Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Key Excerpt: Specter and Sotomayor on Article I

Courtesy of CQ Transcriptions

SEN. SPECTER: One case that the court did not (inaudible) involved a terrorist surveillance program which I think, arguably, posed the greatest conflict between congressional powers under Article I in enacting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which provided for the exclusive way to get wiretaps.

The president disregarded that in a secret program called the Terrorist Surveillance Program, didn't even tell the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which is the required practice, or accepted practice, didn't tell the Intelligence Committees, where the law mandates that they be told about such programs. It was only disclosed by the New York Times.

Those practices confront us this day, with reports about many other secret cases not disclosed. The Federal District Court in Detroit found the Terrorist Surveillance Program unconstitutional. Sixth Circuit, in a two-to-one opinion, said there was no standing. The dissent, I think, pretty conclusively had the much better of the -- on asserting standing (ph).

The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari, didn't even take up the case to the extent of deciding whether it shouldn't take it because of lack of standing. I wrote you a letter about this, wrote a series of letters, and gave you advance notice that I would ask you about this case. So I'm not asking you how you would decide the case, but would you agree that the Supreme Court should have taken that kind of a major conflict on separation of powers?

JUDGE SOTOMAYOR: I know it must be very frustrating to you to...

LEAHY: It sure is. I was the chairman who wasn't notified.

SOTOMAYOR: No. I'm sure...

LEAHY: And he (ph) was the ranking member who wasn't notified.

SOTOMAYOR: I can understand not only Congress's or your personal frustration, and sometimes the citizens when there are important issues that they would like the court to consider. The question becomes what do I do if you give me the honor to serve on the Court, if I say something today, is that going to make a statement about how I'm going to pre-judge someone else's...

LEAHY: I'm not asking you to pre-judge. I'd like to know your standards for taking the case. If you have that kind of a monumental historic conflict and the court is supposed to decide conflicts between the executive and legislative branches, how can it possibly be justified not to take that case?

SOTOMAYOR:
There are often, from what I understand -- and that's from my review of Supreme Court actions and cases of situations in which they have or have not taken cases, and I've read some of their reasoning as to this. I know that with some important issues, they want to make sure that there isn't a procedural bar to the case of some type that would take away from whether they're, in fact, doing what they would want to do, which is to (inaudible)...

Read more of the exchange between Sen. Specter and Judge Sotomayor here.


By Washington Post editors  |  July 15, 2009; 2:41 PM ET
Categories:  Hearings , Supreme Court  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Key Excerpt: Specter and Sotomayor on Caseloads
Next: Speaker Lineup, Sotomayor Returns to the Hill

Comments

I am a life long Republican since the early 1960's when my father and his brother ran for office in the West Side of New York and as a boy I would do the leafleting on Broadway and we would all hang out in the West Side Republican Club. Later I would join the Harris Poll as a junior statistician and today, pushing 60, I still work with the Party. This is not about giving up but Judge Sotomayor as it was aptly suggested at the hearing is coming in barring a miracle, that is as unlikely as being hit by lighting in your basement. I have to say that she knows her stuff in a judicial sense but that is being simplistic because no one gets to that hearing without being a consummate jurist. As far as her biased statements in the past, I do not know if she was at a party winding down, being facetious, had a bad weekend, I just was not present and hearsay is inadmissible. These Supreme Court people all sound pretty high level to me, better and quicker at giving their answers than the attorneys. She may create some dissonance over abortion and especially gun control. God give me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change.

Posted by: freelanceman4 | July 16, 2009 4:10 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company