And where exactly is that constitutional right to privacy, Judge?

Taking questions at her confirmation hearing today Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor says she considers the question of abortion rights “settled law” and asserts there is a constitutional right to privacy.

She obviously reads the same version of the Constitution that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a former ACLU attorney, has tucked away in her chambers.

In responding to questions on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling legalizing abortion, Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee “there is a right of privacy” –  that the court has found it in “various places in the Constitution.”  Specifically she says the right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law.

The often reversed appeals court judge Sotomayor said that “all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law.”

During Ginsburg’s 1993 confirmation hearing, she provided a strong and unequivocal defense of a woman’s right to abortion, saying it was based on the Constitution’s explicit guarantee of equal protection — as well as an “unstated right of privacy.“

“It is essential to a woman’s equality with man that she be the decision maker, that her choice be controlling,” Judge Ginsburg told the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time.  “If you impose restraints, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex. The state controlling a woman would mean denying her full autonomy and full equality.”

No word from Ginsburg on the full equity of the pre-born human infant or its father.

Judge Sotomayor meets the senators: What they said, what they meant

Ron Fournier, AP’s Washington bureau chief, writes an entertaining interpretation of the political lingo being used in the pre-confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.

Read his piece here.

Politics of personal destruction used to elevate Sotomayor

Opposition research to undermine plaintiff: firefighter Frank Ricci

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s advocates are pulling out all stops in their efforts to have her sail through her upcoming confirmation hearing. As an example, the liberal advocacy group People for the American Way is urging reporters to scrutinize what they called the “troubled and litigious work history” of Frank Ricci, the Connecticut firefighter at the center of Sotomayor’s most controversial ruling.

“To go after so sympathetic a plaintiff as Frank Ricci . . . is a new low in the politics of personal destruction,” said Roger Pilon, the director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Constitutional Studies. “If they were smart, they’d keep a low profile.”

The 35-year-old Ricci was the lead plaintiff in the case Ricci v. DeStefano, challenging New Haven’s refusal to promote white firefighters after black and all but one Hispanic firefighters failed to score high enough on a promotion exam.

Sotomayor and a majority of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the city’s claim that it was justifiably concerned about a potential civil rights suit being filed by the black firefighters.

Last month, however, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 2nd Circuit by a 5-4 vote.

Read the complete McClatchy news report here.

An overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the position that Sonia Sotomayor took on the affirmative action case — with 71 percent favoring the promotion of the white firefightersand the one Hispanic, who scored well on the test. Only 19 percent side with the city — and Sotomayor — in abandoning the test and awarding no promotions.

In addition, a strong public majority — 55 to 36 percent — favors abolishing affirmative action entirely, according to a recent Quinnipiac University poll.

This brief video explains the 20 firefighter’s reverse discrimination lawsuit.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Channeling Margaret Sanger

CNSNews carries an excellent analysis of  this interview to be published in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine.  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is quoted as saying she thought the landmark Roe v. Wade decision on abortion was predicated on the Supreme Court majority’s desire to diminish “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, called those she regarded as inferior, “human weeds,” and advocated for the cessation of charity — referring to “medical and nursing facilities for slum mothers as insidiously injurious,” and urged the sterilization of “genetically inferior races.”

Watch video here.

U.S. Supreme Court reverses high-profile decision by Sonia Sotomayor

In a 5 to 4 vote today, the United States Supreme Court narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who said they were denied promotions because of their race. The decision reverses a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that has come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court. The Washington Post reports.

An overwhelming majority of every ethnic and gender demographic — 71 percent — in a recent poll of Americans oppose the position that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor took on the affirmative action case.

In the case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with the city of New Haven, which threw out the results of a test used to promote firefighters when no blacks achieved a score high enough to merit promotion. Watch this brief video regarding the firefighter’s reverse discrimination suit.

AZ Supreme Court denies relief to Gov. Brewer

The Arizona Supreme Court took jurisdiction but denied relief to the governor, which means the Arizona State Legislature does not have to transmit the bills immediately, but no later than June 30.

From the beginning, House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President Bob Burns have said these bills will be transmitted in this session. The Court will not intervene in the present situation and leadership will continue to work with the Governor to reach consensus on a budget.

The Court Order from the Arizona Supreme Court can be read here. (Courtesy of the AZ House Republicans)

Taking the tax-baby to Solomon

The Arizona Supreme Court is hearing augments this morning resulting from the tax increase skirmish between Republican Governor Jan Brewer and her legislative foes. 

The governor says the tax is temporary and necessary, while the GOP controlled legislature, resistant to the increase, refuses to send her a budget she is sure to veto.

The daily covers the matter here.

Meanwhile Brewer has released a list of “bi-partisan, statewide supporters for her state budget rescue plan.”

Those who support increasing taxes on Arizona’s cash-strapped citizens are listed here.

“Invidious discrimination?”

Breitbart reports, you decide.

Gov. Brewer holds press conference on the AZ Supreme Court North steps

11:00 AM today

The governor follows through on her threat to take her budget issue to the AZ Supreme Court.

 Brewer’s media advisory can be read here.

UPDATE:

Republican Gov. Jan Brewer today made good on her promise and filed a special-action lawsuit asking the state Supreme Court to order GOP legislative leaders to send her the budget bills that were approved on June 4. These are the bills that she intends to veto in the final hours of the session, leaving the legislature with no options as she goes forward with her tax increase.

Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams have said they delayed sending the bills to her in hopes of negotiating a compromise.

The daily reports that the state faces a shortfall of up to $4 billion in the fiscal year beginning July 1. Tax collections have taken a beating with the housing industry’s collapse, rising unemployment and tightened consumer spending.

The 55-page filing names as defendants the full House and Senate, and specifically cites House Speaker Kirk Adams (R-Dist.19), Senate President Bob Burns (R-Dist.9) and Secretary of the Senate Charmion Billington. 

“I feel what I’m doing is right,” Brewer said from the steps of Supreme Court. “It’s right for the people of Arizona.”

Read the Governor’s Request for Expedited Consideration filed today with the Arizona Supreme Court.

Of course it works

From the pages of the daily: The U.S. Supreme Court this month will determine if Arizona has satisfied a federal court order to spend enough money to help English-language learners succeed in school.

But no matter what the court decides in Flores vs. Arizona, one thing is not likely to change: the type of program – a unique, four-hour-a-day English-immersion course – that every English learner from kindergarten to high school must take.

The controversial course has been in place only two years. But some early signs are positive: Many schools report that a record number of students tested proficient in English at the end of this school year and will enter mainstream classes. This was the first year the course was mandated in all districts.

The question is: Why should English immersion programs be either “controversial” or costly? The front and jump page article details the ever-increasing costs of implementing the curriculum.

Immersion was the successful method used by generations of English language learners who arrived on America’s shores and instinctively understood the pathway to success was speaking the language of their chosen country.  No one called it English immersion.  It was simply what happened when children attended school. They learned and succeeded.