Gay Patriot Header Image

Ah! the benefits of summer Supreme Court confirmation hearings
(not all that many people paying attention)

No wonder Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy scheduled the Sotomayor confirmation hearings for the middle of the summer when fewer Americans are focused on the news and thus less likely to follow the debate over her nomination.   With fewer people following the hearings, there will be a smaller pool of people who might object to her performance, decreasing the likelihood that all that many people will call in to their Senators to tell them to vote against the confirmation of a judge whom they don’t believe qualified to serve on the highest court in the land.

I mean, I have been reluctant to follow the hearings.  And if I, a law school graduate with an interest in legal philosophy and the direction of the court, show such disinterest in the hearings, how then would the average American, less interested in politics and the law, than I, react?

I have skimmed a few blogs to learn of the goings-on on Capitol Hill and Obama’s nominee doesn’t seem to have acquitted herself very well.  A plurality of Americans now oppose her nomination.  Bookworn found her “incoherent” and “weaseling.”

In a nice roundup on reaction to the hearings, Glenn links Randy Barnett who offered:

One of the things we hope to learn during confirmation hearings is a nominee’s approach to the constitutional protection of liberty. But in her exchange with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) about the second amendment and its potential application to the states, Sonia Sotomayor revealed remarkably little about her understanding of how the Supreme Court protects liberty under the fourteenth amendment. For example, more than once she said a right was “fundamental” if it was “incorporated” into the fourteenth amendment. But this gets it backwards. The Supreme Court incorporates a right BECAUSE it finds it to be fundamental. When asked how she understands the criteria by which the court concludes that a right is fundamental, she did not give a substantive response.

This kind of confirms my impression of her from what I’ve read in the weeks since the President announced her nomination.  She seems to lack the intelletual firepower of the two Justices most recently appointed to the Court.  And that of such distinguished would-be Obama nominees like Pam Karlan.   She seems instead to repeat the standad lines of a liberral, “ethnic identity” jurisprudence.

Well, she does seem to be a suitable replacement for such an undistinguished justice as David Souter.



  1. […] Ah! the benefits of summer Supreme Court confirmation hearings(not all that many people paying att […]

    Pingback by Top Stories – 10th — July 15, 2009 @ 8:11 am - July 15, 2009

  2. I’m out of town on business and almost never have the TV on and I’m keeping up with this. I’ve watched coverage on CSPAN, Fox News, and MSNBC (no CNN at the hotel). I’ve also read about the hearings in USA Today. From what I’ve seen and read it seems that the conservatives have tried to call her out on her “A Wise Latina Woman” speech and they aren’t getting anywhere. I’ve seen multiple pundits say that she doesn’t bite when being provoked; maybe that’s why Bookworn finds her incoherent.

    The only thing that I’ve seen this week that seemed newsworthy was that Jeff Sessions kept making race such an issue. With his track record you would think that he would have found a different angle of attack. I guess it’s just one more example of how far out of touch the Republicans are.

    Comment by Chris — July 16, 2009 @ 4:04 am - July 16, 2009

  3. she does seem to be a suitable replacement for such an undistinguished justice as David Souter.

    My thoughts exactly.

    Comment by Classical Liberal Dave — July 17, 2009 @ 6:55 am - July 17, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.