{"id":198,"date":"2009-07-14T13:32:54","date_gmt":"2009-07-14T13:32:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html"},"modified":"2009-07-14T13:32:54","modified_gmt":"2009-07-14T13:32:54","slug":"sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html","title":{"rendered":"Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, you call it ‘ideological bloviation’ – I call it raising serious questions about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy.<\/font><\/p>\n

There are valid issues that need to be addressed:  <\/span>It’s my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly examines Judge Sotomayor’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law; her ability to separate her personal experiences from her role as a judge; her understanding of the role of a judge as compared to that of a legislating body; her views on foreign law; her views on important constitutional protections, and whether or not she agrees with President Obama’s “empathy standard.”  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

Judge Sotomayor<\/a> provided just a glimpse of where she might stand on these issues.  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

In her opening statement she declared that her judicial philosophy was “fidelity to the law.”  <\/span>She also explained that she structures her opinions “by setting out what the law requires and then by explaining why a contrary position, sympathetic or not, is accepted or rejected.”  <\/span>I look forward to Judge Sotomayor explaining when and why she would reject “what the law requires.”<\/font><\/p>\n

And, Barry, it won’t take questions from the gallery to illustrate key areas of the law – including legalized abortion.  <\/span>In questioning today <\/a>before the Committee, <\/font>Sotomayor said she considers the question of abortion rights to be ‘settled law’ and says there’s a constitutional right to privacy.  <\/span>Sotomayor told the Senators that “there is a right of privacy. The court has found it in various places in the Constitution.” She said this right is stated in the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure and in the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law. <\/font><\/p>\n

I believe Judge Sotomayor will be treated with respect during these hearings. At the same time, though, she will have to address troubling statements and comments she has made.  <\/span>And, there will be – and should be – serious questions about judicial activism – and what she considers to be the proper role of a judge. <\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/font><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry, you call it ‘ideological bloviation’ – I call it raising serious questions about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy. There are valid issues that need to be addressed:  It’s my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly examines Judge Sotomayor’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law; her ability to separate her personal experiences…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-198","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congress","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSotomayor Scrutiny Warranted - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, you call it ‘ideological bloviation’ – I call it raising serious questions about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy. There are valid issues that need to be addressed:  It’s my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly examines Judge Sotomayor’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law; her ability to separate her personal experiences…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-14T13:32:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, you call it ‘ideological bloviation’ – I call it raising serious questions about Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy. There are valid issues that need to be addressed:  It’s my hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee thoroughly examines Judge Sotomayor’s commitment to impartiality and the rule of law; her ability to separate her personal experiences…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-07-14T13:32:54+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html","name":"Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-14T13:32:54+00:00","dateModified":"2009-07-14T13:32:54+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/sotomayor-scrutiny-warranted.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Sotomayor Scrutiny Warranted"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=198"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/198\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=198"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=198"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=198"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}