LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) - Although several prominent conservatives such as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and talk show host Rush Limbaugh have been sharply critical of Sonia Sotomayor and her nomination to the Supreme Court, President Obama's first high court pick has won the support of at least one high-profile conservative legal figure: Kenneth Starr, the former federal judge who led the investigation that ultimately lead to the impeachment and trial of President Bill Clinton.
"I'm very much an admirer of her, and I'm supporting the nomination," Starr said Thursday at a law and journalism conference at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "I think that's a very wise and sound nomination of our president."
Starr, the former independent counsel for the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky investigations of the 1990s, told reporters after the event that he has voiced his support to at least two U.S. senators, whom he declined to name, but has not been asked to write an official letter of endorsement.
He also addressed comments that Sotomayor made in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley, in which she said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
"She has said some things, hasn't she, that suggest, well, we need to pause here, hit the pause button, and let's explore this," he said. "She said what she said, and so that very much merits examination. She didn't say that in a judicial opinion, and that's very important. Let's see what she did in her judicial work, right? What was her formal work as opposed to what does she say in an important setting at Boalt Hall at Berkleley, University of California Berkeley, wherever she may have said this."
Asked by CNN to comment on Sotomayor's 2005 statement that the federal appellate courts, where she has served since 1998, is "where policy is made," Starr suggested that it is at times appropriate for judges to make policy.
"There are times when policy reasons are in fact informing the judicial process and openly so," he said, pointing to family law and to the issuing of injunctions as examples. "In that process in weighing the factors for an injunction, it is well settled that judges are in fact considering policy questions, overtly, with everyone smiling. Think about more daily administrations of the law. Family law issues. We want judges to be thinking about issues of policy and morality and so forth."
Starr served as U.S. Solicitor General under President George H.W. Bush and currently serves as the dean of Pepperdine University Law School.
From CNN Politics
© 2011 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Contact us | Work for us | Help
Ken Starr? Who cares what he thinks? He's a has-been that never was.
One giant step forward in redeeming his sorry self!
kww,
Respectfully disagree, but don't be rude. Ken Starr makes some very rational and objective points, which is precisely what is needed when trying to balance the scales of justice.
I'm sure you were singing a different tune when he was trying to force Clinton out of the White House...
and why does kww think anyone cares about what he/she thinks?
Another opinion from the judge that really accomplished nothing in the Clinton case.
I saw no onw except for possibly Lewinski that lost her job or suffered from Starr's *excellent?* work.
Sotomayor was unqualified to be appointed by Clinton, I agree with the two republicans that won't confirm her, if she wasn't qualified (in their opinion) in the first case, why would she be now?
She was appointed too a *lifetime* government job straight out of law school, being a lifetime appointed government employee does not qualify her.
Find another person that deserves it and wasn't at the public trough without working their way up.
His private choice! He just doesn't get a vote! Just like you and me!
That's a real BLACK mark on her resume. That can't be good for her nomination and subsequest approval. Watch Obama's ratings fall now. The Dems will accuse him of being a Republican
It is interest that this conservative that was known to leak things about his Clinton persecution... I mean prosecution is supporting this nominee. I guess that mean that she is either a stealth candidate or just really good.
maybe he is...but this is still a surprise.
It show how far to the Right our country moved under Bush/Cheney, that conservatives like Ken Starr see our Democratic President as making wise and sound court decisions.
Well, the fact is President Obama is very wise and makes sound decisions... that's why we elected him and not John McCain.
A few of the GOP are demonstrating their belief that being only adversarial to the administration will not win back GOP power.
At least there are a few Republicans who have an open mind.
smooth move Kenneth Starr
when I saw him carrying 490 video tapes, 6789 pages of papers in pres. clinton's case, I told all this guy is a waste of time and money....I am post grad. in law....listen...he is a total waste....
kww June 19th, 2009 4:06 pm ET
Ken Starr? Who cares what he thinks? He's a has-been that never was***Who cares what you think? Shut you Sour Pie Hole!!!
kww = tool
Ken Starr now make the GOP look like fools because he can see through the spin and see her for who she has been as a judge and not her comment. Always remember, A lie doesn't care who tells it.
Look at her judicial record instead of just one flippant remark taken out of context. What a concept!
@Ron Johnson: "She was appointed too a *lifetime* government job straight out of law school, being a lifetime appointed government employee does not qualify her.
Find another person that deserves it and wasn't at the public trough without working their way up."
Uh, dude...it would help if you knew what you were talking about before making statements like that. She was a New York prosecutor for five years and a civil litigator for seven before she was appointed as a federal district judge under Bush I. Then, she was appointed to the Second Circuit by Clinton. And by the way–both times with overwhelming Republican support.
@Matt June 19th, 2009 4:59 pm ET
Look at her judicial record instead of just one flippant remark taken out of context. What a concept!
-----------------
I just KNEW the was a lib who also thought her remarks were flippant! There just might be hope for the libs yet! Thanks Matt!
now that should be a feather in someones' hat..but what about the revelation, and of course NO MEDIA coverage, of our newly elected President, when giving the commencement address to OUR Naval Academy, and future leaders, and protectors of OUR Freedoms, including the Constitution; he made those men/women remove from their formal white dress, their swords..you talk about an a front to everything patriotic, this group of people/handlers are beginning to look more like a bunch of goons from where else, the windy..
The usual moronic band inside of the republican party will oppose anyone Obama nominates. That Ken Starr approves of her helps to rehabilitate his former image as a partisan hack. Maybe he, like other moderates, is getting fed up watching his party being taken over by a bunch of ignorant crackers.
Looking at her judicial record is extremely disturbing to say the least. It's inconceivable that the right to bear arms does not apply to states rights.
"Looking at her judicial record is extremely disturbing to say the least. It's inconceivable that the right to bear arms does not apply to states rights."
Gee Ed, have you read through the several thousand cases she's renedered decisions on? If not, then I gues you really can't pass judgement so shut up.
Standing on principle rather than towing the republican political line. How dare he.
Let's face it. Republicans go against EVERYTHING Obama does. This is just one more "no" from the "Party of No". Not an original thought in ANY of Republicans heads.
Now, there's a switch for ya ! Ken Starr backs a Democrat. Mike in Montana P.S.: I think I'll go for a beer. Thank you, Ken Starr.
Aw, how cute, there's always one that trots out the Second Amendment like it is Holy Scripture.
Ed, I'll bet anything that you cannot quote the ENTIRE text of the Second Amendment to the Constitution without looking it up first.
Sotomeyer had, as far as I can find, ten or twenty 2nd Amendment related cases out of the thousand she ruled on. There may be more, but that's all I found.
So, Ed, shut up.
kww is right, Ken Starr is a closet fascist who locked up Susan McDougal for 18 months in prison for contempt of court because she refused to tell lies about the Clinton's...read her book, The Woman Who Wouldn't Talk. ken starr rational? Oh Please! Lock the jack-booted thug up!
There go Ken Starr's credentials with the Republicans, right under the bus. I'll never forget how much I loathed this man, but principles do sometimes make strange bedfellows. Look at the two attorneys who argued the 2000 presidential case before the Supreme Court banding together to do battle for same sex marriage rights.
Repubs are like Sauron in "The Lord of the Rings" and control of the Supreme Court is their ring of power. All of their will and malevolence is bent on achieving this one thing.
So how long until Mr. Starr is looking at the underside of the Party of No's bus?
This is like Cheney supporting gun control! What's the catch, Starr? I have zero respect for you after the witch hunt of the Clintons that took away from our national defense priorities. When the people shouting the loudest for his resignation were actually HAVING affairs, some with men, how int he world did that even happen? Oh, yeah, Republicans can tell you about ethical behavior, just don't expect any of them to live it.
Who gives a crap about Starr, he's a spineless ninny....he's good for one thing, taking out his own garbage every morning...remember??!!!
lol lol lol
Well dems, you attack reps who oppose Sotomayer appointment to the SC and at the same time you attack reps who support her appointment to the SC. You cant have it both ways. For the past eight years dems relentlessly called reps sheep and accused them of blindly following and rubber stamping President Bush. Now Obama is current occupant in the Oval Office, your doing the same thing which you criticized reps for. If a candidate promiser to change the tone, doesnt this give the opposition control over whether he keeps his promise, and therefore an incentivde to be disagreeable.