Is Sotomayor, a Tough on Crime Nominee, Becoming a Defendant's Rights Justice?

[BridgeTheGap]

During Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, Senate advocates and the Obama administration depicted her as a judicial moderate, balancing her liberal record on equal protection cases against her more traditional career path as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, trial judge and appellate judge. Sen. Patrick Leahy, Democratic chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, proudly told Sotomayor that she had "heard appeals in over 800 criminal cases. You affirmed 98 percent of the convictions for violent crimes, including terrorism cases. Ninety-nine percent of the time at least one of the Republican-appointed judges on the panel agreed with you." At the hearings, she also drew support from what the American Prospect called a "tough on crime crew." There was even an academic basis to the profile: a study of her record as a trial judge by Syracuse University released after her nomination found that Sotomayor was harsher than her fellow judges, sentencing convicts to longer terms, on average, than her colleagues in the Southern District of New York.
But during her eight months on the Supreme Court, the "tough on crime nominee" has generally sided with the court's so-called liberal wing. A Truthout review of the 20 criminal cases decided so far this term reveals that Sotomayor has voted in favor of criminal defendants in more cases than Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though not as often as Justice John Paul Stevens.
The track record is admittedly short, and the term's most important criminal law cases have yet to be decided. Of the five law professors consulted for this article - all experts in constitutional and criminal law - all agreed that it was too early to make any firm predictions or observations about the new justice.
There were some tentative conclusions. Jesse Choper, former Dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law and a longtime observer of the court, is "not at all surprised" that Sotomayor has been "pretty much on the liberal side in terms of law enforcement." Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, had a similar observation. "I honestly think it is too early to draw any overall conclusions about Sotomayor's voting behavior in criminal cases," he said in an email to Truthout, but added, "Overall, she has been much like was predicted: very similar to Souter ideologically and a part of the 'liberal' bloc on the court." It can take years before a member of the nation's highest court fits comfortably in her role.
http://www.truthout.org/is-sotomayor-becoming-a-defendants-rights-justice58384

[cascadiance]

1. Personally I think we should campaign for Chemerinsky for Obama's next pick!

I think as a constitutional scholar that would reject corporate personhood, he'd be just what the doctor ordered. Damn the Republicans if they want to fillibuster him. Just nuke them back if they try!

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/nike/public_interest_briefs.html

U.S. Representatives Dennis Kucinich, Corrine Brown, Bob Filner and Bernard Sanders
Brief written by University of Southern California Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky and Loyola Law School professor Catherine Fisk

Summary: False factual statements intended to sell products are commercial speech and not protected by the First Amendment. Nike was speaking not to influence a political debate, but to sell its products. If accepted, Nike's claims would endanger a vast array of consumer protection laws: cosmetics companies could lie about whether they do animal testing; tuna companies could lie about whether they catch tuna in a dolphin safe way; manufacturers could lie about whether their products were made by union labor or in the USA.

[Grand Taurean]

2. She is not really a "tough on crime".

She usually respects the law, even if it is wrong.