Forget Abortion and Gay Marriage--Where Is Sonia Sotomayor on Executive Power?
By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
One issue in Judge Sonia Sotomayor's candidacy for the high court that I'll follow with special interest is what if anything she says about executive power. It may not have the political sex appeal of abortion and gay marriage, but it's important. The imperial presidency ran out of control in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, with Bush administration officials more or less claiming that in the name of national security the president could do whatever he damn well pleased. My old colleague Charlie Savage wrote an important article in Sunday's New York Times laying out the question in the context of the short list, which of course included Sotomayor.
Savage wrote:
...the effect on presidential power could be pivotal. Important rulings on executive authority — striking down military commissions and upholding habeas corpus rights for Guantánamo detainees — have been decided by a five-vote majority, including Justice Souter, on the nine-member court.
"Given that the decisions have generally been 5-4 in this area, this could be terribly consequential," said David Golove, a New York University law professor. "We're losing one of the court's strongest leaders on the side of limiting executive power to reasonable bounds. If the person who replaces Souter is different than him, the balance of power may shift."
Judges Diane Wood and Elena Kagan had some track records (Wood for expressing doubts about sweeping executive powers, Kagan for being more sympathetic). But, according to the Times piece:
By contrast, one person near the top of Mr. Obama's short list — Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit — has never worked in the federal executive branch and sits on a court that hears few executive power cases.
Obama has talked a decent (but not great) game regarding executive privilege, but once in office presidents rarely relinquish executive powers that their predecessors have acquired or imagined. (Robert's second rule of politics: A strict constructionist is someone who angrily rejects the inherent powers claimed by Congress or the courts because they might interfere with the inherent powers claimed by the president.) And as if to remind us all of the stakes here, today's Washington Post reports that a "showdown" is "looming" over presidential use of the "State Secrets" executive powers. Here's hoping she has reasonable views and will vote to impede the imperial presidency.
Check out our political cartoons.
Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our new digital magazine .
Follow Robert Schlesinger on Twitter.
Tags: Supreme Court | Sonia Sotomayor
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (7) | Print
Reader Comments
permafrost web model produce main
system sun process population new components
Execuitve Power
Thank you for providing amidst our 24/7 People Magazine style political coverage a serious and important emphasis to a vital question. What is Sotomayor's stand on executive power? You have articulated the one great fear that I possess regarding the Souter resignation that we may lose the one remaining vote in favor of traditional Constitutionally recognized limits to executive power. We have seen that in practice, Obama supports the absurd and extraconstitutional prospects of the "unitary theory of the executive" - the absurd reading that in time of war the president's authority as commander in chief of armed forces makes him accountable to no law provided his actions regarding national security. As regards Sotomayor, due to her lack of record and professional background in demonstrated support of sane and precedented restrictions of executive power, I would support her withdrawal of her candidacy if she is not in favor of traditional restrictions as recognized by precedent in the Youngstown steel case and the recent detainee cases before the US Supreme Court.
WHY NOT ELECT JUDGES?
I've come to the realization that we should elect judges along with the President.
Judges are acting more and more like elected officials anyway, so why not subject them to the same up front scrutiny we give candidates?
The problem stems from the fact that in the 1970,s a silent coup was begun in the House and Senate.
More and more lawyers began to run and be elected to national office.
I don't think this was accidental. The American Bar Association orchestrated this movement, which was a power grab by the judicial branch to take over or at least circumvent the legislature.
Now, the process is complete. The judiciary has so much control that we wait with anticipation for ruling after ruling on legislative matters is handed down.
We have gone from a representative republic to a judicial oligarchy.
advertisement
