Yesterday’s Senate confirmation hearings were the Superbowl-like Pre-game to the real business at hand starting today. The only things missing were the clever new ads for the pundits to analyze. Yet, in spite of the generally collegial speeches, some were surprised at the “tough attacks”.
[T]he panel’s ranking member, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), said he found troubling Sotomayor’s views on the role of personal experience in rendering decisions from the bench.
“I will not vote for — no senator should vote for — an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court,” said Sessions.
In addition to saying, “Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re going to get confirmed and I don’t think you will,” Sen. Lindsey “Please Like Me” Graham (R’ish – SC) noted this on the “Obama Standard”:
“I can assure you that if I applied Senator Obama’s standard to your nomination, I wouldn’t vote for you, because the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your activism and background.”
The key focus appeared to be on how previous comments would influence her decisions. Not surprisingly, several Republican Senators found some troubling possibilities.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said Sotomayor’s public statements seemed inappropriate for a sitting judge. “I fear they don’t comport with what I and many others believe is the proper role of a judge or an appropriate judicial method,” he said. “The American legal system requires that judges check their biases, personal preferences and politics at the door of the courthouse … Ideally, the Supreme Court shouldn’t be made up of men and women who are on the side of one special group or issue.”
“Many of Judge Sotomayor’s public statements suggest that she may, indeed, allow, and even embrace, decision-making based on her biases and prejudices,” Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) complained. “The factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her ‘gender and Latina heritage’ and foreign legal concepts that get her ‘creative juices going.”
It was the remarks, and the philosophy behind the remarks, of several Democratic Senators that I found troubling.
“I do not believe that Supreme court justices are merely umpires calling balls and strikes, rather I believe that they make the decision of individuals who bring to the court their own experiences and philosophies,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said.
I think that explains the difference between conservative and liberal philosophy of the judicial branch pretty clearly. When I’m watching a baseball game I don’t want the umpire to make a call based on what he thinks the outcome should be. When the highest court in the land makes a decision I don’t want the Justices to do so either.
Loading ...