Potential Republican Senate candidate Ovide Lamontagne weighs in on the Sotomayer vote. Anyone care to guess how Judd Gregg’s hand-picked successor, Kelly Ayotte would have voted, given that her benefactor cast his vote in the affirmative?
(MANCHESTER) – Ovide Lamontagne, potential candidate for U.S. Senate in New Hampshire, made the following statement today regarding the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Providing “advice and consent” on a nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court is among the most important duties facing a Senator. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life, and they have extraordinary power. Our government is based on the principle of three separate and independent branches of government which serve as checks upon one another. Our Constitution demands this independence, and Americans expect and deserve this independence. I strongly believe that the Constitution requires that the use of that judicial power must be restrained. Put simply, judges apply and interpret the laws duly enacted by our elected representatives; judges must not make the law.
Judge Sotomayor has a truly remarkable life story which every American can admire. The child of Puerto Rican parents who spoke no English upon arriving in New York, she taught herself English and became an outstanding student at both Princeton University and Yale Law School.
Professionally she has continued to succeed and accomplish a great deal, first as a prosecutor and most recently, as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals. There is no doubt that Judge Sotomayor possesses the experience and qualifications to be considered as a Supreme Court nominee.
However, her record as a judge has clearly demonstrated that she does not exercise her judicial power with restraint. Instead, Judge Sotomayor’s rulings – several of which have been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court – reflect her philosophy of judicial activism. I fear that, having been confirmed, she could become one of the Court’s leading judicial activists.
In addition to her track record, Judge Sotomayor’s statements provide additional concerns. In 2005, Judge Sotomayor told an audience at Duke Law School that “The court of appeals is where policy is made.” That statement embodies precisely a philosophy of judicial activism. It is particularly remarkable that she made this statement while serving as a federal appellate judge. Other statements from Judge Sotomayor also raise questions about her ability to be truly impartial, an essential quality in any judge. A Supreme Court Justice must decide cases on the facts as presented, not how they may be viewed through the prism of a life experience, no matter how extraordinary.
As Chief Justice Roberts has said, the proper role of a judge is to interpret the law and act as a referee. The role of a judge is not to legislate from the bench or make policy. I could not vote in favor of a nominee who does not meet the basic tests of a judicial philosophy grounded in restraint, strict construction of the Constitution and a commitment to impartiality under the law. Because Judge Sotomayor, despite her professional accomplishments and uniquely American life story, does not meet those tests, I would have voted against her confirmation.
Ovide M. Lamontagne served as Chairman of the NH State Board of Education from 1993-1996, and in 1996 he was the Republican nominee for governor of New Hampshire. Today, he practices law at Devine, Millimet & Branch, P.A., and is a recognized leader in the charitable and non-profit communities, having been honored in June of this year as New Hampshire’s Distinguished Citizen of the Year by the Daniel Webster Council – Boy Scouts of America.