I've been reading a lot about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's answers to questions during her confirmation hearing and one point keeps striking me as a fundamental problem.
She seems to be basing her answers on what the Supreme Court has previously ruled - not on the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - not nine individuals in black robes.
In doing this, she fails to reveal her judicial philosophy and her interpretation of the Constitution - which is critical to know when deciding whether or not to appoint or confirm a person to such a position.
My speculation is that this is a planned approach designed to conceal exactly what her judicial philosophy is, or to provide a non-controversial response to difficult questions that might, if answered differently, imperil her confirmation.
It’s a shame that none of the Senators asking her questions have noted this fact and asked her to state her own position - and not just recite what the court has previously done.
After all, that’s what she’ll have to do if she gets confirmed.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
She seems to be basing her answers on what the Supreme Court has previously ruled - not on the Constitution.
You caught that too? I shut off the feigned confirmation (conformation?) hearings after 20 minutes or so. The wise Latino woman isn't offering anything new or particularly wise. Just the same old tap dance done to a different beat - instead of Under The Double Eagle we have Compadre Pedro Juan, which is easy to march to, and designed to offend everyone equally.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - not nine individuals in black robes.
Something that the USSC sadly lost track of back in the early to middle twentieth century. I really don't think the USSC will ever recover from the damage done to it by the appointment of justices that disregard the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, and are fully committed to maintaining past decisions.
She seems to be basing her answers on what the Supreme Court has previously ruled - not on the Constitution.
You caught that too? I shut off the feigned confirmation (conformation?) hearings after 20 minutes or so. The wise Latino woman isn't offering anything new or particularly wise. Just the same old tap dance done to a different beat - instead of Under The Double Eagle we have Compadre Pedro Juan, which is easy to march to, and designed to offend everyone equally.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land - not nine individuals in black robes.
Something that the USSC sadly lost track of back in the early to middle twentieth century. I really don't think the USSC will ever recover from the damage done to it by the appointment of justices that disregard the US Constitution and the Bill Of Rights, and are fully committed to maintaining past decisions.
Maggie,
"In doing this, she fails to reveal her judicial philosophy and her interpretation of the Constitution..."
In doing this, she CONCEALS/continues to hide her judicial philosophy and her interpretation of the Constitution...
(Which, IMNHO, is deceitful and deliberate; and enough of a reason to vote her DOWN.)
Post a Comment