Senate Proceeding on Jun 24th, 2009 :: 4:03:35 to 4:13:39
Total video length: 8 hours 49 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

Note: MetaVid video transcripts may contain inaccuracies, help us build a more perfect archive

Views:17 Duration: 0:10:04 Discussion

Previous speech:

Next speech:

4:03:31 to 4:03:52( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: honored to work for him, serve under him when he was our leader, and whatever he says on these subjects is something that the american people need to listen to, because he loves this country, he loves our constitution, and he understands it. i thank the the floor the presiding officer: the

4:03:35 to 4:13:39( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: Orrin Hatch

4:03:53 to 4:04:14( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: senator from utah is recognized. mr. hatch: i thank my coll he is so nice in his comments. i am so proud that he is the republican leader on the judiciary committee. been doing a terrific job ever since he took over. now, considering that a supreme court nominee is one of this

4:04:15 to 4:04:35( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: body's most important responsibilities, i come athis wanting to support whoever the president nominates. the president has the right to nominate, appoint we have the right-to-, it seems to me, to vote one way, up-or-down and determine whether we will consent to nomination. i can also give advice during

4:04:36 to 4:04:56( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: this time. only 110 men and women have far served on our nation's highest court. and president obama has now nominated judge sonia sotomayor to replace justice david souter. our constitutional role of advice and consent requires us to determine whether she is qualified for this position by

4:04:57 to 4:05:18( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: looking at her experience and, more importantly, her judicial philosophy. president obama has already described his understanding of the power and role of judges in our system of government. he has said that he will appoint judges who have empathy for certain groups and that personal empathy is an essential ingredient for making judicial decisions. right off the bat, president

4:05:19 to 4:05:41( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: obama's vision of judges deciding cases based on their personal feelings and priorities is at odds with what most americans believe. a recent that by more than 3:1, americans reject the notion that judges may go beyond the law and take their personal views and feelings into account. judge sotomayor appears to have

4:05:42 to 4:06:02( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: endorsed this subjective view of judging. in one speesm that she gave several times over nearly a decade, she endorsed the view that there is actually no objectivity or neutrality in judging, but merely a sers of perspectives. she questioned whether judges should even try to set aside their personal sympathies and

4:06:03 to 4:06:25( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: prejudices in deciding cases, a view that seems the oath of judicial office, which instead requires impartiality. we must require judge sotomayor's entire re clues about her philosophy. she was, after all, a federal district court judge for six years and has been a federal

4:06:26 to 4:06:48( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: appeals court judge for nearly 11 more. while we are told that this is the larst federal judicial record of any supreme court nominee in a century, we're being allowed the shortest time in recent memory to consider it. the 48 days from the anowngsment to the hearing for judge sotomayor is more than three weeks, more than 30% shorter

4:06:49 to 4:07:11( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: than the time for considering justice samuel comparable judicial record. there was no legitimate reason for this stunted and rushed timetable, but that is what the majority has imposed that is where we are today. so i want to take a few minutes this morning to take a look at judge sotomayor's judicial record on a very important issue to me, and i think many others

4:07:12 to 4:07:32( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: in this body: the right to keep and bear arms protected by the send amendment to the constitution. some can be quite selective ab prizing some while ignoring others. some even trumpet rights that are not in all, as more important than those that are right there

4:07:33 to 4:07:53( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the page. it appears tha judge sotomayor has taken a somewhat dim view of the second amendment. two i and vitality of the right to keep and bear arms are whether it is a fundamental right and whether the amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government.

4:07:54 to 4:08:14( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: on each of these issues, judge sotomayor has chosen the side that served to limit, confine, and minimize th amendment. she has done so without analis, when it was unnecessary to decide the case before her, and even when it conflicted with supreme court precedent or her own argument.

4:08:15 to 4:08:36( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: -- arguments, i should say. in a 2004 case, for example, a second circuit panel, including judge sotomayor, issued a short summary order affirming an illegal alien's conviction for drug distribution and possession of a firearm. the case summary and head notes

4:08:37 to 4:08:57( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: supplied by lexis take up more space than the three short paragraphs proffered by the court. judge sotomayor's court rejected a second new york's ban on gun possession in a single sentence relegated to a footnote with no discussion, let alone any analysis of the issue what complete in fact, the court

4:08:58 to 4:09:18( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: neither described the appellate's argument nor indicated how the district court has addressed -- or had addressed this constitutional issue. but merely cited a second circuit precedent for the proposition that the right to possess a gun "clearly not a fundamental right."

4:09:19 to 4:09:39( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: that is pretty short shrift for a constitutional claim. last year in the district of columbia v. heller, the supreme court held that the second amendment right to keep and bear arms is an individual rather than a collective rievment but the court also noted that by the time of america's founding, the right to

4:09:40 to 4:10:01( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: have arms was indeed fundamental and that the second amendment codified this fundamental right. several months lairlt a second -- several months later, a second panel, in the second circuit held that under the constitution's

4:10:02 to 4:10:26( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: privileges and immities clause, the second amendment applies only to the federal government, not to the states. whether correct or not, that holding was obviously enough to decide the issue in that particular case. judg sotomay however, went beyond what was necessary to further minimize the second amendment by once

4:10:27 to 4:10:48( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: again characterizing its something less -- characterizing it as something less than a fundamental right. the court said that there need be only a show of called rational basis to justify a law banning such weapons, a legal standard it said applies where there is no fundamental right involved

4:10:49 to 4:11:09( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: the court simply ign actually contradicted the supreme courtstddition in heller by treating the second amendment as protecting less than a fundamental right. in fact, the very 1886 precedent judge sotomayor's court cited to hold that the second amendment limits only the federal government recognized that

4:11:10 to 4:11:30( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: preconstitutional nature of the right to bear arms. he contradictions. the seventh circuit has since also held that under the privileges and immunities clause, the second amendment limits only the federal government. but the ninth circuit last month held that under the

4:11:31 to 4:11:51( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: constitution's due process clau does indeed apply to the states. these courts gave this issue much more judge sotomayor's court, and neither found address whether the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental. i wish that judge sotomayor's

4:11:52 to 4:12:12( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: court had shown similar restraint. so it appears that judge sotomayor has consistently and even most limiting, the most minimizing view of the second amendment. no matter how distasteful, this result would be legitimate if it followed adequate analysis, if

4:12:13 to 4:12:33( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: it properly and if it was necessary to decide the cases before in any event, it -- in that event, i would not like it but probably could not quarrel with it. but as i've indicated here, this is not the case. ther

4:12:34 to 4:12:55( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: to her conclusion conflicted with precedent. it was unnecessary to decide the cases before her. this is not the picture of a restrained judge who has set aside personal views and is focusing on applying the law rather than on reaching politically correct results. these are serious and troubling issues which go to the very heart of the role judges play in our system of government.

4:12:56 to 4:13:17( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: these are elements not from her speeches but from give shape to her judicial philosophy. we have a written constitution which is supposed to limit government, including the judiciary. we have the separation of government power under which the

4:13:18 to 4:13:39( Edit History Discussion )

Orrin Hatch: legislative branch may employ empathy to make the law but judicial branch must impartially interpret and apply the law. we have a stem of self-government in which the people and their elected representatives make the law and define the culture. it ino wonder that americans believe that judges must take the law as it is, not