. She received the highest possible rating from the American Bar Association.
and think, “Sessions is a moron. Well, he’s from Alabama; what did you expect?” Gee thanks, Jeff.