The Hearings Ritual

7 Comments so far ↓

• KoolJeffrey // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:44 am

  As a political matter, I would be thrilled as a Democrat if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor. Indeed, a party line vote in the entire Senate would be the best political result for Democrats.

  As it is, having Jeff Sessions being the leading voice for the GOP on this nomination is an unmitigated political disaster for Republicans. Top it off with no GOP votes for Sotomayor in the Judiciary committee and no GOP votes for her in the Senate would be political manna from heaven for the Democratic Party. The Latino vote will be 75% Democratic for the foreseeable future.

  So go ahead Republicans, make the Democrats’ day – unanimously vote no on Sotomayor.

  Log in to Reply

• barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:34 am

  Re: Kooljeffrey // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:44 am –

  “As a political matter, I would be thrilled as a Democrat if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor. ”

  Ha! That’s funny! As a political matter, I would be thrilled as a conservative if no Republicans vote for Sotomayor.!

  “As it is, having Jeff Sessions being the leading voice for the GOP on this nomination is an unmitigated political disaster for Republicans.”

  I thought Sessions did a fine job; fine balance of civility and doggedness in demonstrating the supposed evolution (in one day!) of Sotomayor’s basic views on her role as a Judge.

  Bottom line, my take… Sotomayor lied her ass off to the Committee. (*SHRUG*)

  “The Latino vote will be 75% Democratic for the foreseeable future.”

  Well… if so that’s largely because Republicans are lousy communicators. To be fair to the GOP, though, there’s also the “ignorance” component within the Hispanic community – JUST AS WITHIN the overall American population as a whole – when it comes to the proper role of the Courts and how our Constitutional system actually SHOULD work.

  (We had this debate here last month; no need to rehash.)

  “So go ahead Republicans, make the Democrats’ day – unanimously vote no on Sotomayor.”

  Yes! Go ahead Republicans… make MY day! Show some backbone and intellectual integrity. Vote “no” in defense of our democratic ideals and our Constitution.

  BILL

  Log in to Reply

• barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 8:54 am

  If I may…

  Allow me to propose a non-partisan reform:

  Hopefully we all agree – regardless of ideology – that Committee hearings of this nature SHOULD be serious affairs… yet are not.

  Right…??? (*SHRUG*) Whether run by Democrats or Republicans, what we largely get is third rate Kabuki theater. Agreed?

  I mean the Senators drone on and on and on. The questions of nominee supporters range from, “Judge Sotomayor, would you rate yourself – as I rate you – extraordinarily brilliant, extremely brilliant, or simply… brilliant?”

  (*SNORT*)

  The questions of the opposition while more interesting, while providing perhaps more drama, are also muddled and largely geared to trip up or embarrass the nominee rather than simply to sincerely elicit straight answers.

  OH… and speaking of “straight answers…” (*SNORT*) Good luck!

  So… a simple proposal –

  The Chairman (or acting Chairman at any particular moment) must act as a true moderator – an impartial moderator. He must see his role as moving the hearing along and serving the public interest as it applies to having genuinely serious and important questions asked and answered.

  No more of these rambling “introductory remarks” by each individual Senator. Put it in writing… append it to the record. Make the statements available online. Other than that, all I want to hear from the Senators is questions – “real” questions. Not rambling “exactly how wonderful are you” questions from supporters vs. “when did you stop torturing bunnies” questions from opponents.

  Heck… enough with this whole “supporters” vs. “opponents” nonsense! Yeah, yeah… there’s naturally going to be sympathies based upon partisanism and ideology, but from Christ’s sake… Senators are acting as “judges” at hearings – and “judges” shouldn’t have pre-determined views which can’t be shaken by evidence presented.

  Finally… for Supreme Court nomination hearings… here’s a novel proposal:

  Let’s say we have three days of hearings with Senators grilling the nominee. Now… let’s add another day of hearings, only this day it won’t be Senators asking the nominee questions, it’ll be the sitting Supreme Court Justices.

  Yep. Give each sitting Justice a half hour or an hour to grill the nominee before the cameras, before the Senators and the public. Hey… I’m saying let Ginsberg question Sotomayor as well as having Scalia question her. Give all nine Justices the opportunity to grill the nominee.

  THEN folks… THEN… then you’ll have hearings worth watching.

  BILL

  Log in to Reply

• midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:13 am

  The hearings are merely the ceremonial culmination of the selection process. The real hearings have already played out in the media and by pundits who have parsed every word, deed, and ruling. The fate of SC nominees is generally sealed prior to the hearings.

  Thus far it appears that she is left of center, replacing a left of center jurist. At worse it is no loss. The GOP has more to gain from supporting her (and conversely more to lose from opposing her). Standing on “principle” and opposing confirmation decreases the attractiveness of the GOP to Latino voters. Ah, but principles are principles. Well, I dunno – how left of center is too far left? Is it really a binary condition? It does not seem like she is an atheist or a “socialist” or some other “ist” that the GOP doesn’t like. So she is left of center. You’re not a binary guy Bill, how far is too far left of center that you would not support her?

  Log in to Reply

• barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 11:36 am

  Re: Midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 10:13 am –

  “…how left of center is too far left?”

  Again, I see this “Left/Right” talk as a false dichotomy.

  I don’t CARE whether a Supreme Court nominee is personally “free choice” or “pro life” or what his or her other personal policy preferences are.

  What I care about – what I demand (yes… in vain… I do know) – is that Judges, particularly and specifically Supreme Court Justices, abide by CONSTITUTIONAL mandate and provision.

  Period.

  Let me ask you Midcon… do you believe Sotomayor, if and when confirmed and sworn in, will place the intentions of the Founders and subsequent Amendment writers/enactors above her own moral/ethical/ideological/pragmatic policy preferences?

  THAT’S the question I want each and every Senator to ask him or herself. And if the answer is no… then, yes, they should “stand on principle” and abide by the terms of their oaths of office (to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States) and vote “no.”

  “You’re not a binary guy Bill, how far is too far left of center that you would not support her?”

  Again. Just as I tried to make my point regarding the illegitimacy of the simplistic and false “Liberal vs. Conservative” argument concerning Supreme Court appointees, allow me to further address your reasonable question by addressing the popular concept of “Mainstream” as bandied about by the press and politicians as concerns how to characterize judicial nominees.

  What’s “Mainstream” mean? Does it simple refer to “within the middle?”

  I mean… say you have a law enforcement official on the far right of the continuum… a cold blooded murderer on the far left… does that mean that a “mere” pick-pocket or non-violent petty criminal is within the “Mainstream” of the two extremes?

  (*SHRUG*) (Hey… find flaw with the analogy if you must, but you get the point I’m trying to make, right – the concept I’m dealing with?)

  Let’s just say (for the sake of argument! just for the sake of argument!) that we have a Supreme Court where four of the nine Justices can be counted upon to rule according to their sincere best understanding of the Constitution regardless of whether they agree with any particular part of it. Then say we have four Justices who can pretty much be counted upon to rule according to “outcome based” reasoning, to take into account their personal policy preferences and indeed are willing to twist and tear clear Constitutional text and (as best scholars can ascertain) Constitutional intent out of shape in order to “get around it” when they deem such action to be necessary or laudable in the sense of serving their personal view of “the public good.” Finally, let’s say we have one Justice who can go either way depending upon what he’s had for breakfast or what mood he’s in.

  (*CHUCKLE*)

  OK? With me?

  According to most popular definition, I’d hazard a guess that ALL nine members of this… er… “imaginary” Court would be looked upon as “Mainstream” based upon the very fact that they’re ALL Members of the Supreme Court.

  (With me…???)

  Me? I’d say that four of the nine – the four who believe it’s their job to “make” law, not simply to fairly and impartially “interpret” law according to a sincere best understanding of the text and intent of the Constitution – are NOT “Mainstream” Judges. (Nor is Kenn… er… the Justice who flips a coin rather than simply abide by Constitutional text and intent.)

  See where I’m coming from…??? I’m saying that while in a sense, sure, we can use terms like “Mainstream” to identify a Judge (or anyone) on a continuum line of identity, but ultimately, there’s nothing “Mainstream” about a Judge who will substitute his or her preferences for the law as set in place by Constitutional parameters.

  Anyway… hope this answers your question, Midcon.

  BILL

  Log in to Reply

• midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm

  Well, sorta.. “Mainstream” is a difficult term to employ but to put in terms of the Constitution. We have justices that seem to faithfully try to interpret the constitution and settled law in their decisions. We have some justices that appear to apply an outcome test and Kennedy who flips a coin. Does the evidence (her rulings/decisions) (what she does, not what she says) indicate that she is one camp or the other? From what I have seen thus far, it appears she is closer to the Constitutionalists rather than the Outcomeists (I made that word up). Of course I am not a constitutional or SC scholar so those who are better informed than me can say one way or the other. However, I am very capable of analysis and it seems to me that in doing a business case analysis, that supporting her confirmation has little comparative risk (remember who she is replacing), while opposing confirmation has a significant negative return in promoting the marginalization of the GOP. Being a independent, I have no dog in the hunt. What I do want is a SC that will accurately interpret the Constitution for the 21st century (remember the 14th Ammendment resulted from the Dred Scott decision by the SC, so the Constitution is not the be all, end all source for our society, nation, and laws).

  For those who have not read it recently, it might be useful to read Article III (especially Section 2) which articulates judicial power. It is broader than the Constitution. I know we spend a lot of time talking about the application of the Constitution in discusinng the SC but our founding fathers wisely recognized that the SC should have authority that is not limited to Constitutional matters. I reread the sections of the Constitution whenever a topic Constitututional topic comes up because I can’t remember what it says precisely and I don’t want to get caught by another well read poster!

  Log in to Reply

• barker13 // Jul 15, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  Re: Midcon // Jul 15, 2009 at 12:43 pm –

  “Does the evidence (her rulings/decisions) (what she does, not what she says) indicate that she is one camp or the other?”

  That I can’t answer and won’t attempt to with my usual specificity. But that’s the question to ask! That’s it, Mid! And as I noted in my initial two postings, while my feeling, my suspicion based upon her public record of statements and the overrides of her decisions (and the reasoning behind those decisions) are that she will be a Supreme Court Justice who is willing (and eager) to substitute her policy preferences for those of other branches of government, other institutions, and the People themselves, I’d sure as hell like to have a “real” hearing which sincerely sought to get to the heart of your question.

  Wouldn’t you…??? I mean, wouldn’t you just love to see Sotomayor questioned in depth by Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts…??? Wouldn’t such a process be fascinating and likely to actually get to the bottom of the issue and go a long way towards providing answers to your question?

  (And, yeah… like I said… Ginsberg too… ALL the Justices of the Supreme Court; at least if you had a structure such as I would like then you’d have at least a few (half more or less as things stand now) Justices sincerely trying to get to the truth regarding the nominees of BOTH Democratic and Republican presidents.) (*SHRUG*)

  “From what I have seen thus far, it appears she is closer to the Constitutionalists rather than the Outcomeists (I made that word up).”

  Oh, yeah… no doubt! I’m willing to stipulate to that. Hell, I largely agree with you. But the question is, the word to focus on, is “appears.” Is she being honest and truthful?

  Again… this is why it would be fascinating to have Scalia grill her. I mean, so much of her testimony viewers like us simply have to “accept” in the sense of we don’t have the in depth case law knowledge necessary to impeach her statements as she’s making them. But if she tried to bullshit a Scalia…

  (Or if a nominee named Roberts or Alito had tried to bullshit a Ginsberg…)

  …we’d clearly – via Scalia’s knowledge – have a good idea about how “truthful” and technically accurate Sotomayor’s testimony is.

  (Note, Mid… as usual I’m being totally even-handed in the sense of my proposal being designed to serve the public interest rather than pick “winners” or “losers” based upon partisan or ideological identity.)

  “Of course I am not a constitutional or SC scholar…”

  So you DO see the validity of my point; we’re basically identifying the same “problem” with the hearings as far as us “regular folks” making actual set in stone determinations revolving around fact vs. assertion is concerned.

  “I am very capable of analysis…”

  As am I. But how long would it take us to do a proper analysis of Sotomayor’s (or any nominee’s) testimony (the questions/answers) – that’s the question. We simply don’t have the knowledge stuck in our heads where we can easily “recall” it which we’d need in order to answer the “full of shit answer” vs. “yep, that’s exactly right answer” question in real time.

  “…supporting her confirmation has little comparative risk (remember who she is replacing), while opposing confirmation has a significant negative return…”

  Mid. I understand your logic. I see where you’re coming from. That said, I place principle over pragmatism in this case. Furthermore, again as previously noted (somewhere!), my view is that even if you’re just taking pragmatic partisan profit/loss into account, if GOP leaders were clear and concise about what their criteria was, they’d be able to actually GAIN rather than lose support by adhering to principle.

  The problem… (*SIGH*)… and in this the libs are absolutely right… is that in order for the “Barker strategy” to win out, you’d need a GOP full of… er… Barkers – GOP politicians willing to walk the walk as well as talk the talk – GOP politicians who practice what they preach and stick to their values regardless of whether doing so results in short term loss or gain.

  Believe me, Mid… I fully realize that there are far more “Ottos” out there than there are “Bills” or “Midcons” or even Sinzs.”

  (BTW… I frigg’n HATE Lindsey Graham!) (Just had to get that off my chest – vent.)

  “Being a independent…”

  Nothing wrong with being an independent, Mid, but it is one of the things wrong with this site – at least the underlying “reason” for this site. It just strikes me as ass backwards that Frum apparently wants “independents” and even Democrats to have a loud (perhaps louder) voice in the GOP as a Franco or a Dragonlady.

  (*SHRUG*)

  “I reread the sections of the Constitution whenever a topic Constitututional topic comes up because I can’t remember what it says precisely and I don’t want to get caught by another well read poster!”

  (*HUGE FRIGG’N GRIN*) Same here dude! (*HIGH FIVE*)

  BILL

  Log in to Reply