Despite tough questioning, Sotomayor remains unruffled: McClatchy
So far, Sotomayor has stayed completely in control even as the Judiciary Committee's 19 members alternately tried to shake and support her. Nowhere has her self-command been more evident than in her refusal — despite repeated efforts by Republicans and Democrats alike — to offer hints about her thinking on the nation's most politically sensitive disputes.
On abortion, Second Amendment rights, voting rights and more, Sotomayor consistently has steered clear of hinting how she might rule. In part, she refuses to pre-judge a specific case she might see again...
Sotomayor's ruling with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold New York state's ban on the joined-sticks weapon called nunchaku, likewise, drew question after question about whether she thinks the Second Amendment applies to states. She frustrated them all, insisting the state issue might yet come before the high court.
This is one of the things that drives me nuts about the whole confirmation process. She doesn't comment on issues that might come before the court because she can't. The Rules of Judicial Conduct are quite explicit on this point. She can't talk about it, AND EVERYONE BLOODY WELL KNOWS IT. So there's no point in asking the questions on these issues other than grandstanding.
This whole damn "Advise and Consent" process has been turned by both sides into one long political commercial. I'd love to see rules in place that say that all questions must be that: questions. No endless "opening statements", no long rambling preludes, get to your point in 150 words or less or STFU.
I know 'll never see that. Because the worst offenders are the people who make the rules.
Argh.
4 comments:
I'm no lawyer (and will happily defer to your judgment on this), but it seems to me senators could find out all they need to know by discussing the logic behind her previous decisions, and other Supreme Court decisions. Granted, she'll certainly see some abortion cases, but is there anything to prevent her from discussing the reasoning in the original Roe v. Wade decision, based on those facts? I seem to remember this was done during the Bork hearings, and it was fascinating. The nominee isn't bound by what they say, as the facts will be different in any case she might see, but her perspective on the law could be well determined.
Dana: possibly. But you'd be on dangerous ground, since some of the exact same issues could come up in pending cases.
This may be impolitic to point out, and I have enormous respect for the amount of work Michael Ricci had to do to pass that test, but does it seem odd to anyone that Republicnas trotted him out at these hearings to show what a raw deal he got after spending most of the spring and summer decrying the use of empathy by judges?
Just wondering.
Dana: it's okay to show empathy for white people.
Post a Comment