Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Balko really nails the almost entirely substanceless questioning of Judge Sotomayor in the confirmation hearings and how the two parties are handling the issue of criminal justice issues - a legitimate area of concern over Sotomayor's approach to the constitution and the law. He begins by noting how the Democrats are handling it:
In his introductory comments at Monday's hearing on prospective Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotamayor, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) boasted that over the course of her career, the nominee "ruled for the government in 83% of immigration cases, in 92% of criminal cases." This apparently is a plus.
And he continues about why these concerns are legitimate and why neither party is going to even begin to address them:
The anti-drug prohibition blog Aid and Comfort points out that in addition to Vice President Biden's promise to several law enforcement organizations last month that Sotomayor has "got your back," her confirmation has also been endorsed by law enforcement groups like the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the National Sheriff's Association, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of District Attorneys.Yesterday's hearing didn't delve too much into criminal justice issues, but where it did, it consisted of Democrats like Schumer going out of their way to tout Sotomayor's pro-state, anti-defense credentials, and Sotomayor applying Obama's "empathy" standard not to the rights of the accused but to victims of crime. This isn't to say that crime victims don't deserve empathy, of course. But the Supreme Court rarely has occasion to rule on issues related to the victims of crime. It rules on how far to extend the constitutional protections of those accused of committing crimes. Putting the focus on victims instead of the civil rights of criminal defendants is a popular tactic among the law and order crowd. Which is to say that Sotomayor knew exactly what message she was sending...
I think it's safe to say that on criminal justice issues, Sotomayor has given a pretty strong indication that she'll be quite a bit more conservative than the justice she's replacing (though that opinion isn't unanimous). Even if that it isn't the case, she at least realizes that projecting that image will only benefit her in the confirmation process.
The longer these hearings go on, the more bizarre they become. The Republicans are in the same position in relation to Sotomayor that they are in with Obama. In both cases, there are legitimate criticisms to be made but those criticisms come from a liberal or libertarian position, not from a conservative position.
They can't offer any valid criticisms of Sotomayor in regard to criminal justice issues because she appears to be closer to them than to the Democrats on those issues. They can't criticize Obama on the state secrets privilege or his unwillingness to prosecute for torture or violating FISA because they're in favor of those positions.
And because they are thus robbed of a principled and coherent critique of their opponents, they are left to invent arguments that range from the absurd to the absolutely idiotic.
Politics
Comments
arguments that range from the absurd to the absolutely idiotic
Does racist, incoherent ranting fall within this range?
Posted by: Odie | July 16, 2009 10:36 AM
Based only on the quote provided by Ed in this blog post; Balko grossly misrepresents Schumer's argument.
Schumer's core argument was not regarding the legitimacy of outcomes of Sotomayor rulings in immigration, criminal, or the un-mentioned affirmative action cases relative to Democratic political objectives. Instead Schumer was making an important, relevant argument that by the Republicans' own claimed standards, Sotomayor's judicial record is almost perfectly consistent with those stated standards. Schumer is pointing out the hypocrisy of Republicans who would vote against Judge Sotomayor given that she overwhelmingly exemplifies their supposed standards.
I've listened to quite a few of the questions by the Republicans, which have set the table for their claimed standards - where I would argue their objectives are the opposite (they want judges who are empathetic to conservative causes and who create broad conservative-friendly rulings).
If a Republican President had nominated Sotomayor and we did not know her sex, race, or background but instead focused exclusively on her judicial record and the answers she's given in these hearings, I have complete confidence the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would crow about Sotomayor as a perfect candidate off the Court of Appeals. Her record amply buttresses their claimed standards.
Posted by: Michael Heath | July 16, 2009 10:46 AM
Everything I've seen, read, or heard about Sotomayor and her record as a judge supports the argument that she is a moderate to moderately conservative judge. This is supported all the way back to her original nomination by Bush Sr. as well as hre follow up nomination/promotion by Clinton. It is pure insanity that the Republicans are trying to paint her as some sort of liberal let alone a wild-eyed radical liberal.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | July 16, 2009 1:04 PM
The 2 things that occur to me:
1. This is not a serious confirmation hearing. They are going to approve her, unless, as Graham implied, she blows it badly with a meltdown. Ain't gonna happen.
2. The members are playing to television. Liberals and libertarians, being pretty much shut out of what is going on in Washington, D.C. these days are not important enough to them so they don't need to approach the issues that matter to us in the courts.
Posted by: Mike Haubrich, FCD | July 16, 2009 2:19 PM
"I have complete confidence the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee would crow about Sotomayor as a perfect candidate off the Court of Appeals. Her record amply buttresses their claimed standards."
oh great. is that supposed to make me happy about this? cause it don't. sad thing is apply the same cloaking device to Obama's actions since he got in office and you'll get the same result.
He just approved building new roads in a Tongass wilderness area..
Posted by: Kevin (NYC) | July 16, 2009 3:01 PM
I'm afraid you're right, but I still harbor fantasies of the Right throwing a complete hissy-fit fillibuster, making huge noises about her total unsuitability due to the brown skin and breasts, not to mention her inexcusable habit of following precedent. After the business of the Legislature grinding to a halt for weeks, she reluctantly does the Right Thing and withdraws herself from consideration.
At this point, the President nominates a real pistol (we've mentioned some possibilities here) and the Right is still in their refractory period to mount any objections. Not to mention buried in constituent mail and poll numbers.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | July 16, 2009 4:38 PM
On a related but tangential perspective, the Senate Judiciary Committee should adopt the practice of many symphony orchestras in auditioning musicians for open instrumental positions. Historically the auditioners performed right before the audition committee and overwhelmingly the committees selected males to fill all opening. Over the last twenty years or so, auditioners have played behind screens so the committee didn't know if the auditioner was male or female, black or white. They just judged the performer's musical skills. The result? Women and blacks landed many more positions. The Senate should try something similar. Sure it poses problems, some of which may be insurmountable, but imagine how different the hearings for Sotomayor would have been had the Senators just reviewed her opinions, submitted questions in writing about them (to which she responded in writing), and not known she was Hispanic or female. The hearing would have lasted one day and been a sleepfest.
Posted by: Keanus | July 16, 2009 10:53 PM