Rick Klein is ABC News' Senior Political Reporter and author of The Note's morning look at the upcoming day in politics. Throughout the day, ABC News' political team contributes to The Note with the very latest news and analysis from the nation's capital.
To email Rick Klein, click here.
RECENT POSTS
- RNC's Communications Chief Resigns
- A Better Palin Than Tina Fey?
- ‘Top Line’ -- ‘America’s Next Great Pundit’
- ‘Top Line’ at the Movies: ‘Outside the Law: Stories from Guantanamo’
- Mass. GOP Gov’s Candidate Chooses Openly Gay Running Mate
- Workplace Diversity: Lines in Sand Make Mess for Dems
- The Note's Must-Reads for Monday, November 23, 2009
- AARP Endorses Cloture Vote, Not Yet Reid's Bill
- McCain Targets Ben Nelson on Health Care Vote
- 'Top Line' -- Ambassador Oprah? Senator Oprah?
THE NOTE CATEGORIES
- 2010
- Afghanistan
- Bill Clinton
- CIA
- Congress
- Democratic party
- Environment
- Financial Reform
- GOP
- Gov. Mark Sanford
- Gov. Sarah Palin
- Guantanamo
- Health Care
- Hillary Clinton
- Immigration
- Iran
- Iraq
- John McCain
- Mitt Romney
- North Korea
- Obama Agenda
- Politics Live
- President Obama
- Republican Party
- Ronald Reagan
- Sen. John Ensign
- Senate
- Sonia Sotomayor
- Stimulus
- Sunday Shows
- Supreme Court
- Ted Kennedy
- The Note
- The Note Must-Reads
- Top Line
- Vice President Biden
- Virginia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
GOP Sen. Cornyn: ‘The Two Sonia Sotomayors’; Judge is ‘Steady but Confusing’
July 16, 2009 2:55 PM
ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: With Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee wrapping up today, Republican senators are settling on a final strategy on approaching a nominee who seems certain to be approved -- while trying to set the terms for the next debate.
On ABCNews.com’s “Top Line” today, a member of the committee, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, expressed frustration with what he sees as a disconnect between speeches Sotomayor has given, and her performance this week under questioning by senators.
“I think she’s been very steady but confusing in her testimony,” Cornyn told us.
“I think the biggest conundrum that I have, and I think other members have, is how do you reconcile the two Sonia Sotomayors. The one that’s been on the federal bench for 17 years and been pretty much in the mainstream -- although, she’s made decisions I disagree with, but that happens to every judge? Or is she the Sonia Sotomayor reflected in her speeches, which are pretty radical, and which she’s had a hard time I think explaining during the course of the hearings?”
Cornyn, a former member of the state supreme court in Texas, said he’s still undecided, though he didn’t sound like he’s ready to support Sotomayor.
“Does she have the burden of proof? I would say yes. Has she met that burden of proof? I don’t yet believe that she has,” he said. “But I’m trying to keep an open mind at least through the time the hearing ends, and then I’ll make a decision.”
“I think she’s been pretty vague when it comes to -- what’s the difference between making law and interpreting the law,” Cornyn continued. “I tried to get her to find that but ultimately it sounds like it’s a distinction without any difference. And I’m not sure we know a whole lot about how she would acquit herself if she was confirmed.”
With Sotomayor on track for confirmation, Republicans have cast the hearings as “teachable moment,” to inform the public about what’s at stake -- and, potentially, to influence the hearings and selection process surrounding the next Supreme Court vacancy.
“This is I think an opportunity for the American people to refresh their memory on what kind of decisions, why it makes a difference which kind of judges are selected,” Cornyn said. “Whether judges respect the limits that should be imposed on judges because they’re not policy-makers, not law-makers.”
“In other words, I think elections do present choices, and I think this is one of the most consequential choices that those elections dictate. But I do think it’s important that whether it’s the right to keep and bear arms, whether it’s the right to participate in the political process, whether it’s private property rights, whether it’s the equal justice under the law; these are very fundamental, very important concepts and I think maybe, just maybe this has been a little bit of a refresher course for a lot of people about important subjects they haven’t thought about for a long time.”
Click HERE to see the full interview with Sen. John Cornyn.
Also today, we spoke with Politico’s Jonathan Martin about the White House’s lobbying push on health care -- and former Gov. Mitt Romney’s emerging status as the (very, very early) GOP frontrunner for 2012.
Click HERE to see the interview with Jonathan Martin.
July 16, 2009 in Top Line | Permalink | Share | User Comments (7)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Same could be said for Pres. "I will
not raise taxes" Obama. But he is steady
in that he will do whatever Goldman
Sachs tells him to.
Posted by: Trajan | Jul 16, 2009 3:25:59 PM
Sotomayor will be confirmed, the GOP won't filibuster, and the president will win a resounding and important victory over the opposition.
Posted by: matt | Jul 16, 2009 4:08:00 PM
the problem is that the media, and even the Republicans, seems to be focusing only on the LAST part of her famous statement and value: "wise Latina". The hearings should be focusing on her self-proclaimed "wisdom", not that she is a "latina"! But all Obama, and the media, seem to be pointing out is that she is a "latina". Like that is the most important criteria! If I were her I would be outraged that my ethnicity (since "latina" is not a race) is the number1 qualification. But who knows, she will be approved because most politicians don't want to offend "latinas" and are looking forward to having the millions of illegals as voters once Obama grants them amnesty.
Posted by: Ed | Jul 16, 2009 4:16:26 PM
Just really wanted to know, under the different branches of Latinos, which Mrs. Sotomayor it is a New Yorican, which one it is Mrs. Chavez? That will maybe give the answer of why she talked today with much anger and empty or what I would call envy.
Great for those two firemen, but can someone answer, Why do they have to always show it up when the 911 call have nothing to do with fire? Why call a here to someone that it is just doing the job he applied for and it's getting paid to do?
Good for them that they have better faith in the Justice dept. which I don't, and adding to that the word Justice should be removed from their building until we really get serve it with justice, if not come to Los Angeles California, and check on some of those judges on the Santa Monica branch and their clerks, which still governing base on the ethnic status of citicens, and the abuse of power, alsways overlooking and forgetting that their sit it is being appointed to them and they could be replaced anytime.
Those any intelectual person have an intelectual answer to my questions??
Thank you / Gracias / Merci
Posted by: Mr. Latino | Jul 16, 2009 4:30:30 PM
corrections
where said here on the firemen comments, should read hero...
Posted by: Mr. Latino | Jul 16, 2009 4:34:53 PM
For the panelist that made the remarks that at Sotomayor early beginnings used the words North America, well, get back to school and get strong on the history issues and not on books wrote by white extremist... THE REAL NAME OF THIS COUNTRY IS THE UNITED STATES OF NORTH AMERICA , THIS COUNTRY WAS NEVER NAMED
A M E R I C A , IT IS VERY PRETENTIOUS EVERY TIME SOMEONE OPEN THE MOUTH HERE AND CALL THIS AMERICA,,, IT IS TIME TO START GETTING WELL INFORMED AND WHEN YOU DO NO HAVE THE FACTS ON HAND, BETTER SHUT OFF YOUR MOUTHS AND SAVE US FOR THE STUPIDITIES THAT CAN COME FROM IT.
Posted by: Mr. Latino | Jul 16, 2009 6:59:33 PM
No Sen. Cornyn, you kept attempting to get her to comment on pending cases, which you KNOW she can't do! You attempt to make her out to sound vague when those are the questions your asking her. The Repubs spent more time attempting to identify her with her personal life than her 17 years of work on the bench. Out of 500 speech's they concentrate on 2 and attempt to make one statement taken out of context her judicial philosophy. She also has decided over 3000 cases, but they spend half the hearing on one. The one that white males were ruled against. Why no outrage for the Black Correctional Officers she ruled against? Thank you Republican Senators, your hypocrisy, sexism (Lindsey Graham) how dare you scold anyone on temperament when it's ok for McCain and Scalia to ride roughshod over people, was on display for all the world to see!
Posted by: Try the truth | Jul 17, 2009 8:07:55 AM
Post a comment
POLITICAL VIDEOS
THE NOTE BLOG ROLL
- ABC News -- George Stephanopoulos
- ABC News -- Jake Tapper
- ABC News Politics
- ABC News -- The Numbers
- ABC News -- The Blotter
- The American Prospect -- TAPPED
- The Atlantic -- Politics Channel
- The Boston Globe -- Political Intelligence
- Center for American Progress -- Think Progress
- Center for Responsive Politics
- The Chicago Sun-Times -- Lynn Sweet
- The Chicago Tribune -- The Swamp
- Drudge Report
- FactCheck.org
- FiveThirtyEight
- Heritage Foundation -- The Foundry
- The Hill -- Briefing Room
- The Hotline
- The Huffington Post
- The Los Angeles Times -- Top of the Ticket
- NPR -- Political Junkie
- National Review -- The Corner
- The New Republic -- The Plank
- The New York Times -- The Caucus
- Newsweek -- The Gaggle
- Political Wire -- Taegan Goddard
- Politico -- Ben Smith
- Politico -- Mike Allen’s Playbook
- PolitiFact
- Real Clear Politics
- Talking Points Memo
- Time -- The Page
- USA Today -- On Politics
- Variety -- Wilshire & Washington
- The Wall Street Journal -- Capital Journal
- The Washington Post -- The Fix
- The Washington Post -- 44
