Instead of just asking his own questions of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked her some on Thursday that Utahns suggested.
"I invited constituents in Utah to send their questions, and got an overwhelming response," he said. But he asked only two of them. One was about whether the role of judges is to correct social injustice, and the other was whether the Constitution is more important than more recent court opinions.
Hatch said one Utahn asked "whether you see the courts, especially the Supreme Court, as an institution to resolving perceived social injustices, inequities and disadvantages?" (Hatch added, "I thought it was an interesting question.")
"No, that's not the role of the courts," Sotomayor said.
"The role of the courts is to interpret the law as Congress writes it," she said, adding that may incidentally have the outcome of fixing social injustice. "But it's not the role of the judge to create that outcome. It's to interpret what Congress is doing, and do what Congress wants."
Hatch said, "Another constituent asked, 'Which is more important or deserves more weight: the Constitution as it was originally intended, or newer legal precedent?'" (Hatch added, "That's a good question.") ...
Hatch added that many of the questions Utahns submitted were about gun rights, but such questions had already been asked (without Sotomayor revealing much about her views).
Senator Hatch wants to give an opportunity to participate in the U.S. Senate's confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court by submitting a question for Judge Sotomayor.
Senator Hatch explains:
I would like to give you the opportunity to participate in Judge Sotomayor's hearings this week by emailing me any questions you would like to see asked at the hearing. Although I cannot guarantee your question will be asked, I will certainly review the questions you submit and see if there is an opportunity to use them during the course of the hearings.
Senator Hatch gave his opening statement on the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor this morning. His full statement follows:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is the twelfth hearing for a Supreme Court nominee in which I have participated, and I am as struck today as I was the first time by the seriousness of our responsibility and its impact on America.
The first measure requires the Department of Homeland Security's to complete construction of pedestrian border fencing along the entire southwestern border.
Hatch commented:
I think everyone in America knows that we have a problem with the security on our borders. I've said for a long time that, when it comes to fixing our immigration system, border security has to be our first priority. Building a border fence that actually works will be a huge step forward in this effort.
The other immigration enforcement legislation Hatch helped pass permanently authorized the E-Verify program that allows employers to electronically verify the immigration status of employees. Without this legislation, the E-Verify program was set to expire on September 30th. In addition to extending the program, government contractors will not be required to use the E-Verify program to check the employment status of employees working on government contracts -- ensuring that taxpayer money is not used to employ illegal immigrants.
Hatch commented further:
E-Verify has proven to be a valuable tool to help businesses comply with the law. The Democrats have been very reluctant to extend this program longer than a few months at a time. Yet none of them wanted to go on the record in opposition to the program today, because I think they all see how important this program is in helping businesses ensure that they are in compliance with the law and that their workers are legally eligible to work in the United States. This amendment ensures that we won't face the same eleventh-hour dilemmas that we've had to deal with on this program in the past. I have consistently supported this program and have worked to make sure that it remains available, so I am thrilled that this amendment will accomplish that goal.
President Obama and Democrats in Congress promise that their health care plan will allow you to keep your current health coverage if you want to, but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says that's not true:
Q: How many Americans will lose their current health coverage under the President's health care plan?
A: President Obama's health care plan will cause 22 million Americans to lose their choice of health coverage.
Senator Orrin Hatch speaks out against adopting a government-run health care plan through a so-called "public option."
The end result would be a federal government takeover of our health care system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.
At a time when the president is working with congressional Democrats to quickly cram an ultra-costly health care plan through the Senate HELP Committee, followed by a similar approach in the Senate Finance Committee, we were all stunned today to learn from the CBO that the bill will cause more than 22 million Americans to lose their current health coverage. This proposal flies in the face of the president's pledge to American families that they could keep the health care coverage of their choice. The CBO estimate shows that the Democratic proposal will decrease the number of uninsured by about 16 million at a cost of 1 trillion dollars over the first 10 years, or $62,500 per uninsured.
It should be noted that the CBO's estimate does not reflect the final cost of the President's bill -- since it does not take into account the cost of a massive expansion of Medicaid, a new government-run plan nor a job-killing employer mandate -- however the costs are only expected to increase!
Right now, when banks pay back TARP funds there's no requirement that the funds be used to pay down the national debt. Without that restriction, Treasury department can reuse that money over-and-over again -- meaning that instead of being an emergency program, TARP could become a perpetual program.
That's why Senator Hatch, along with Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln, introduced a bill yesterday to close the loophole by requiring that when TARP funds are repaid they are used to pay down the national debt.
Senator Hatch comments:
TARP has become a revolving slush fund for the Obama administration to nationalize our nation's private sector by using taxpayer money to acquire banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers. When TARP was signed into law last fall, it was authorized to purchase $700 billion in toxic or troubled assets from financial institutions to restore liquidity to the system. Unfortunately, it is now being misused as a go-to solution to address all of our nation's economic ills. That must not be allowed to continue.
This money belongs to the American people, not to the Obama administration to further its far left agenda. Taxpayers have been told to foot the bill for rescuing the financial sector, but now they are being forced to bail out any company this administration deems fit. It is time for Congress to ensure that TARP is used for its intended purpose and to require any money repaid to the Treasury Department be returned to the general fund.
Ten large banks have recently the Treasury Department's approval to repay $68 billion under TARP. It is time to restrict Treasury's access to these funds, thereby ensuring that the taxpayers' investment is protected.
At a time when major government programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already on a path to fiscal insolvency, creating a brand new government program will not only worsen our long term financial outlook but also negatively impact American families who enjoy the private coverage of their choice. A recent Milliman study estimated that the cost-shifting from government payers (specifically Medicare and Medicaid) costs families with private insurance nearly $1800 more per year.
Furthermore, actuaries at the Lewin Group have concluded that such a plan open to all, and offering Medicare-level reimbursement rates, would result in 119.1 million Americans losing their private coverage. This would run contrary to your pledge to the American families about allowing them to keep the coverage of their choice.
Washington-run programs undermine market-based competition through their ability to impose price controls and shift costs to other purchasers. Forcing free market plans to compete with these government-run programs would create an unlevel playing field and inevitably doom true competition. In his March, 2009 testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Doug Elmendorf, the director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, testified that it would be "extremely difficult" to create "a system where a public plan could compete on a level playing field" against private coverage. The end result would be a federal government takeover of our healthcare system, taking decisions out of the hands of doctors and patients and placing them in the hands of a Washington bureaucracy.
