Judicial Watch Raises Ethics Concerns about Judge Sotomayor Prejudicial Statements, Discriminatory Affiliation and Improper Political Activities

/Standard Newswire/ -- Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that it sent a letter of complaint on July 7 to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Ranking Member Jeff Sessions (R-AL) expressing concern that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor has repeatedly violated the Judicial Code of Conduct through her statements and behavior and
is therefore unfit to serve on the High Court.

According to the letter signed by Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

"I write to you out of concern that out-of-court statements and activity by Judge Sonia Sotomayor violate various provisions of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges ("Code of Conduct"). In fact, Judge Sotomayor may be in violation of the Code of Conduct as a result of the following:

· Repeated prejudicial and racist comments.

· Recent membership in an organization that
practices "invidious discrimination" based on sex.

· Improper political activity.

The Judicial Code of Conduct notes that the duty to "act in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary applies to all the judge's activities, including the discharge of the judge's adjudicative and administrative responsibilities. The duty to be respectful includes the responsibility to avoid comment or behavior that could reasonably be interpreted as harassment, prejudice or bias."

Judge Sotomayor's statements and activities, Judicial Watch contends, have repeatedly violated this and other canons of the Code of Conduct. Among the evidence presented by Judicial Watch to support its contention:

Sotomayor's Prejudiced and Racist Comments: During an October 2001 speech at the University of California Berkeley, Sotomayor said the following: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Judge Sotomayor has also promoted the idea that "gender and national origins" of judges "may and will make a difference in our judging."

Sotomayor's Membership in an Organization That Practices "Invidious Discrimination" Based on Sex: According to Canon 2 (c) of the Judicial Code of Conduct: "A judge should not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor recently resigned her membership from the Belizean Grove, a private organization consisting entirely of professional women that claims
to represent the counterweight to the "elite old boys' network." In her recent Senate questionnaire Judge Sotomayor wrote the following with respect to her organizational affiliations: "None of the above organizations, other than the Belizean Grove, discriminates on the basis of race, sex, religion, or national origin." Judge Sotomayor stated that the group does not "invidiously" discriminate but the evidence seems otherwise.

Sotomayor's Improper Political Activity: On April 17, 2009, Judge Sotomayor made a political speech to the Black, Latino, Asian Pacific American Law Alumni Association. Among the statements made by Judge Sotomayor during that speech: "The wide coalition of groups that joined forces to elect America's first Afro-American President was awe inspiring in both the
passion the members of the coalition exhibited in their efforts and the discipline they showed in the execution of their goals... Our challenge as lawyers and court related professionals and staff, as citizens of the world is to keep the spirit of the common joy we shared on November 4 alive in our everyday existence."

Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct plainly states that "A judge should refrain from political activity," and that a judge should not "publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

"Judge Sotomayor seems to be in violation of the ethical guidelines that governs the conduct of judges. Frankly, this apparent misconduct ought to give the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate further reason to reject her nomination for the High Court," stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.politicalpotluck.com
Political News You Can Use

Stephen Halbrook Testifies Against Confirmation of Eric Holder for Attorney General at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Today the Senate Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing for the controversial nomination of Eric Holder to the position of Attorney General of the United States.

Independent Institute Research Fellow and attorney Stephen Halbrook is among the witnesses testifying, arguing that Holder's reputation as a steadfast opponent of Second Amendment rights makes him an unfit candidate for the job.

Halbrook, author of the new Institute book The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms, filed an amicus brief on behalf of more than 300 members of Congress in the recent Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller. But the landmark decision, affirming an individual right in the Second Amendment, conflicts with Holder's track record, claims Halbrook. In fact, Holder joined in a brief arguing that the Second Amendment only concerns the "State's operation of a well-regulated militia" and does not protect an individual right, a position at odds with President-elect Barack Obama's approval of Heller.

"When Mr. Holder served as Deputy Attorney General (1997-2001) and Acting Attorney General (2001), the Department of Justice implemented policies hostile to Second Amendment rights," states Halbrook in his prepared written testimony. "In the establishment of the national instant criminal background check system ('NICS') in 1998, the Department claimed the authority to keep records on lawful firearm purchasers for an alleged 'audit log' for six months, despite the law's requirement that such records be destroyed and its prohibition on registration of firearm owners."

"In that same period, the Department circulated draft legislation that would be included in a bill introduced by Congressman John Conyers as H.R. 1768 (106th Cong., 1999). The bill would have: Imposed felony penalties on a person who planned a gun show without registering with and reporting to ATF; made it unlawful for persons under age 21 to possess firearms, even though they vote, serve on juries, and serve in the military; imposed a 3-day waiting period, and limited handgun purchases to one per month."

"After terrorists struck with box cutters on 9/11, Mr. Holder responded with an op ed arguing for 'background checks on all gun sales,' which would have extended felony penalties to the otherwise innocent, intrastate conduct of law-abiding private individuals. He added: 'Congress should also pass legislation that would give the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.' Under the guise of combating terrorism, every American firearm owner would thus be registered with the government," Halbrook states.

Continuing to reveal Holder as a staunch opponent of the Second Amendment, Halbrook concludes, "Eric Holder has taken a constricted view of Second Amendment rights. Millions of law-abiding Americans exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Mr. Holder's opinion is that the people have no such right unless they are commanded to exercise it in a formal militia, which renders the right meaningless... Many Americans have reason to be uneasy about Mr. Holder's nomination for Attorney General. They deserve to have a person in this role who is committed to upholding all parts of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Unfortunately, Mr. Holder has proven himself not to be that person."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page