Splaining Sonia
Well, the hearing that was, is over, and Judge Sonia Sotomayor is most likely headed to the Supreme Court with the backing of most members of both parties. There was no "meltdown", as Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) cautioned against in the first day of hearings, and try as they might, none of the Republican hatchet men were able to lay a glove on her. Of course that does not explain or excuse the 3 ring circus of a process that has both shown the world how our government provides advice and consent to the President of the United States, and how the Senate - and the Judiciary Committee in particular, is populated by a bunch of three-year olds. This is not to reflect badly on most three-year olds - we are going for the stereotypical three year-old, stamping his feet, crying and taking a tantrum because he is not getting his way, or because no one is paying attention to him. I apologize to all of the well-behaved three year-olds out there and mean them no offense. Just to reiterate TPP policy - this post does not endorse Judge Sotomayor for her nominated office, or support or oppose her nomination by President Obama. It also does not endorse or oppose anyone else mentioned by name. We are just calling out some ludicrous and unstatesmanlike behavior.
I honestly can not figure out who, in this august process, lowered the bar on poor taste the lowest. There were many memorable moments. With all of the hue and cry wasted on Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) for his blown attempt at humor quoting Ricky Ricardo (Senator - It's DC - no one HAS a sense of humor - remember that next time you're looking for a chuckle. At least Judge Sotomayor got a giggle out of it. Isn't it amazing - the only show of maturity all week came from the nominee herself...). Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) took great pains to praise Sotomayor's rise from poverty and prejudice as if he had never seen a person of color do it before. Now, it is true that Senator Sessions has had "insensitivity" issues with regard to race before (it's one of the times that Wikipedia is both brief and accurate in it's account), and I guess that you could excuse his ignorance, but not the patronizing attitude he took in correcting her on the law. It seems Senator Sessions spends little of his time writing the laws (Research could find no major legislation with his name on it in 12 years in the Senate) that Judge Sotomayor routinely must interpret as part of her nearly equal time on the Appeals Bench. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) normally conducts himself with the utmost of professionalism and dignity, and yet he was engaged in a debate as to whether "nunchucks" are protected under the Second Amendment for carrying in the NYC subway. Even if they are, the argument makes you sound silly. Senator Hatch must have drawn the short straw for probing questions. One of the best displays of feigned respect for the process came from the previously mentioned Senator Graham, who took relish in alternately pounding Sotomayor with the clubs of "wise Latina" and the Ricci case. He indicated that he would have liked to take her on as opposing counsel on any number of issues, leaving little to imagine about his ability in his own head to wipe the floor with her. Add on the 10 minute campaign speech that he closed with defending military tribunals, and you start to realize how John McCain's Presidential run started to fall apart.
This is not to give the Democrats a pass on bastardizing the process. While all Democratic Senators came to Sotomayor's defense, that defense appeared to cause more of a ripple of discomfort in the nominee than the attacks did. A notable defense was provided by Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) who defended Sotomayor's honor in much the same way that the mistress of the house would defend the actions of a servant who passed gas at an inopportune time. Sotomayor was perfectly capable of defending herself - her Democrat allies seemed bent on just excusing her "lapses".
We were aware going in that this process would be about form and not about substance. The last substantial examination of a Supreme Court nominee was the borking of Judge Robert Bork in 1987. Judge Bork actually exhibited the stones to answer questions as asked. That was not to be this time. Sotomayor parsed her answers to the questions posed in a manner that Bill Clinton would admire. Sadly, that is the process as we have let it develop.
Common Sense Dictates
As Senator Graham acknowledged, elections have meaning. The meaning of the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency holds that his nominees to the Supreme Court would share his view of the role of the Supreme Court in interpreting the Constitution. More likely than not, that nominee will be of a liberal mindset in just the same way that a Bush nominee would be of conservative mindset. Tradition holds that barring gross negligence, incompetence or corruption the President gets his pick. Politics will inject in this and we will have the occasional borking - which may even be good for our country. No good comes from an assured outcome. Diligence and preparation are good traits in all public servants. The Senate has a solemn duty to "advise the President, and confirm" his nominees to the court. It is appropriate to examine judicial philosophy and temperament - the process by which a judge reaches a decision. No one wants a loose cannon on the Supreme Court. The Senate, on both sides, did not do this process justice. It instead lowered this important function to a series of insults and aspersions cast during a game of political gotcha that is totally unworthy of what the Founders intended. We can only guess that Madison and Washington are spinning in their graves (along with Jefferson and probably Adams) over this trivialization of the process. If this is the best that our Senators (on both sides of the aisle) can muster, perhaps it is time for some new blood to be elected in their place. Those who argue that Iraq and Afghanistan need to adopt our ways should feel shame that we, as a country, looked like such buffoons through our representatives. And our representatives need to understand that this is serious business, not an election opportunity, or a shout out to their base. Maybe then, we will be able to fix what ails this country.
RLB
Categories: Constitutional Issues, Historical perspective, Partisan Politics
Tags: Barack Obama bipartisanship Supreme Court
Wow - now that's punk slapping the DC Geriatric Society - good job and I agree. What I saw of the hearings was embarrassing to watch - and since what I saw was the "highlight reel" my guess is that the rest was even worse. It's a shame that our elected people just don't understand that there is actual work to be done in the country besides getting re-elected. This whole hearing was an example of how low our government has sunk in fulfilling its duties. Throw all the bums out!
Reply to this
Yeah, the herarings weren't really our best showing out in the world. The Republicans came off as petty and mean spirited, and the Democrats spent more time cooing to the cameras than actually contributing to making the confirmation more meaningful. It was disappointing all around.
Reply to this
It was like I said in the other Supreme Court piece, this wasn't anyone's moment to shine except Judge Sotomayor. She handles the whole thing with more dignity than she was given, and gave more respect than she received. I think she will be great on the bench - it's just a shame that this is what someone has to go through to get the job.
Reply to this
I'm gonna have to be the divisive voice here - but really - is dignity that big an issue when so one so far out to the left is up for a lifetime appointment? The Ricci case (overturned by the current Supreme Court) was only one example of Sotomayor's judicial overreach. Along with that, you can discount the wise-latina remarks all you want, but it wasn't a casual one time use - it was a repeated applause line at speeches across the country. Now we are supposed to believe that she didn't actually mean it? So, as they say in court - was she lying then or is she lying now?
Reply to this
I will agree that this wasn't a really shining moment for the GOP, but when the candidate is set up with so little that you can "legitimately" go after, but when it's so obvious that she's going to rule way liberal - well, someone has to at least let out a warning... I'm not saying it was done well, but at least now people are aware of some of her out of the mainstream decisions - and they can pressure their Senators if they feel strongly enough. The confirmation vote was postponed just for that reason - to get public feedback. If you really are concerned - either way - contact your Senator. I remember a link back at the website to do just that.
Reply to this
If you can't legitimately go after something, then by rights, it's off limits. Judge Sotomayor showed remarkable patience with the foolishness on display from the Republicans, and played down whatever praise that the Democrats piled on her with quiet dignity. She showed a perfect balance and temperment during the interview process, and I think that is the sort of thing we need to see in all judges of the Supreme Court - conservative or liberal.
Reply to this
I'm not what you would call a supporter of Sotomayor, but I have to tell you that what I saw of the hearings (which was mostly the stuff that the msm news covered) and I was pretty appalled. There are ways to make a point and still show a bit of respect. Sessions and Graham are a blot on their state's reputation if this is all that you know of them. Feinstein was one of those friends you need to look out for. About the only guy giving this mess a little dignity was Al Franken. Now Al doesn't have a single policy that I agree with, but he did show the process proper respect. If all these hearings are going to be is showboating for the cameras, maybe the cameras should go away. Nothing of substance was accomplished except to prove that Sotomayor is more mature than the rest of the room.
Reply to this
I like to think that I'm a conservative who remains open to good ideas. I don't think Sotomayor will be a good Supreme Court justice, but it is for the reasoning she uses in making her decisions, not because I'm afraid that she will take away my guns at a gay wedding of abortion rights advocates. I just disagee that her approach to the law is not appropriate on the Supreme Court. That said - she's one vote in nine, and no big change from who she's replacing. My big beef in this process is going after her on some canned speeches having nothing to do with practice of law, or on a case where she was a member of a tribunal that got it wrong. These were things either not related to her duties on the Supreme court, or she acted within the limits of her power at that level on the bench. The Republicans picked the stupidest things to harp on, and gave only passing interest in her views on Constitutional interpretation and precedent. Those issues were within her ability to answer on, and would be her responsibility on the Supreme Court. Really, it was like watching them go after Bill Clinton for a BJ.
Reply to this
I'd be your opposite rayneman - a progressive who tries to remain open to new and different ideas - especially if they work. I thought htis whole proceeding was a disgrace, and once again, the rest of the world is looking in while we behave like a bunch of ignorant hillbillies - with no offense intended to the hillbillies. Any group would be insulted being compared to this group of Senators. If they mess up a simple task like this, how can we ever trust them with something important?
Reply to this
That's how I feel about all government 24 - 7. It's why I'm a conservative who believes in individual liberty and as little government as possible. It's a shame we have morons representing our side now too. These ideas will never sell with a poster boy like Lindsey Graham.
Reply to this
It was interesting to see how much things have changed. Only 20 years ago, someone in a position of power, such as a Senator, wouldn't be caught dead being so condescending to a person of color in a public hearing. He would fear being called racist. Sessions and Graham seemed to be duking it out for the title. I'm not sure that's the progress Dr. King had in mind...
Reply to this
I can't understand pushing the vote up a week - it would pretty much be a stomping on the Republicans. As I hear it, most of them are going to vote for her anyway. That would put a little momentum behind the healthcare push. It looks like that is where the Republicans are gaining traction.
Reply to this
Maybe that's the point. Obama isn't gonna hold hearts and minds in this country by runnng roughshod over almost half of the population. It is in his interest to be seen as being open to both sides, whether he is or not. Bill Clinton is the last president to try that, and he seemed to get some things done - expanding economy, no deficit, open trade... I could see that coming back.
Reply to this
Yeah, but what are the odds. The atmosphere is so poisoned now with the likes of both Limbaugh and Oberman. I was really sorry at Cronkite's passing this past weekend. He may have had a liberal bias, if the conservatives think so, but it didn't color his reporting the facts. He was America's most trusted man at a time when trust was hard to come by. It always seems to come down to putting a leash on the media dogs - all they do now is follow the scent of profit.
Reply to this
Almost sounds like you're looking to silence the media, which is never the answer. News in the old media (mainstream media) has sold it's soul and is now more entertainment than anything. Why else would Paris Hilton ever deserve a hadline anywhere? Or Michael Jackson getting wall-to-wall coverage? Every day the difference between the NY Times and the National Enquirer is less and less. Fox News is for the conservative robots and MSNBC is for the liberals with lobotomies. You don't have to think much to see what viewpoint each holds to. It sells because people want to be agreed with - not to think. It's on both sides. The answer isn't quieting existing media, but in using the new media in a way that accomplishes things. New media has it's biases - Kos and Drudge for example, but in sheer quantity the real news is out there for anyone who wants to look. I say ignore the screaming heads. There's plenty of reasonable people who have brains enough to think. They all think that they are alone right now. They aren't.
Reply to this
We like to think that we provide one of those homes and forums.
Reply to this
Well, it certainly is easier to be right all the time and never have your beliefs questioned. Seems like a lot of the yelling somes from no one wanting to listen. It's a two way street.
Reply to this
It's the media atmosphere that just spills over into politics. Travis has a point with so much of this being mugging for the cameras. If nobody was watching, would anyone be going out of their way to look like a fool for public consumption. That's exactly why the Supreme court doesn't allow cameras in the courtroom. Apparently the justices understand human vanity better than the rest of the government. I'm not sure if the public is best served by allowing TV cameras to cover hearngs and the like. Is "transparency" worth the cost of nothing ever getting done?
Reply to this
There's really a lot of sense in taking TV cameras out of all hearings except where the public consent is vital to the process. Too many people are not only aware of the cameras, but they do play to them in the hopes of getting some local coverage at home (free campaign publicity) or maybe even a national pickup. C-SPAN is not for the public service, it is for elected representatives to puff themselves up when no one is in chambers, in the hopes that someone (with no life) is watching at home. This was all born out of Watergate. Suddenly everything was the people's "right to know". That would be fine if the people actually cared, or if Congress was actually doing WORK in front of the cameras. The truth is the people seldom care - and when they do they make that care known. The Congress (both houses) never actually do work in front of the cameras - that's all in cl;osed session. Seriously - let's ban the cameras - no vital info hapens when they are on, and nothing of substance is created while being broadcast. I'm sure the Sotyomayor hearings would have been far more substantive and respectful without them.
Reply to this
I'll second that - let journalists and reporters get back to doing the job of reporting facts, and pull these pompous baboons off of the airwaves.
Reply to this
Amazing how often the excesses of politicians behavior gets tied to a TV camera being around... There may be some merit to not televising everything. It would take a lot of the hype and soundbite mentality out, and provide a way for print journalism to regain some of it's tarnished reputation. Imagine if the NY Times went back t oreporting actual facts instead of just opinions. I might buy a copy myself.
Reply to this
Another issue that I don't get - so Sotomayor is approved. I doubt if the world will end and panic run through the streets. I also doubt if we will suddenly become virtuous beyond measure. It's one more person, doing their best for the country as they see fit. We approved a judge, not a king.
Reply to this