More Evidence in Sotomayor's Favor
Here is another piece of evidence that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor might be appropriately skeptical of curtailing civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor expressed skepticism in March 2003 about the expanded government surveillance powers in the USA Patriot Act, citing what she referred to as its broader authority "to impose nationwide wiretaps with little judicial supervision" and to monitor Internet use in search of terrorists.
"Whether and how these statutes will be challenged in court is difficult to discern, but suffice it to say that traditional Fourth Amendment law does not permit searches and seizures without particularized suspicions of illegality," Judge Sotomayor told law students in a guest lecture at the Indiana University law school in Indianapolis six years ago.
The government's surveillance powers have been expanded further since then, with the support of Barack Obama. Today The New York Times reports that the National Security Agency has been abusing those new powers, collecting what may amount to millions of email messages it was not authorized to peruse. The Times says overenthusiastic email collection also was at the heart of the hitherto mysterious 2004 dispute that had Deputy Attorney General James Comey racing White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to the hospital bedside of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who sided with Comey in refusing to sign off on a renewal of the NSA's secret surveillance program.
As Damon Root noted last week, Sotomayor also was on the right side in a 2008 ruling that upheld a First Amendment challenge to the PATRIOT Act's gag orders for national security letters, and she was tough on the government's lawyer in a case involving Maher Arar, a Canadian shipped off to Syria, where he was imprisoned and tortured, based on erroneous information suggesting he had ties to Al Qaeda. The 2nd Circuit has not ruled yet on whether Arar's lawsuit can continue, but Sotomayor indicated that she is skeptical of the government's claim that the case has to be thrown out to protect national security, saying, "So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, it is the government's position that that is a license to torture?"
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She is quite the mixed bag.
The more I read about her, the more difficult it is to place any kind of label on her. She's certainly not a "rubber stamp" in any realm.
Damn am I letting out a sigh of relief over this one, because the totality of her record doesn't show a hostility to basic rights at all, does it? I mean, this little bit about the Patriot Act totally outweighs her bullshit rulings on property rights, the Second Amendment, and issues of race.
For Christ sake, her fucking ruling concerning the firefighters in CT alone should be enough to make anyone with half a fucking brain declare her as unqualified.
For Christ sake, her fucking ruling concerning the firefighters in CT alone should be enough to make anyone with half a fucking brain declare her as unqualified.
What was she supposed to do? Toss all prior case law as well as relevant statutes and go with her gut? Over her entire judicial history she does NOT have a record of siding with discrimination plaintiffs, and the few times she has (like the CT firefighters case) she was hemmed in by a very bizarre fact pattern and a poorly written law.
Just let Ricci testify at her hearing. It'll be great to see the empathy oozing out of her.
There are worse judges in the US.
Keep it up with that positive viewpoint Reason. Keep on the sunny side, always on the sunny side.