CBS’s Smith Sees No Liberal Activism In Sotomayor Record

Photo of Kyle Drennen.
  • Bookmark and Share

Harry Smith and Jeff Sessions, CBS Responding to Senator Jeff Sessions describing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor as a "typical liberal activist judge" CBS Early Show co-host Harry Smith argued: "You feel like her record indicates that? I mean, she gets a glowing review from the American Bar Association. Her record doesn't seem to necessarily match up with her – what – some of the things she said."

Later in the Monday interview, Smith defended Sotomayor’s record, particularly her decision in the New Haven firefighter case: "But basically, she was following precedent. I think people who would actually look at it would agree she was kind of acting as any judge in that position probably would – most judges would have acted in that position. Do you really believe – you really believe her words indicate that there are – she's a different person than her record would indicate?" Sessions replied: "I think philosophically her – her statements indicate an approach to judging that's outside the mainstream so far as I can tell."

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Smith began the interview by asking Sessions: "Is this confirmation hearing, is this a foregone conclusion?" Smith later followed up by depicting Republican opposition to Sotomayor as purely political: "...there's a front page story on The Washington Post this morning that basically said the hearings are not just about Sotomayor, but sort of a platform for Republicans to kind of say, ‘this is who we are. This is what we're about. And this is a way we can differentiate ourselves from the people across the aisle.’ Is that what this is really about?"

Here is the full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Sonia Sotomayor makes history today. The first Hispanic woman to face a confirmation hearing for the Supreme Court.

JONATHAN TURLEY: The only thing standing between her and confirmation is herself.

SMITH: We'll tell you why some people are saying her past could catch up with her.

7:01AM TEASE:

SMITH: It's going to be a busy morning in Washington this morning as the hearings finally get under way – the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor. The first female Hispanic nominated to take a seat on the Supreme Court. We'll get to more on that in just a little bit.

7:08AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: Senator Jeff Sessions is the ranking Republican member of the Judiciary Committee. He joins us now. Good morning, sir.

JEFF SESSIONS: Good morning, Harry. How are you?

SMITH: Very well. Is this confirmation hearing, is this a foregone conclusion?

SESSIONS: Well, I think the Democrats would certainly like to be supportive of President Obama's nominee, and she's met with a lot of Senators, and they've enjoyed meeting with her, as I have. But I do think there's some very real questions, fundamental questions about the nominee, and I hope that people will consider all the background and record fairly. And I think you just don't know. Any – odd things happen at hearings, and there are moments that you don't expect.

SMITH: The nominee does, in fact, have to speak for herself. And in certain situations in past nomination processes, that has gone awry. On the other hand, there's a front page story on The Washington Post this morning that basically said the hearings are not just about Sotomayor, but sort of a platform for Republicans to kind of say, ‘this is who we are. This is what we're about. And this is a way we can differentiate ourselves from the people across the aisle.’ Is that what this is really about?

SESSIONS: Well, I think there's some truth to that because I believe we are in this country debating about the directions our courts could go and should go. I believe this nominee, from what I've seen so far, is the typical liberal activist judge who will push the law, who believes that – in identity type politics and seeing people as groups more than individuals. Who is-

SMITH: Would her record – you feel like her record indicates that?

SESSIONS: Harry, you know, she-

SMITH: I mean, she gets a glowing review from the American Bar Association.

SESSIONS: I understand-

SMITH: Her record doesn't seem to necessarily match up with her – what – some of the things she said.

SESSIONS: Right. There is a disconnect there, I will agree. Her record is better than her speeches. Her speeches tend to reflect, I think, her philosophy. And if confirmed to the Supreme Court, I think we have every reason to believe that philosophy will flower more than when she's in a lower court position bound by the authority of the Supreme Court and even her other colleagues. That's the pattern for Justice Ginsburg. She had a pretty good record as a lower court judge but has now become the leading activist on the Supreme Court. So I do think that this is an important issue, and the American people truly want that neutral judge, that neutral umpire, who will not allow their political agendas to infect their decisions. I think the American people strongly favor that, and we need to move our court back to that view.

SMITH: Because it's interesting, we talk about the Supreme Court case the other week with the New Haven fire department, people have brought that out as an example. But basically, she was following precedent. I think people who would actually look at it would agree she was kind of acting as any judge in that position probably would – most judges would have acted in that position.

SESSIONS: Harry, the one thing I would say-

SMITH: Do you really believe – you really believe her words indicate that there are – she's a different person than her record would indicate?

SESSIONS: I think philosophically her – her statements indicate an approach to judging that's outside the mainstream so far as I can tell, and that I think that it would allow her to do things like – she’s a leading exponent – maybe one of the leading in the country – of utilizing foreign law to interpret American law.

SMITH: Well, and Judge Ginsberg has talked about-

SESSIONS: I think that's fundamentally unsound.

SMITH: Yeah, yeah.

SESSIONS: Yeah, those are the kind of-

SMITH: Very quickly, will you – right now, if you had to vote this minute, would you vote against her?

SESSIONS: Well, I think we should give her that hearing and a fair hearing. I'm committed to that. And I think that's the right thing. I hope people will say, this is the best hearing we've had in many years.

SMITH: Senator Sessions, thanks so much for your time this morning. Do appreciate it.

SESSIONS: Thank you.

—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

ABA says "exceptionally well qualified"

Oh wait, that was what they said about JUDGE BORK right before Bozo The Veep & Co. broke their word, tarred and feathered him and ran him out of town on a rail.

There are not enough

There are not enough Republicans with guts to Bork her like Kennedy Bork.  

Semper suprene nitens

North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy. 

Well, for one, it's just an

Well, for one, it's just an ABA catchphrase for one of their categories of professional achievement.  And there are no real criteria--they hand out the assessment based solely on their whim at the moment. 

For two, the ABA has become a leftist sham of an organization anyway.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Yup, like "A pleasure to have in class" on your report card

Be sure and visit ABA's sister website, ACLU.org

Harry Smith wouldn't notice

Harry Smith wouldn't notice an elephant in a peanut warehouse.

  Harry, Harry, Harry. 

 
Harry, Harry, Harry.  You say, "I think people who would actually look at it would agree she was kind
of acting as any judge in that position probably would – most judges
would have acted in that position."

So that would be why the Supremes agreed (all 9 of them) that her behavior on Ricci was improper, right?  You really are a baboon, Harry.

"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me

Harry Smith proves the intellectually blind can't see

The intellectually blind cannot see.  Their ignorance and intellectual laziness makes them what they are...liberals!

Angry White Dude

www.angrywhitedude.c...

Liberals hate being called

Liberals hate being called liberal, so they relabel themselves "progressive."

 According to them, Sotomayor isn't a "liberal" activist, her record is just "progressive."

 Bunch of bunk. 

Yeah, progressing towards socialism...

...how about we have a recall vote on Senator/Congressperson so and so....

Senator Grahamnesty

I just read on Drudge that one of my Senators has said Sotomayor will be confirmed unless there is a meltdown. I immediately sent him an e-mail indicating my displeasure with his stance and let him know that if he voted for her confirmation, he could count on me to actively oppose him come time for his re-election. Of course after the Amnesty bill he supported a few years ago, he lost my vote anyway.

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

jd

I assume you live in SC. I think that Jim DeMint is great. But, Lindsey "Goober" Graham is just a RINO in my book.

 I know that Hagan from NC here will be slobbering all over her. She may even want to have sex with her. I don't know Richard Burr's position.

Semper suprene nitens

North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy. 

What's up rick?

I'm originally from NC and hope to move back when the daughter finishes school. I keep up with what goes on up there. NC sure has changed a lot in the past twelve years. I see where ex Gov Mike Sleasley's wife and NC State are in big trouble.

And yeah; Graham is definitely a RINO. He's got his head stuck so far up McCains fanny that he can see his tonsils.

GO TARHEELS (just don't tell my daughter I said that)

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

It seems like everyday the

It seems like everyday the US Attorney is asking for more info on Sleasley from about every state agency. Has the state ever changed. See my last line.   Gov. Bev "Dumpling" Perdue is a train wreck. She is following Obama right done the tubes.

Semper suprene nitens

North Carolina now has the worst government money can buy. 

Stupid argument rule #19

I can understand someone trying to win an argument with this: Her record doesn't seem to necessarily match up with what some others have said about her." But trying to win an argument with this?

Her record doesn't seem to necessarily match up with some of the things she said."

Come on, Harry, get with the program. When a person's record doesn't match her statements, she's ----- what's the term, Harry? ----- a liar? Someone who says something, and does another? Untrustworthy? Tell me Harry -- how would you describe a conservative who did this?

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Foreign Law?

Justice Thomas frequently cites "foreign" law commentary in his opinions.  Does Sen. Sessions object to that?

Frank Wilson swoops in

Frank Wilson swoops in again with falsehoods, showing again why he's such a pathetic laughing stock around here.

"While Congress, as a legislature, may wish to consider the actions of other nations on any issue it likes, this Court’s ... jurisprudence should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," Thomas said in a 2002 death penalty case.

The Feeney-Goodlatte resolution is in tune with Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Chief Justice William Rehnquist who hold that judges should look only to U.S. and British colonial precedents, such as Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Slam dunk

TnT

Score!

"What a revoltin' development this is!"

Chester Riley

 British colonial

 British colonial precedents, such as Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, to interpret the U.S. Constitution.

And that would be because... US law was based on English Common Law when the constitution was being drafted.. i.e. MAGNA CARTA, 1215, Runneymede..

And that would be because the AMERICAN culture had grown from this English colonial tradition, as opposed to French jurisprudence. Or German. Or Spanish. Or Dutch.

Obama Lied... Jobs Died.

@Jack Bauer:

Perhaps you can explain what "British colonial precedents" are.

In the meantime, while you wrote "US law," remember that much of the law in Louisiana is, indeed, based on French law (not "jurisprudence").

@ThisnThat:

Thank you for proving my point!

Blackstone's Commentaries is based on "foreign" law.  Justice Thomas quoted it in his (losing, of course) Kelo opinion.

Are the laws of the United States founded on English law?  Many of them.  That's what makes Sen. Sessions' statement so silly.

Sen. Sessions and Justice Thomas don't object to the use of any foreign laws - just some...

As for your claim that Justices rely upon British "colonial precedents" what the heck are those?  The Stamp Act? 

 

Try this one on for size, Frank

Ever hear of maritime law....that has its roots in British Admiralty Laws?

In the Atlantic Sounding case, he agreed with the four justices generally labeled liberal that an injured seaman may sue for punitive damages for “failure to pay maintenance and cure” — an admiralty law term. Thomas had similarly agreed with the liberals on the meaning of the Constitution’s ban on excessive fines. As in that earlier case, Thomas’ opinion went far back in history, citing English and American cases decided in 1676 and 1784 and interpreting the Jones Act of 1920.

This is an interesting article about Thomas' tenure on the court...all discussion here aside.

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

My 12 year old son would say

My 12 year old son would say that you just PWNED jfw...

@PeskyDane:

Chances are good your 12-year own son actually knows what "pwned" means, so he wouldn't have said "just."

Meanwhile, back here with the adults, Blonde's post simply backed-up my statement.  Justice Thomas frequently sites foreign law in his decisions.

Is all this moving too fast for you?

...back here with the

...back here with the adults

like most libtards, irony is lost on you, even as it emerges from you keyboard...

@PeskyDane:

How dare you call me a keyboard!

PS:  Like most right wingnutz, you don't know the definition of "irony."

Yeah, you got me on

Yeah, you got me on syntax. 

What is this right wingnutz you speak of?  I've heard of it before.  Seems to refer to anyone who works for a living... hmm...

PWNED again, my friend.  Now show us what a good sport you can be and moveon.org.

A lib discussing "irony."  Hmm, if you want to bring that knife to the gunfight...

Oh Pesky......

Care to explain my point to Frank?

I can't seem to get him unstuck from stupid.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

A point?

Do you actually think your reply made a point?

Hilarious...

A clue for you, Frank

Root(s)

from Dictionary.com

the fundamental or essential part

the source or origin of a thing

Good grief, fella, you couldn't argue (or think) your way out of a wet paper bag.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

Roots:

A novel by Alex Haley.  And a movie with O.J. Simpson in it.

So?

Are you really this stupid or do you just pretend to be on the internets?

→ Just dumb, Frank

You mean you actually understood Blonde's comment as:

 Ever hear of maritime law....that has its novel by Alex Haley in British Admiralty Laws?

That was actually your understanding?

Could you possibly pretend to be more obtuse?

@Cool Arrow:

Acute.  Not obtuse.

Ask Blonde where the "roots" comment came from.  Left field, near as I can tell... Or ROMA...

→ No Frank

Acute denotes sharpness.

Obtuse is the correct term.

CA

I think it's time to give up on Frank.  In his world, "roots" is a miniseries, he hasn't a clue what "precedent" means (I'd link to a definition, but ol' Frankie would say it's a biscuit or something), and believes he's sharp.  I have a feather duster that is sharper than Frank.

He's just trolling.

I love the victory laps, though.....crowing over stepping in a mess of his own making.   That's entertainment.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

Hold on a sec

Roots had OJ in it? I must have missed the part with the slow-speed horse and buggy chase. Now I do remember LeVar Burton in roots, but OJ?? I need more coffee.

Gary

I want my country back!

@Blonde:

Why, thank you very much!  More proof...

Point sails over Frank's head....

...yet again.

Did you READ the article Frank?

I knew you'd not get it.

 

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

→ Frank's head.

Many's the worm-burner that would sail over Frank's head.

I can imagine J Frank

I can imagine J Frank sitting there in his little room, made-up characters of his favorite NB Posters, having little conversations with himself, completely ignoring or not comprehending anything any of us say. Occassionally he pops up, notices that one of us has responded to his repetitive nonsense, and celebrates. "More proof -- see, I have more proof. I was right. I'm always right! And now I have MORE PROOF!".

___________________________________ 

An optimist thinks that the glass is 1/2 full; a pessimist 1/2 empty; a realist thinks the glass is twice a big as it needs to be

Thx CA & TnT

I feel better now, thanks to you two. 

I should have known better (dammit) than to have tried with this sticky troll (and CA, "obtuse" is one of my favorite words).

I hope he fails, too.

 

 

"Imagine..."

NewsBusters uses "imagine" more than John Lennon.  And with less sense.

See, such comments require no thought or logic.  Like your reply.  Just make stuff up - such as claiming I would say I'm always right.

Obviously, you have nothing to add to an intelligent conversation.

My original point was that Justice Thomas consistently refers to foreign law in his opinions.  Blonde produced some proof to back that up.

As for the referenced 2002 murder case, would that have been Atkins vs. Virginia?  Posters here don't know, because they were just parroting MSNBC.  However, if that was the case it's a remarkably poor example.  Between prosecutorial misconduct and the whole concept of sending the mentally retarded to their execution, it makes a rather pathetic case - start to finish.

Please

see the above.

Please

See above.

well this settles it...Franken on Sotomayor...

Franken told Sotomayor that she was "the most experienced Supreme Court nominee in 100 years." He said her story is inspirational and one in which "all Americans should take great pride in."

...hmmm I wonder if he can even name the current Justices, yet alone any of the past in the last 100 years.

What a moronic statement...can hardly wait for more of his "humor".

v

          No matter

          No matter what the MSM says, this IS discrimination.