{"id":200,"date":"2009-07-17T16:30:00","date_gmt":"2009-07-17T16:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html"},"modified":"2009-07-17T16:30:00","modified_gmt":"2009-07-17T16:30:00","slug":"which-sotomayor-will-we-get","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html","title":{"rendered":"Which Sotomayor Will We Get?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry, let me answer your questions.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

First, Judge Sotomayor’s answer that Roe v. Wade<\/i> is “settled law” is not necessarily “a bad thing” if she is explaining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.  <\/span>Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that Roe<\/i> “is settled as a precedent of the Court.”  <\/span>Justices, when reviewing any case, must consider the principles of stare decisis<\/i>, and nominees to the Supreme Court should show a respect for stare decisis<\/i>.  <\/span>However, the Supreme Court does revisit (and reverse) its own “settled law” decisions–look at Lawrence v. Texas<\/i>, a 2003 decision that overturned the “settled law” from the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick<\/i> case upholding state sodomy laws.  <\/span>What’s important to know is when a Supreme Court justice will be willing to revisit precedent.  <\/span>Consider Judge Sotomayor’s views on the subject.  <\/span>In response to questioning <\/a>from Senator Cornyn, Judge Sotomayor said that due to “evolving social changes” and Congress passing new laws, “whatever was viewed as settled law previously will often get changed because Congress has changed something.” <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font>She further explained that “society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts,” and she noted that<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/p>\n

“There are new directions in the law in terms of the court. The court — Supreme Court is often looking at its precedents and considering whether, in certain circumstances whose precedent is owed deference for very important reasons, but the court takes a new direction. And those new directions rarely, if ever, come at the initiation of the court. They come because lawyers are encouraging the court to look at a situation in a new way, to consider it in a different way.”<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Despite these statements, Judge Sotomayor<\/a>, about an hour later that day, refused to directly answer a question for Senator Coburn, a medical doctor, as to whether advancements in technology with respect to viability of a fetus should have any “bearing as we look at the law.”  <\/span><\/font><\/font><\/font>Her answers appear inconsistent to me.  <\/span>She appears willing to revisit some “settled law,” but not necessarily Roe<\/i>.<\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Second, I am not “fearful” of empathy as a human emotion; however, I am wary of judges who use empathy to decide cases.  <\/span>Cases should be decided based on the law and the facts, not on the feelings or personal experiences of the judge.<\/font><\/font><\/font>  <\/span>Judge Sotomayor agrees<\/a>, or so she said at her hearing. <\/font><\/font><\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I remain concerned about the obvious contradiction between Judge Sotomayor’s speeches and her statements at the hearing.  <\/span>I don’t know which Judge Sotomayor we will get on the Supreme Court if she is confirmed. As observed by Senators on the Committee, Judge Sotomayor’s testimony sounded a lot like Chief Justice Roberts, the opposite of her writings and speeches. <\/font><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Third and finally, I agree that Senators should have questioned Judge Sotomayor on other issues, including religious liberties.  <\/span>I said as much in the letter the ACLJ submitted to the Judiciary Committee before the hearing began.<\/font><\/p>\n

<\/font> <\/p>\n

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

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

Barry, let me answer your questions.   First, Judge Sotomayor’s answer that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” is not necessarily “a bad thing” if she is explaining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.  Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that Roe “is settled as a precedent of the Court.”  Justices, when reviewing any case,…<\/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-200","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-congress","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nWhich Sotomayor Will We Get? - 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\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Which Sotomayor Will We Get? - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry, let me answer your questions.   First, Judge Sotomayor’s answer that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” is not necessarily “a bad thing” if she is explaining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.  Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that Roe “is settled as a precedent of the Court.”  Justices, when reviewing any case,…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-07-17T16:30:00+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":"Which Sotomayor Will We Get? - 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\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Which Sotomayor Will We Get? - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry, let me answer your questions.   First, Judge Sotomayor’s answer that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” is not necessarily “a bad thing” if she is explaining the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence.  Chief Justice Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, acknowledged that Roe “is settled as a precedent of the Court.”  Justices, when reviewing any case,…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2009-07-17T16:30:00+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\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html","name":"Which Sotomayor Will We Get? - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-07-17T16:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2009-07-17T16:30:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2009\/07\/which-sotomayor-will-we-get.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Which Sotomayor Will We Get?"}]},{"@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\/200","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=200"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/200\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=200"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=200"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=200"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}