At Sotomayor Hearings, Sen. Cornyn Uses the Game of Golf to Make a Point—Wrongly
Jul 13th, 2009 | 10 responses
My U.S. Senator, John Cornyn, just had his go at trying to discredit Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.
In an attempt to paint certain Democratic judges—and, implicitly, Sotomayor—with the “judicial activism” brush, this is what he said as part of his opening remarks during the ongoing Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings:
The Supreme Court has even taken on the job of defining the rules for the game of golf. (If you’re curious, the case is PGA Tour v. Martin from 2001). Some people call this “judicial activism.” Whatever you call it, it’s pretty far from enforcing the written Constitution that the Framers proposed and the people enacted.
Senator Cornyn, whether you agree or not with the Supreme Court decision on PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, the issue was not about the game of golf, the issue and the ruling were not about a “game.”
The issue and the ruling were about people, people with disabilities; about whether people with disabilities could be denied equal access to facilities and events in places of public accommodation on the basis of disability.
The Supreme Court, in its 7-2 decision, said that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, modeled on the Civil Rights Act’s Title II, prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation. It prohibits the PGA Tour “from denying Martin equal access to its tours on the basis of his disability.”
No, Senator Cornyn, the Supreme Court decision was not about a game, it was about discrimination.
Just as your claim that the Supreme Court, “over time…has invented new rights…has invented new constitutional rights,” becomes shamefully offensive when one considers that many of those so-called “new” or “invented” rights—such as against all forms of discrimination—have always been enshrined in our Constitution. All the Supreme Court did was reaffirm those rights.
10 Responses to “At Sotomayor Hearings, Sen. Cornyn Uses the Game of Golf to Make a Point—Wrongly”
[...] News Sources wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMy U.S. Senator, John Cornyn, just had his go at trying to discredit Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. In an attempt to paint certain Democratic judges—and, implicitly, Sotomayor—with the “judicial activism” brush, this is what he said as part of his opening remarks during the ongoing Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings: The Supreme Court has even taken on the job of defining the rules for the game of golf. (If you’re curious, the case is PGA Tour v. Martin from [...]
[...] News Sources wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptMy U.S. Senator, John Cornyn, just had his go at trying to discredit Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. In an attempt to paint certain Democratic judges—and, implicitly, Sotomayor—with the “judicial activism” brush, this is what he said as part of his opening remarks during the ongoing Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings: The Supreme Court has even taken on the job of defining the rules for the game of golf. (If you’re curious, the case is PGA Tour v. Martin from [...]
[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
There was a time that I would have expected more from a Senator, but in the end, he only reflects the people that voted for him.
I think this sort of thinking is pretty “par” for Texas.
And a hearty, “Go Die” to you from the people of Texas.
[...] Post By Google News Click Here For The Entire Article Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and [...]
Wow, that's real mature response there PWT.
Cornyn is more interested in scoring political points with people who are looking for a reason to bash Sotomayor, rather than people who actually do the hard work and look at the actual issues.
It's what is wrong with politics today- the obvious slanting of truth… and in this case it's so obvious it's shameful. But he has no shame if it means political points for him and his party. Extra credit if the obviously misleading statements makes the Dems loook bad.
It's an unture statement menat for people not interested in the truth.
–[such as against all forms of discrimination—have always been enshrined in our Constitution. All the Supreme Court did was reaffirm those rights]
Uh…No. This is not a true statement. If the Constitution had “always enshrined against all forms of discrimination”, then there would not have been slavery in this country after the Constitution had been enacted. If this were a true statement, anti-discriminatory amendments to the Constitution would never have had to have been made. Such as women suffrage,
I must say though to testimony thus far, I’m starting to question confirmation. Not because of political ideology, but because of excellence. So far, I’m not seeing the excellence that I would expect from a Supreme Court nominee.
–[such as against all forms of discrimination—have always been enshrined in our Constitution. All the Supreme Court did was reaffirm those rights]
Is most certainly is a true statement:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The words that jump out, at me, anyway, are “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Now, I agree, it took several Amendments, and the Supreme Court—as Cornyn so casually says—to “invent new Constitutional rights“ to actually secure the Blessings of Liberty for all, but, my friend they have always been enshrined in the Constitution of our great country.
Dorian