GOP Complains Of Vague Responses From Sotomayor

Republicans on the Judiciary Committee are growing increasingly frustrated with what they claim is a vagueness to Judge Sonia Sotomayor's responses to their questions about past speeches or lines of judicial thought.

Speaking before reporters after the first portion of Wednesday's hearing, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) bemoaned what they saw as a lack of forthright answers, arguing that the nominee was depriving the Senate of crucial information about what would be a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

It was a predictable play for the opposition party, one that Democrats have also used. During the confirmation hearings for Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Cornyn was asked whether the hearings for those two Bush nominees were any different than Sotomayor's.

"I think it is different because we're asking her about her speeches and I think we are not getting a very good explanation about how she can reconcile her speeches with what she views the role of the judge to be with what she says now," he replied. "As you recall, I don't think Justice Alito or Chief Justice Roberts had such an extensive body of work that was not judicial. In other words, all these speeches that she's given around the country... it's impossible to say one thing in Berkeley and say one thing at Washington D.C. and expect people not to compare those. And that's what we've been trying to do -- to reconcile what kind of judge she'll be on the Supreme Court."

Such reconciliation wasn't always in demand. When Roberts was seated before the Judiciary Committee during his nomination process, he, like Sotomayor, evaded questions on abortion law, executive power and the infamous Kelo decision.

As passed along to the Huffington Post by a Democratic source, here is a video of the Chief Justice repeatedly declining comment when his nomination was before the Senate.

In doing so, Roberts was actually applauded by Sessions. While saying that he would "like to know how you would rule on a lot of those cases," the Alabama Republican determined at the time that asking for those details was not "appropriate."

Cornyn, likewise, all but gave up asking probing and previously-posed questions to Roberts, arguing that it was pointless to solicit what would surely be the same answer from the well-prepared Supreme Court choice.

CORNYN: Let me ask you this: If we keep asking the same question over and over and over again, but try to approach it from a slightly different way, to get you to answer a question that you don't feel you can ethically answer, are you going to give us a different answer? Or are you going to give us the same answer?

ROBERTS: I hope my answer would be the same, Senator.

CORNYN: Well, I'm sure that's the case.

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[QuietLightTraveler]

I don't know why the Senators are disturbed that they are not getting straight answers from candidates nominated to the supreme court. They are lawyers ! Need I say more.

[Mitchbailey]

What a bunch of crybabies. Here's an AP article comparing Sotomayor's confirmation answers to Roberts', Alito's:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090716/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_roberts_alito

Whaa, whaa, whaa...

[Lavina]

This is a great report! This process with Sotomayor is proving to be a clinic on our judicial system. It is a joy to watch ---so informative! Roberts, on the other hand, is a disgrace to our court system.

[herointheend]

Cornyn and Sessions are throwing bouquets to their bigoted base. It's just sad that they get so much attention while doing so...

[Artos]

This really surprises me that the Republicans would complain about vagueness. I would think that vague is something they would understand since they are pretty vague themselves and didn't they appreciate all of the vagueness that came out of the Bush Whitehouse. That vagueness seemed to go on and on and on.

[JazzyJim]

Vagueness out of Bush/Cheney White House? They flat out showed contempt for the law, constitution and US citizenship. In fact bold face lied to us! Vagueness would have been way too much for them to risk a) Democrats and educated people raising flags of objection or query, and b) confuse their NeoCon Constituents whom believe God was sporting an American Flag jacket and handling the administrative work in Washington! - Of course, that's what Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Beck would have you believe.

[Donnat]

"Speaking before reporters after the first portion of Wednesday's hearing, Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) bemoaned what they saw as a lack of forthright answers, arguing that the nominee was depriving the Senate of crucial information about what would be a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court."

this was never a problem when you were confirming Bush's nominees. What gives guys?

[Americanium]

God must curse the day these GOP senators were born....

[ForeverHopeful]

You know, I have to agree with you. I have been wondering why these people exist in the first place and how God views their racist, bigoted, divisive disdain and prejudiced stance against people other than the Caucasian race. The KKK "wrong" wing party is a disgrace to human decency.

[afretired]

Kornyn, oops,Cornyn is one of the more idiotic among the Repug Senators, so who cares what he thinks!!

[4evryoung]

Their just pissed because they can't push her into the "meltdown" Sessions referred to at the beginnning of the hearings.

Why would Cornyn want or expect the nominee to answer questions that she felt she would be "un ethical" to answer? Isn't that what they want? An SC that doesn't deal in hypotheticals and doesn't have a personal opinon or philosophy.

Maybe Microsoft should design robots that could act as SCJ. It sure would save us alot of time and money. As long as some remembered to put it on charge!

[blood1]

All in all, she has done exactly what she has needed to do. Don't give the GOPers anything to complain about directly. She has been very effective in answering that decisions are made based on the case and law, not her personal philosophy.

Once these appointments became very political instead of judicial, the rules for the confirmation process changed. So blame or be bored...the Senate and Nominating President (historic) are responsible, so we are where we are.

She has learned how to get through this process and her answers to the hot button questions boring. So for those who were wanting fireworks are disappointed. Get over it!

[wm1066]

The Republicans spent all their time trying to rattle her when they could have been asking good questions, and she handled herself quite well, Specter asked questions he knew she couldn't answer because of judicial constraints and then made it look like she was evading the question. But Al Franken asked questions about the internet that were important questions she could have answered and she tapped danced and didn't answer the question. That bothered me. I wasn't totally for her but now I am down to 50% approval.

[drlouise]

You'd think they understood the English language, right? But maybe they got used to the winks and you betcha answers as the ones with real substance.

[123dee]

good comment

[Greywolf Borealis]

Perhaps, if they could come up with a second question, they would get a different answer. These men (?) are showing up as shallow and prejudiced by their one-line of questioning.
As I recall neither Alito nor Roberts had as an extensive body of professional work to investigate also. Why are they not questioning her judging abilities? Because there is nothing in there that is out of line with mainstream judicial conduct.

[hoopesaz]

It's the same song and dance each time there is a confirmation. Fact is, Sotomayor, Alito, and Roberts were all found to be excellently qualified by their peers and by those with whom they had worked in law...and that was from people of both political persuasions, it wasn't partisan support.

These hearings are really losing their value...the justice can reasonably claim a conflict in answering virtually any question of merit be saying that it is or may come before them as a judge. That she couldn't even answer "are you for camera's in the courtroom" is an example of how little value these hearings really provide. And my criticism is not directed at her, it's been the same with all resent hearings...it's the way they are coached and setup.

[JackND]

""it's impossible to say one thing in Berkeley and say one thing at Washington D.C. and expect people not to compare those. And that's what we've been trying to do -- to reconcile what kind of judge she'll be on the Supreme Court."""

All those court rulings...the ones they demanded they get ample time to review...and they're parsing speeches?

I'd be feeling very cheated by my Congress right about now, if not for Democrats.

[JackND]

She's already said more in these hearings that Clarence Thomas has said in 18 years in the SCOTUS bench.

[mjtaylor22]

clarance thomas, is the joke of the court to me, stricltly a yes man, and I am ashamed he represents any part of my race and my nation

[123dee]

Thomas a real slime, I believed every word Anita Hill spoke

[nk007]

Justice Clarence Thomas is exactly the kind of person of color that Republicans like.