Polinaut: July 13, 2009 Archive

Daily Digest

Posted at 6:34 AM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (0 Comments)
Filed under: Daily Digest

DC

Minnesota's senators are ready for the Sotomayor confirmation hearings.

Sen. Franken did some weekend prep for the hearings.

Sen. Klobuchar talked to NPR.

Congressman John Kline wants to rethink No Child Left Behind.

Minnesota

Health care for uninsured children is the focus of a rally today at the State Capitol.

State officials will soon release a wish list of construction projects for next year's bonding bill.

Some school districts are considering pay freezes.

The nation's secretaries of state meet this week in Minneapolis.

2010

House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher has hired a campaign manager.

2012

GOP missteps could help Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

Comment on this post

Another Franken profile

Posted at 9:11 AM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (0 Comments)

The July 20, 2009 issue of The New Yorker includes a piece on Sen. Al Franken by John Colapinto.

Comment on this post

Sotomayor hearings on the radio

Posted at 9:19 AM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (1 Comments)

Minnesota Public Radio News is airing live gavel-to-gavel coverage this week of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Comment on this post

Klobuchar's opening statement at Sotomayor confirmation hearing

Posted at 9:32 AM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (0 Comments)

U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) emphasized the importance of real world, frontline experience today during opening remarks for the Supreme Court confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Klobuchar's office sent out a copy of the prepared remarks.

Welcome, Judge Sotomayor.

It's a pleasure to see you again today, and I enjoyed the meeting we had in my office a few weeks ago. We had a good conversation - although you did confess to me that when you once visited Minnesota in June, you felt the need to bring a winter parka. I'll try not to hold that against you this week!

I know you have lots of family and friends with you today, supporting you during this important hearing, and we welcome them too. In particular, it's been an honor for me to see your mom here.
When President Obama first announced your nomination, I loved the story about how your mom had saved up money to buy you and your brother the only set of encyclopedias in the neighborhood. It reminded me of when my parents bought a set of Encyclopedia Britannicas in the seventies that always occupied a hallowed place in our hallway. For me, those encyclopedias were a window on the world and a gateway to learning, as they clearly were for you.

From the time you were nine years old, your mom raised you and your brother on her own. She struggled to buy those encyclopedias on her nurse's salary, but she did it because she believed deeply in the value of education.

You went on to be the valedictorian of your high school class, to graduate at the top of your class in college and to attend law school.

After that - and this is an experience we have in common - you became a local prosecutor. Most of my questions during this hearing will be about opinions you've authored and work you've done in the criminal area. I believe having judges with real world, frontline experience as a prosecutor is a good thing.

When I think about the inspiring journey of your life, I'm reminded of other Supreme Court Justices who came from - and I'll use your own words here, Judge - "very modest and challenging circumstances."

I think about Justice O'Connor, who lived the first years of her life on a ranch in rural Arizona with no running water, no indoor plumbing, and no electricity. By sheer necessity, she learned to mend fences, ride horses, brand cattle, fire a rifle and drive a truck before she turned thirteen.

I also think about Justice Thurgood Marshall, who was the great-grandson of a slave.
His mother was a teacher; while his father worked as a Pullman car waiter before becoming a steward at an all-white country club. Justice Marshall waited tables to help put himself through college, and his mother had to pawn her wedding and engagement rings to pay his entrance fees at Howard University Law School here in Washington.

And then there's Justice Blackmun, who grew up in a St. Paul working-class neighborhood in my home state of Minnesota. He was able to attend Harvard College only because he received a scholarship at the last minute from the Harvard Club of Minnesota. Once there, he worked as a tutor and as a janitor to help pay expenses. Through four years of college and three years of law school, his family never had enough money to bring him home to Minnesota for Christmas.

Each of these very different Justices grew up with their own, very different "challenging circumstances." No one can doubt that, for each one of these Justices, their life experiences shaped the work they did on the Supreme Court.

This should be unremarkable. And, in fact it's completely appropriate. After all, our own Committee demonstrates the value that comes from members who have different backgrounds and perspectives.

For instance, at the same time my accomplished colleague Senator Whitehouse, who was the son of a renowned diplomat, grew up in Laos and Cambodia during the time of the Vietnam War - I was working as a carhop at the A&W Root Beer stand in the suburbs in Minnesota. And while Senator Hatch is a famed gospel music songwriter, Senator Leahy is such a devoted fan of the Grateful Dead that he once had trouble taking a call from the President of the United States because in fact the Chairman was onstage at a Grateful Dead concert.

We've been tremendously blessed on this Committee with the gift of having members with different backgrounds and different experiences - just as different experiences are a gift for any court in this land. So when one of my colleagues questioned whether you, Judge Sotomayor, would be a justice "for all of us, or just for some of us," I couldn't help but remember something that Hubert Humphrey once said: America is "all the richer for the many different and distinctive strands of which it is woven."

Along those lines, Judge Sotomayor, you are only the third woman in history to come before this Committee as a Supreme Court nominee. And as you can see there are currently only two women, my distinguished colleague Senator Feinstein and myself, on this Committee.

So, I think it's worth remembering that when Justice O'Connor graduated from law school, the only offers she got from law firms were for legal secretary positions. Justice O'Connor - who graduated third in her class at Stanford Law School - saw her accomplishments reduced to one question: "Can she type?"

Justice Ginsburg faced similar obstacles. When she entered Harvard Law School, she was one of only nine women in a class of more than 500. One professor actually demanded that she justify why she deserved a seat that could have gone to a man. Later, she was passed over for a prestigious clerkship despite her impressive credentials.

Nonetheless, both of them persevered - and they certainly prevailed. Their undeniable merits triumphed over those who sought to deny them opportunity. The women who came before you to be considered by this Committee helped blaze a trail, and although your record stands on its own, you are also standing on their shoulders - another woman with an opportunity to be a Justice "for all of us." And as Justice Ginsburg's recent comments regarding the strip search of a 13-year-old girl indicate - as well as her dissent in Lilly Ledbetter's equal pay case - being a Justice "for all of us" may mean bringing some real world practical experience into the courthouse.

As we consider your nomination, we know that you are more than the sum of your professional experiences. Still, you bring one of the most wide-ranging legal resumes to this position: local prosecutor, civil litigator, trial judge and appellate judge. Straight out of law school, you went to work as a prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney's Office - and you ended up staying there for five years. When you're a prosecutor, the law ceases to be an abstract subject and becomes all too real. It's not just a dusty book in your basement. You see firsthand, every day, how the law has a very real impact on the lives of real people - whether it's crime victims and their families, or defendants and their families, or the neighborhoods where people live.
It also has a big impact on the individual prosecutor.

No matter how many years may pass, you never forget some of the very difficult cases. For you, Judge, we know this includes the case of a serial burglar-turned-killer (the "Tarzan Murderer").
For me, there will always be the case of Tyesha Edwards, an 11-year-old girl with an unforgettable smile who was at home doing her homework at the kitchen table when she was struck and killed by a stray bullet from a gang shooting out on the street.
As a prosecutor, you don't just have to know the law . . . you have to know people.

So, Judge, I'm interested in talking to you more about what you learned from that job, and how that job shaped your legal career and your approach to judging.

I'm also interested in learning more about your views on some criminal law issues. I want to explore your views on the Fourth Amendment, the meaning of the Confrontation Clause, and sentencing law and policy. I'd like to know in criminal cases as well as civil cases how you would balance the text of statutes and the Constitution with pragmatic considerations based on your real-world experience. It seems to me, in cases like Falso, Santa, and Howard, that you had a keen understanding of the real-world implications of your decisions. I often get concerned that those pragmatic experiences are missing in judicial decision-making, especially when I look at the recent Supreme Court case in which the majority broadly interpreted the Confrontation Clause to include crime lab workers. I agree with the four dissenting Justices that the ruling "has vast potential to disrupt criminal procedures that already give ample protections against the misuse of scientific evidence."

Your old boss, Manhattan District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, called you a "fearless and effective" prosecutor. This is how he put it once in an interview:

"We want people with good judgment, because a lot of the job of a prosecutor is making decisions. . . . I also want to see some signs of humility in anybody that I hire. We're giving young lawyers a lot of power, and we want to make sure that they're going to use that power with good sense and without arrogance."

These are among the very same qualities that I'm looking for in a Supreme Court Justice.
I, too, am looking for a person with good judgment -someone with intellectual curiosity and independence, but who also understands that her judicial decisions affect real people.
With that, I think, comes a second essential quality: Humility.

I'm looking for a Justice who appreciates the awesome responsibility that she will be given, if confirmed. A Justice who understands the gravity of the office and who respects the very different roles that the Constitution provides for each of the three branches of government.
Finally, a good prosecutor knows that her job is to enforce the law without fear or favor. Likewise, a Supreme Court Justice must interpret the laws without fear or favor.

And I believe your background and experiences, including your understanding of law enforcement, will help you to always remember that the cases you hear involve real people - with real problems - looking for real remedies. With excellent judgment and a sense of humility, I believe you can be a Justice "for all of us." Thank you.

Comment on this post

Gaertner hires campaign spokesperson

Posted at 12:29 PM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (1 Comments)

Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner, a DFL candidate for governor, has hired a communications director for her 2010 campaign.

The Gaertner for Governor team announced today the addition of Kate Monson, who served as communications director for the 2008 congressional campaign of Elwyn Tinklenberg in Minnesota's 6th district. Her new duties include campaign spokesperson. Monson is a graduate of St. Olaf College and United Theological Seminary of the Twin Cities.

Comment on this post

Franken's opening statement at Sotomayor hearing

Posted at 1:58 PM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (0 Comments)

Sen. Al Franken was the last member of the judiciary committee to make an opening statement in today's confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Here's a transript provided by Franken's office:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an incredible honor to be here. Less than a week into my term as a United States Senator, my first major responsibility is here, at this historic confirmation hearing.

I am truly humbled to join the Judiciary Committee, which has played, and will continue to play, such an important role in overseeing our nation's system of justice. Chairman Leahy, for several years now I have admired your strength and integrity in leading this Committee. I'm grateful for the warm welcome and consideration you have given me, and I am honored to serve alongside you.

Ranking Member Sessions, I want you to know that I plan to follow the example of my good friend and predecessor, Paul Wellstone, who was willing and ready to partner with his colleagues across the aisle to do the work of the American people. I look forward to working over the years with you and my other Republican colleagues in the Senate to improve the lives of all Americans.

To all the members of this committee, I know that I have a lot to learn from each of you. Like so many private citizens, I have watched at least part of each and every Supreme Court confirmation hearing since they have been televised. And I would note that this is the first confirmation hearing that Senator Kennedy has not attended since 1965. We miss his presence.

These televised hearings have taught Americans a lot about our Constitution - and the role that the courts play in upholding and defending it. I look forward to listening to your questions and to the issues that you and your constituents care about.

To Judge Sotomayor, welcome. For the next few days, I expert to learn from you as well. You are the most experienced nominee to the Supreme Court in 100 years. And after meeting with you in my office last week, I know that aside from being a fine jurist, you are also an exceptional individual. Your story is inspiring and one in which all Americans should take pride.

As most of you know, this is my fifth day in office. That may mean that I am the most junior Senator, but it also means that I am the Senator who has most recently taken the oath of office. Last Tuesday, I swore to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States" and to "bear true faith and allegiance" to it. I take this oath very seriously as we consider Judge Sotomayor's nomination.

I may not be a lawyer, but neither are the overwhelming majority of Americans. Yet all of us, regardless of our backgrounds or professions, have a huge stake in who sits on the Supreme Court and are profoundly affected by its decisions.

I hope to use my time over the next few days to raise issues that concern people in Minnesota and around the country. This hearing will help folks sitting in living rooms and offices in Winona or Duluth or the Twin Cities to get a better idea of what the court is, what it does and what it is supposed to do, and most importantly, how its actions affect the everyday lives of all Americans.

Justice Souter, whom you will replace if you're confirmed, once said: "The first lesson, simple as it is, is that whatever court we're in, whatever we are doing, at the end of our task some human being is going to be affected. Some human life is going to be changed by what we do. And so we had better use every power of our minds and our hearts and our beings to get those rulings right." I believe he had it right.

In the past months, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the court's impact on the lives of Americans and reading and consulting with some of Minnesota's top legal minds. And I believe that the rights of Americans, as citizens and voters, are facing challenges on two separate fronts.

First, I believe the position of Congress with respect to the Courts and the Executive is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believed that the Framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.

I am wary of judicial activism and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to Congress and not make policy by itself.

Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years - and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.

I agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse that we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians talk about what kind of judge they want in the Supreme Court. But it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. Because during the Rhenquist Court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined.

Second, I am concerned that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong:

· It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age, gender, or color.

· It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.

· It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from securities fraud.

· It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet.

· It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote.

· It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.

Yet from what I see, on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend themselves.

As I said before, Judge, I'm here to learn from you. I want to learn what you think is the proper relationship between Congress and the Courts, between Congress and the Executive. I want to learn how you go about weighing the rights of the individual, the small consumer or business-owner, and more powerful interests. And I want to hear your views on judicial restraint and activism in the context of important issues like voting rights, open access to the Internet, and campaign finance reform.

We're going to have a lot of time together, so I'm going to start listening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Comment on this post

Former legislator, ag commissioner dies

Posted at 3:28 PM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (0 Comments)

Former state Rep. Elton Redalen, a southeastern Minnesota dairy farmer who served as agriculture commissioner under Gov. Arne Carlson, has died at age 83. Here's the obituary.

Comment on this post

Bachmann proposes limits on census information

Posted at 3:52 PM on July 13, 2009 by Tim Pugmire (4 Comments)

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has introduced a bill that addresses some of her concerns about census data. Bachmann and Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) want to limit the amount of personal information solicited by the US Census Bureau. Poe's office put out the following news release on the American Community Survey Act:

WASHINGTON, DC - Congressman Ted Poe (TX-02) and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (MN-06) introduced the American Community Survey Act to limit the amount of personal information solicited by the US Census Bureau. The American Community Survey is a mandatory survey from the US Census Bureau sent out yearly to a random sampling of 3 million households. However, the current survey solicits unnecessary personal information. The American Community Survey Act would make the survey voluntary and only require people to answer four questions: a) name; b) contact info; c) date of response; d) number of people living or staying at the same address.

"After learning how intrusive the questions in the Census survey are, I feel that it is important that the Census Bureau stick to counting people and not intrude into the personal lives of the American people," said Congressman Poe. "The primary purpose of the survey is to determine our population, not inquire how much you pay for your utilities, if you have emotional problems or if you had a job last week. This legislation will eliminate these types of irrelevant questions and ensure our right to personal privacy."

"Under the U.S. Constitution, a count of the nation's population is required to be conducted every ten years. This is not only a legitimate purpose, but essential in order to apportion representatives in Congress and direct taxes," said Congresswoman Bachmann. "But throughout the years, additional questions of a more personal nature were added so that the federal government could have more detailed information to make and implement its ever-expanding public policy. A lot of Americans - myself included - have real concerns about the ultimate protection of our sensitive personal information. I am proud to partner with my colleague, Representative Poe, on this important initiative that respects the American people's privacy."

Comment on this post