Yesterday, at the second day of hearings on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, religion, religious freedom and church-state issues received little attention either in questions posed to the nominee or in her answers. Don Byrd, who has been blogging live from the hearings, identifies three exchanges relating to religious issues. The full hearing transcripts are available via the Washington Post. Here are the relevant exchanges:
In questioning Sotomayor about her views on the Second Amendment, Sen. Orin Hatch asked: "OK. As I noted, the Supreme Court puts the Second Amendment in the same category as the First and the Fourth Amendments as pre-existing rights that the Constitution merely codified. Now, do you believe that the First Amendment rights, such as the right to freely exercise religion, the freedom of speech, or the freedom of the press, are fundamental rights?" To which Sotomayor replied: "Those rights have been incorporated against the states. The states must comply with them."
Sen. Lindsey Graham, expressing his concern about expansive interpretations of the Constitution said: "And that gets us to the speeches. That broad provision of the Constitution that's taken us from no written prohibition protecting the unborn, no written statement that you can't voluntarily pray in school, and on and on and on and on, and that's what drives us here, quite frankly.... [A] lot of us are concerned from the left and the right that unelected judges are very quick to change society in a way that's disturbing...."
Sen Diane Feinstein, asking about the overruling of precedent, referred to the Hein case that denied a taxpayer standing to challenge spending by President Bush's faith-based office. She said: "In a rare rebuke of his colleagues, Justice Scalia has sharply criticized Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito for effectively overruling the court's precedents without acknowledging that they were doing so. Scalia wrote in the Hein case ... 'Overruling prior precedent is a serious undertaking, and I understand the impulse to take a minimalist approach. But laying just claim to be honoring stare decisis requires more than beating a prior precedent to a pulp and then sending it out to the lower courts weakened, denigrated, more incomprehensible than ever, and yet somehow technically alive....'"
(See prior related posting.)
