Metavid

Video archive of the US Congress

Senate Proceeding 08-05-09 on Aug 5th, 2009 :: 2:03:20 to 2:21:35
Total video length: 4 hours 9 minutes Stream Tools: Stream Overview | Edit Time

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

Download OptionsEmbed Video

Views:155 Duration: 0:18:15 Discussion

Previous speech: Next speech:

John Ensign

2:03:00 to 2:03:21( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: miguel estrada came to america as aiage of 17 with english in h vocabulary he rose to the top of the legal profession after gotting with honors at columbia university and harvard law school. he clerked for supreme

John Ensign

2:03:20 to 2:21:35( Edit History Discussion )
Speech By: John Ensign

John Ensign

2:03:22 to 2:03:43( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: justice kennedy and was a former as the united miguel estrada served in the administrations of both president bill clinton presidengeorge w. bush and in 2001 president george w. bush recognized his talent and nominated of appeals for the d.c. circuit.

John Ensign

2:03:44 to 2:04:04( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: unfortunately partisan came into play and miguel estrada's record was not judge merely on merits. he did not receive the fair consideration that has been given to judge sotomayor he never even made it as far as a confirmation vote.

John Ensign

2:04:05 to 2:04:26( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: miguel estrada's nomation was cut filibuster. as a matter of fact, seven democrat filibusters. and this hped create the new standard now for judicial nominees in the senate's constitutional role of the advice and consent. having been given the fair

John Ensign

2:04:27 to 2:04:47( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: consideration that he deserved, the hispanic community would have another great role model in our judicial system. as i have previously stated, i'm impressed by judge sotomayor. in our personable and to talk with. unfortunately, our discussions during that

John Ensign

2:04:48 to 2:05:08( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: to alleviate my concerns that i had upon reviewing her record and her public including her testimony before the judiciary committee. judg sotomayor's record and testimony have left me more uncertainty and doubt instead of the

John Ensign

2:05:09 to 2:05:31( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: ability to rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. i feel that judge sotomayor, when seated on the supreme court bench, will not be a zealous advocate for equal justice under the law. many of her responses to me and to my colleagues on the judiciary committee were troubling not necessarily

John Ensign

2:05:32 to 2:05:55( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: because of substance but more due to the lac of it. i remain concerned that we don't -- we just don't know who we will be getting on the supreme court. the inconsistencies in judge sotomayor's testimony, judicial record, and writings, make it possible to fully understand her commitment to how she will

John Ensign

2:05:56 to 2:06:17( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: interpret the this especially concerns me because of a lifetime appointment for a supreme court justice. this lifetime appointment comes without the bea barriers of additional review that someone has in a lower court. the restraints that he was under

John Ensign

2:06:18 to 2:06:38( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: as a district court and circuit judge don't app solely considered her judicial record i cannot dismiss her cuory treatment of cases dealing with serious and important constituti questions. some of her decisions have run contrary to the constitution, in my opinion.

John Ensign

2:06:39 to 2:06:59( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: and were decided in opinions lacking anasis and are consistent with liberal political thought. for example, there was her 2006 private property decision that permitted the government to take property from one developer and give it to another. and we've heard a lot about her

John Ensign

2:07:00 to 2:07:21( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: 2008 ricci decision recently overturned by the u.s. supreme court. that would allowed employers to engage in reverse as their claims of their actions were motivated by a desire to avoid conflicts with favored minority gups.

John Ensign

2:07:22 to 2:07:42( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: a majity of justices f that judge sotomayor's misapplied the law. then there was her 2009 second amendment decision in the maloney v. cuomo that give states the power to ban firearms.

John Ensign

2:07:43 to 2:08:03( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: the sotomayor held that new york state statute does not interfere with the fundamental right. the opinion also dismissed the argument that a complete ban violates the second amendment by ci the 19th century holding that the second amendment on to the federal government

John Ensign

2:08:04 to 2:08:24( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: and not to the state. to me the maloney ruling is an indication that judge sotomayor does thought view the second amendment as protecting a fundamental right of our citizens. this is further supported by a 2004 decision in the u.s. v. sanchezase where she

John Ensign

2:08:25 to 2:08:45( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: joined a decision that flatly denied gun possession as a fu while that decision heller, the maloney decision occurred more than six months after the heller decision. and yet sotomayor again dismissed the possibility that

John Ensign

2:08:46 to 2:09:06( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: the second amendment protects a fundamental right. once again in the decision, no analysis was given as to why. he conclusion was that, one, the second amendment does not apply to the states; and, two, the second amendment does not protect a fundamental right.

John Ensign

2:09:07 to 2:09:28( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: had judge sotomayor looked to the history of the 14th amendment, the sifts act an civil rights act and freidman's bureau act she should have believes they were enacted to ensure the constitutional rights of freed men were protected. this is true related to the second amendment.

John Ensign

2:09:29 to 2:09:50( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: and the practices by states and localities would were out the ownership of firearms by newly freed slaibs. slaves. given this information coupled with her

John Ensign

2:09:51 to 2:10:11( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: to conclude she has a bo a bias against firearms and arms. should we expect her to rule differently when the supreme court takes up the maloney case or the 9th or 7th circuit cases dealing with whether the second amendment applies to the states? judge sotomayor appears to believe that the second amendment is not an individual

John Ensign

2:10:12 to 2:10:34( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: fundamental right. it is, in fact, right guaranteed to all americans and it's enshrined in our constitution. the cornerstone of our bill of rights. if its chipped away, way, our freedoms and liberties, will be compromised.

John Ensign

2:10:35 to 2:10:56( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: it is my fear that judge sotomayor will threaten second amendment rights for all americans. her bay across and propensity to rule with purpose-driven results impacted her judicial decision unfortunately, judge sotomayor's record and testimony provides

John Ensign

2:10:57 to 2:11:19( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: re unsenator uncertainty and doubt than a declaration to rule with adherence to the rule of law. presidents, senators, judges, and supreme court justices take an oath to preserve, to protect, and defend the constitution. it is our most solemn duty. judges are expected to be

John Ensign

2:11:20 to 2:11:40( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: teered to that constitution. and impartially apply the law to the facts. the american people overwhelmingly reject the notion that unelected judges should set policy or allow moral or pitical views to influence the outcome of cases.

John Ensign

2:11:41 to 2:12:02( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: i worry about her prior dismissal of the goal judicial impartiality as an unattainable aspiration and i disagree that embracing her biases is a good thing. judge sotomayor's views on international law are also troubling. whilehe use or of foreign and international law

John Ensign

2:12:03 to 2:12:23( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: and judicial decisionmaking is not new and remains subject of controversy, judge sotomayor appears to embrace using international standards or laws to decide u.s. constitutional questions. i asked judge sotomayor about her thoughts on the use of

John Ensign

2:12:24 to 2:12:45( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: foreign law. her answers on this worrisome issue only confirm a in many of her public statements and endorsement of using foreign law as a course of creative ideas. during the confirmation hearings judge sotomayor was asked if she

John Ensign

2:12:46 to 2:13:09( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: agreed that there is no authority for a supreme court justice to utilize foreign law in terms of making decision based on constitution or statutes. this was her response: "unle the statute requires you or directs you to look at foreign law, the answer is no."

John Ensign

2:13:10 to 2:13:31( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: foreign law cannot be used as a holding or precedent or to bind or to influence the outcome of a legal decision interpreting the constitution or american law that doesn't direct you to that law. she went on to say "i will not use foreign law to interpret the constitution or american statutes.

John Ensign

2:13:32 to 2:13:54( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: i will use american law, constitutional law to interpret those laws except in situations where american law directs the courts." this seems fairly straightforward. but her answers to written questions are contradictory sayi limited circumstances decisions of foreign courts can be a

John Ensign

2:13:55 to 2:14:18( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: source of ideas in forming our understanding of our own constitutional rights. to the extent the decisio foreign courts contain requests that are helpful to that task, american courts may wish to consider those ideas." this was not the only time that she offered

John Ensign

2:14:19 to 2:14:40( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: support for utilizing foreign law. ju the aclu of puerto rico, entitled "how judges look to international and foreign law under article 6 of the u.s. constitution." article 6 makes the constitution and subsequent law the supreme

John Ensign

2:14:41 to 2:15:02( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: in her april speech she gave a broad defense of the some american judges of looking to foreign and international law as a source ideas. in deciding questions of american law." she stated that u.s. courts can use foreign law to, once again -- quote -- "help understand

John Ensign

2:15:03 to 2:15:23( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: whether -- help understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fall into the mainstream of human thinking." apparently the sentiments of dge sotomayor's expressed this past april are not new. back in 2007, she wrote a forward to a book on international judges entitled

John Ensign

2:15:24 to 2:15:44( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: "the international judge" where she quote -- "learning from foreign law and the international community when interpreting our constitution." i feel, and justices roberts, scalia, and thomas agree, that it is illegitimate for judges to look to foreign sources for

John Ensign

2:15:45 to 2:16:07( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: guidance in interpreting the constitution and laws ratified and enacted by of the united states. judge sotomayor has also specifically criticized justice scalia and thomas for their opposition to relying on foreign law to interpret the constitution. she has even suggested that we

John Ensign

2:16:08 to 2:16:29( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: will lose our influence globally if we a not open to foreign and international law. while judge sotomayor acknowledges that judges are prohibited from treating foreign statutes or foreign court judgments as binding, she has publicly embraced their use of formulating decisions. judge sotomayor attempted to

John Ensign

2:16:30 to 2:16:50( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: distinguish the use of foreign law to decide american legal questions from the act of considering foreign law by the using the ideas of foreign courts in some of our decision making. according t law the use of foreign or international law would be

John Ensign

2:16:51 to 2:17:11( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: asking american judges to close their minds to good ideas. she further went on -- how can you ask a pson t ears? ideas have no boundaries. ideas are juices flowing. i agree. good ideas are important.

John Ensign

2:17:12 to 2:17:33( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: aren't we fortunate that our constitution is full of them. in our -- and our constitution will always be the supreme law of our land. unfortunately we have already experienced a negative impact of so-c foreign law and supreme court may be using them

John Ensign

2:17:34 to 2:17:54( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: to erode our constitutionally protected rights. let's take a look at the controversial 2005 supreme court decision of it appears the global idea of a u.s. earth summit may have influenced the majority decision

John Ensign

2:17:55 to 2:18:17( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: to widely expand the deaf sition of our takings clause and eminent domain. from its original purpose public use for bridges, roads for traditional public uses. in government ruled

John Ensign

2:18:18 to 2:18:38( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: against private -- to a private developer for what the city considered a greater public purpose instead of this was to increase the city's tax base. again, i feel this is a troubling interpretation of the constitution and the kelo decision suggests the danger of allowing international or

John Ensign

2:18:39 to 2:18:59( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: foreign good ideas to impact interpretation of u.s. constitutional questions. i further fear that she may be less restrained by the text of the constitution and more inclined to embrace judicial activism. throughout her hearing judge sotomayor insisted that her judicial philosophy was -- quote

John Ensign

2:19:00 to 2:19:21( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: -- "fidelity to the rule of law." and that judges are required to defer to the policy choices made by unfortunately she declined to explain how she would app principle in practical terms. when asked how her commitment to the rule of law would guide her judgment on whether the amendment protects a fundamental

John Ensign

2:19:22 to 2:19:42( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: constitutional right against encroachment from states and local governments, judge sotomayor declined to answer other than to vaguely commit to look at the supreme court's prior decisions. and when asked whether she views the constitution as a breathing, evolving document, judge sotomayor professed that

John Ensign

2:19:43 to 2:20:04( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: the constitution is immutable and has not changed amendment. and, yet, once again, her written responses to senators' questions adopt a strikingly different tone. when asked t distinguish between judicial decisions that apply a broadly written statute to specific circumstance based

John Ensign

2:20:05 to 2:20:26( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: on a judge's view of -- quote -- "mmon sense" and a legislative act that endorses and codifies the court's decisions, judge sotomayor argued that a court's action with precisely the same practical effect as the action of amount to making law solely

John Ensign

2:20:27 to 2:20:47( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: because it's a judicial act. if, as a written answers argue, judge sotomayor believes judges cannot make law solely because they are judges, her repeated of lawmaking while sitting before tv cameras are essentially meaningless. so, in conclusion, when thinking

John Ensign

2:20:48 to 2:21:09( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: back on the phrasing and grade and mar the united states supreme court, equal justice under law, judge sotomayor's record and testimony provide uncertainty and doubt that she will rule with a fair and impartial adherence to the rule of law. ther her nominationecause she has

John Ensign

2:21:10 to 2:21:32( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: given no assurances that the second amendment is an individual, fundamental right. she has demonstrated a propensity to rule with purpos she has indicated a particular reliance on international standards or laws to decide u.s. constitutional questions and her televised testimony contradicted

John Ensign

2:21:33 to 2:21:36( Edit History Discussion )

John Ensign: much of her public record and professed judicial philosophy.

Personal tools

MetaVid is a non-profit project of UC Santa Cruz and the Sunlight Foundation. Learn more About MetaVid

The C-SPAN logo and other servicemarks that may be found in video content are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Metavid