Specter Questions Sotomayor On 9/11 Suit

Specter questions Sotomayor on 9/11 lawsuit

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/world...1_lawsuit.html

By Chris Mondics
Inquirer Staff Writer

Sen. Arlen Specter suggested during Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing yesterday that the Obama administration sought to block Supreme Court review of lawsuits blaming Saudi Arabia for the Sept. 11 attacks for fear of offending an important ally.

The remark came as the Pennsylvania Democrat questioned Sotomayor on whether the Supreme Court, by deciding ever fewer cases, had effectively ducked important constitutional questions left unresolved by lower courts.

In a July 7 letter to Sotomayor, Specter also raised the issue of Saudi involvement in the attacks, asserting that "plaintiffs' counsel had developed considerable evidence showing Saudi complicity."

Law firms representing thousands of victims of the 9/11 attacks and their families, along with insurers and other interests that suffered economic losses, sued the government of Saudi Arabia and senior members of its royal family, alleging that they financed Islamic charities that, in turn, bankrolled al-Qaeda.

On June 29, the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of lower-court rulings that the Saudi government and members of its royal family cannot be sued under U.S. law for allegedly supporting terrorism. Shortly before that ruling, the Obama administration filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to reject the case, in part because the administration had not given its sign-off.

The Center City law firm Cozen O'Connor represents most of the insurers in the case and led the Supreme Court appeal. The South Carolina-based firm Motley Rice represents thousands of 9/11 victims and their families.

At yesterday's hearing, Specter said: "There was a case in which the Supreme Court denied certiorari just a couple of weeks ago involving claims for damages brought by survivors of victims of Sept. 11 against certain individuals in Saudi Arabia. The executive branch interposed objections to having that case decided because of the sensitivity of matters with Saudi Arabia.

"Don't you think that this is the kind of case the Supreme Court should have heard?"

Sotomayor deflected the question, saying she had not been part of the Supreme Court discussion and thus could not make a judgment.

Sotomayor hearings: Sen. Feingold asks about Bush administration's post-9/11 security policies

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/wash...-policies.html

7/17/2009

Judge Sonia Sotomayor complimented Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold when he told her that Americans would like to be able to “watch you in the comfort of their own living rooms for years to come.”

“You were a very good lawyer, weren’t you, Senator?” she replied.

Feingold engaged Sotomayor in a discussion about 9/11 and whether she agreed with him that “the events of that day … were sometimes used to justify policies that depart so far from what America stands for.” He said he was asking her a question that he asked now-Chief Justice John Roberts during his Senate hearing: “Did that day change your view of civil rights and liberties and how they can be protected?”

This gave Sotomayor the opportunity to talk about where she was on that dreadful day and her belief in the enduring strength of the Constitution:

“Sept. 11 was a horrific tragedy. I was in New York. My home is close to the World Trade Center. ... My neighborhood was used as a staging area for rescue trucks. The consequences of that great tragedy are the subject of continuing discussion among, not just senators, but the whole nation. In the end, the Constitution by its terms, protects certain individual rights.

That protection is often fact specific – many of its terms are very broad – so what is an unreasonable search and seizure? But, in answer to your specific question, did it change my view of the Constitution? No sir. The Constitution is a timeless document, it was intended to guide us through decades, generation after generation. ... It has protected us as a nation. It has inspired our survival. That doesn’t change.”

But, asked Feingold, are there any element’s of “our government’s response to 9/11 that you think our nation will look back at with regret?”

Nice try, Senator.

“I am a historian by undergraduate training,” she replied. “I also love history books. It’s amazing how difficult it is to make judgments about one’s current position. That’s because history permits us to look back and examine the actual consequences that have arisen, and then judgments are made. “

She would not give her opinion of recent cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down Bush-era policies about imprisonment of suspected terrorists.

“Is it fair to say,” asked Feingold, “that at least with respect to the Supreme Court, mistakes were made?”

A grin crossed her face.

“I smiled,” said Sotmayor, “only because that’s not the way judges look at that issue. We don’t decide whether mistakes were made. We look at whether action was consistent with Constitutional or statutory limitations.”

“And in each of those cases, there was a problem, right?” he asked.

“Yes,” Sotomayor replied.