New Justice on August 8: Our News Scan reported earlier today that Judge Sotomayor has been confirmed 68 to 31. As a follow-up, SCOTUSblog's Kristina Moore has posted that Judge Sotomayor will be sworn in by Chief Justice Roberts this Saturday, August 8. The formal investiture ceremony will take place one month later, on Tuesday, September 8 at a special sitting of the Court in the courtroom. Tony Mauro, at Blog of Legal Times, also reports on Sotomayor's swear-in ceremony on Saturday. He writes that the ceremony at the Court "represents something of a concession to the wishes of justices who have
complained that the oath-taking has become an inappropriately political
event."
Judge Sotomayor's "Use" of Foreign Law: At The Ninth Justice, Stuart Taylor Jr. discusses soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor's position on how much weight foreign law should be given when interpreting the United States Constitution. During Committee testimony, Judge Sotomayor said "I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution." When asked to clarify what she meant by "use" in post-testimony, off-camera answers, she responded, "My answer was based on my own understanding of what it means for a court to 'use' foreign law to decide a case. In my view, American courts should not rely on decisions of foreign courts as binding or controlling precedent...." Taylor compares her response to a pitcher who promises not to "use" knuckleballs to win a game, "when all he means is that he won't rely exclusively on knuckleballs, but rather will throw some fastballs and curveballs too." In her own words, Sotomayor has said she has no objection to using foreign law "as a source of ideas" to "inform[] our understanding of our own constitutional rights." Taylor writes that she has "cited with approval" Roper v. Simmons, a case that relied on foreign law when it forbid imposition of a death sentence on those under 18. She has also endorsed Justice Ginsburg's view, "that, unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world." He worries that "the Ginsburg-Sotomayor advocacy of citing foreign precedents to avoid losing influence in the world ... comes perilously close to suggesting the Court should act to alleviate the embarrassment of some justices and judges -- especially when they attend glittering international conferences...."
Speaking of Foreign Law... Doug Berman has a post on Japan's new jury sentencing system on Sentencing Law and Policy. The new system, reported on by the BBC News, allows six men and women working with three judges to convict and sentence criminal defendants. The system, tested in the country's first jury trial in more than 60 years, resulted with a man in his 70s being sentenced to 15 years in prison. This was one year less than the prosecution asked for because the stabbing was premeditated. Under the new policy, the jurors "must have the agreement of at least one of three professional judges for their decision to stand." Berman appears to like Japan's reliance on juror involvement during sentencing. He writes, "the Apprendi-Blakely line of cases justify greater jury involvement in both capital and noncapital sentencing proceedings." Heavy juror involvement in sentencing might be easier to implement in Japan than in the United States, since Japan has a 99% conviction rate.
Judge Sotomayor's "Use" of Foreign Law: At The Ninth Justice, Stuart Taylor Jr. discusses soon-to-be Justice Sotomayor's position on how much weight foreign law should be given when interpreting the United States Constitution. During Committee testimony, Judge Sotomayor said "I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution." When asked to clarify what she meant by "use" in post-testimony, off-camera answers, she responded, "My answer was based on my own understanding of what it means for a court to 'use' foreign law to decide a case. In my view, American courts should not rely on decisions of foreign courts as binding or controlling precedent...." Taylor compares her response to a pitcher who promises not to "use" knuckleballs to win a game, "when all he means is that he won't rely exclusively on knuckleballs, but rather will throw some fastballs and curveballs too." In her own words, Sotomayor has said she has no objection to using foreign law "as a source of ideas" to "inform[] our understanding of our own constitutional rights." Taylor writes that she has "cited with approval" Roper v. Simmons, a case that relied on foreign law when it forbid imposition of a death sentence on those under 18. She has also endorsed Justice Ginsburg's view, "that, unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world." He worries that "the Ginsburg-Sotomayor advocacy of citing foreign precedents to avoid losing influence in the world ... comes perilously close to suggesting the Court should act to alleviate the embarrassment of some justices and judges -- especially when they attend glittering international conferences...."
Speaking of Foreign Law... Doug Berman has a post on Japan's new jury sentencing system on Sentencing Law and Policy. The new system, reported on by the BBC News, allows six men and women working with three judges to convict and sentence criminal defendants. The system, tested in the country's first jury trial in more than 60 years, resulted with a man in his 70s being sentenced to 15 years in prison. This was one year less than the prosecution asked for because the stabbing was premeditated. Under the new policy, the jurors "must have the agreement of at least one of three professional judges for their decision to stand." Berman appears to like Japan's reliance on juror involvement during sentencing. He writes, "the Apprendi-Blakely line of cases justify greater jury involvement in both capital and noncapital sentencing proceedings." Heavy juror involvement in sentencing might be easier to implement in Japan than in the United States, since Japan has a 99% conviction rate.
Leave a comment