Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Day 2

Most of the hearings today consisted of more political grand-standing than of actually trying to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the Justice. This is most likely because every member of the judiciary committee knows full well that she will recieve the votes necessary for confirmation. Despite all of this, the committee was able to delve into some of the substantive issues, such as property rights, gun control, abortion, and the death penalty. The rightness or wrongness of the decisions she reached while a trial judge and federal circuit court judge are questions for another time. What is hard to digest from watching the first two days, and especially the second day, is the way in which the questions were answered by Justice Sotomayor (which seems similar to almost every judge nominated since Bork). When asked questions about her thoughts on certain issues, the strategy used was to avoid personalizing the answers at all costs, and many times refusing to answer the questions asked. Ilya Shapiro of www.cato-at-liberty.com realizes this very clearly in the article "Sotomayor Waffles on Property Rights." Sotomayor was asked about the 2005 Supreme Court Decision Kelo v. New London Connecticut, which allowed governments to seize property for economic development projects (increased tax revenues), in addition to the traditional seizure for public infrastructure (such as roads and freeways), public works projects, schools, hospitals, and municipal utilities. Shapiro writes: "Sotomayor said Kelo was a judgment of the Court that she accepts, but that any future case she would have to judge on its own merits. Well, of course, but that wasn’t the question on the table. Exasperated, Grassley asked Sotomayor whether a taking with no compensation would be constitutional. The “wise Latina” couldn’t formulate a proper response, smiling and explaining that what constitutes a “taking” is subject to legal analysis. Well, yes, but that still doesn’t answer the question. Finally, Sotomayor concluded that if a taking violated the Constitution, she would have to strike it down"

This kind of answer was a common theme during the hearings when asked about other issues such as gun control, the death penalty, and abortion. Senator Graham raised the issue of Justice Sotomayor's time on the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, where she was a board member and fundraiser for the said fund. When the senator presented the justice with facts that showed that numerous briefs written by the fund stated in favor of using tax-payer dollars to give abortions, and that at least one brief compared failure to do so with slavery, the justice maneuvered her way around the issue. She simply stated that she was only a board member and fund-raiser, and that she "wasn't aware what was said in those briefs." When the senator asked if she agreed with the policy of the fund, she once again stated that she was only a board member, and that she did not know what was written in the briefs. I am not making any moral judgment on these issues. What I am implying, however, is that this sly, backwards way of dealing with substantial questions that form policy debates around this country, says something about either the ineffectiveness of these judiciary hearings, or about the character of the person being confirmed. Is it just me who finds it hard to digest this type of rhetorical maneuvering, or is there something to be said about the substance of the answers to the committee's questions?

Sotomayor's Confirmation Hearings - Day 1

Today begins the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor to a position on the Supreme Court of the United States. As expected, the Senate Judiciary Committee became split along party lines in their assessment of the justice. In analyzing her qualifications, both Sotomayor and the democrats on the panel have gone to lengths to show her background experience: she is of Puerto Rican descent, she grew up in the Bronx, worked her way to Princeton, and then to Yale Law. Today, the emphasis was put on her ethnicity, her socio-economic childhood and background, and her dedicated work ethic. Although this is only day one, and there has been no serious questioning about her judicial decisions and public opinions, should a nominee's background, ethnicity, or work ethic matter in determining the most important judicial appointee in the nation? If we had two candidates with the same qualifications and judicial leanings, should a candidate's background, life story, and/or race be the deciding factors?