|
|
Like her or not, Sonia Sotomayor was very judgelike this week as she faced days of questioning by United States legislators. During the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings regarding her nomination to the US Supreme Court, she has listened attentively to senators as they rambled on and on, expressing their own opinions about why she should—or should not—express her opinion if appointed as a Supreme Court Justice. Sotomayor has done a good job keeping her expression impassive, a good quality for a judge.
I was able to work at home last Monday, so as I worked I listened to the hearings. I will admit it was interesting to hear the point – counterpoint comments of Dianne Feinstein of San Francisco and Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. Feinstein said she believes that judges are called to do more than serve as "umpires calling balls and strikes" while Feingold asserted that the job of a Supreme Court justice is to stand up to the president, to Congress, even to public opinion, to protect the rule of law.
I enjoyed Feingold’s wry comment that it seems "the best definition of a judicial activist is when a judge decides a case in a way you don’t like."
But I didn’t find the rest of the rhetoric amusing. I was at the office and in meetings on Tuesday, so I missed the portion of the hearing in which the senators and Sotomayor actually interacted. From the brief snippets of questioning aired on the evening news and on MPR, Sotomayor seemed to hold up well. Senators asked some tough questions and Sotomayor answered in polite legalese. She is hard to read— as I recall justice appointees have been in the past.
On Monday, there were no interesting questions, no probing attempts to get Sotomayor to expound her personal agenda. It was just plain annoying as senator after senator took the microphone bully pulpit to spread his or her own message. Feinstein was the most irritating, virtually reading Sotomayor’s resume and congratulating her on becoming the first Hispanic woman Supreme Court Justice. Yes, Sotomayor has an incredibly impressive resume and becoming the first Hispanic female justice is amazing—but perhaps Feinstein could have waited until the process was complete.
I can’t really fault Feinstein for not coming up with any hard line questions at the outset. Although the California senator didn’t seem to have any substantive inquiries when it was her turn to question Sotomayor, she didn’t have the chance on Monday. Apparently that is not how the process works. At the beginning of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, all 19 senators—12 Democrats, nine Republicans—on the committee were given the opportunity to make a 10-minute statement. No questions for the nominee, no give and take that offers insight to the public on the potential new justice. Just 10 minutes of air time for elected officials.
I really think that portion of the Supreme Court appointment hearings could be done away with. What purpose does it serve? What matters more? Canned party line rhetoric from practiced politicians? Or relevant questions and informed answers from judicial candidates?
I vote for the latter.
Compared to them I’m an amateur, and the thing about my jokes is that they don’t hurt anybody. You can say they’re not funny or they’re terrible or they’re good or whatever it is, but they don’t do no harm. But with Congress—every time they make a joke it’s a law. And every time they make a law it’s a joke.
Will Rogers
Leave a Reply