The Real Story Behind How Supreme Court Justices Are Chosen; Gingirch Leading Fight Shows WH Winning On Sotomayor
The first Supreme Court confirmation hearings I covered as a journalist were the Clarence Thomas proceedings. There, as a young field producer for C-SPAN, I found myself in the middle of history in real time. This was back in the days when cellphones had to be carried in a big padded bag. We were the pool for the hearings, and I was a wide-eyed journalist, soaking it in.
As mesmerizing as it was to be in the room when Anita Hill and Justice Thomas took the stand were the antics going on outside the courtroom. Senator John Danforth of Missouri, a critical supporter of Judge Thomas, went from standup location to standup location with a group of women who had worked at the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission holding press conferences for anyone who would watch saying they had worked under Thomas and he had not harassed them.
Vice President Joseph Biden was then the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and oversaw the process. He clearly liked that limelight, happily banging the gavel when someone's time was up.
Organizations including the NAACP, the Urban League and the National Organization for Women opposed Clarence Thomas, and lobbied the Committee and press.
Senator Orrin Hatch played an unforgettable role as he changed from the persona we in DC knew and became a prosecutor, wincing as he brought up charges that Anita Hill's papers contained pubic hair. This came after a weekend during which I later learned Republican staffers and lawyers worked through the night on affidavits and investigation to find that smoking gun.
But it was Thomas himself who stopped the game of Russian roulette that was unfolding. In his defense, he called the hearings a "high-tech lynching," and I felt in my gut the hearings were over.
Watching Senators retreat to the ante room after each witness, I wondered where and how the real decisions got made on Supreme Court nominees. When the Committee came back to issue its vote, a 7-7 split, it was clear that many discussions of import occurred outside the hearing room. The final full-Senate vote was 52-48, with 41 Republicans for Thomas and two against, and 46 Democrats and two Republicans against him. Thomas was nominated to replace the first African American on the bench, Justice Thurgood Marshall.
Those same discussions, evidentiary searches for smoking guns, and political temperature taking are going on now on both sides of the aisle, and within each wing of each party. So far, based on what's been found, there may be a few empty bullet cases, but no silver bullets. Without a smoking gun, there isn't a vested interested for either side in blocking her. The right will put up a fight to keep the base happy, but to really derail Judge Sotomayor, they will need something even bigger than Anita Hill was for Clarence Thomas.
There will be arguments, due dilligence, and grilling, but absent a smoking gun, it is mainly just for show. Republicans do not have the votes now that allowed them to confirm President Bush (41)'s nominee.
Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, says she was chosen because she is Hispanic and a woman. He says she is not an intellectual heavyweight and does not have a judicial temperament. "That is not to say she is not a smart woman", says Curt Levey. So what does it say?
His argument, unlike the slipped republican talking point memo, is based on 2001 speech by Sotomayer, at a University of California-Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court.
"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," Sotomayor said. "First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
In a country that overwhelmingly elected it's first African American President less than six months ago, it is hard to fathom that this will be the smoking gun. If it were, Republicans who hold office and face re-election would be cryig foul, not Gingrich.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Media Matters notes Sotomayor was specifically referring to race and sex discrimination cases when she made that remark:
http://med
The Republicans know that they have no real chance of winning. Their goal is to win by losing.
Completely irregardless of her background or the facts the talk show hosts and professional spinners are going to portray her has the ultimate terrible choice so that when she does get congirmed they can use it as reason one why they have to elect more Republican senators and insure that Obama gets as few chances to name other such terrible judges as possible.
dear sir; i hate to rain on your parade, but a criminal complaint was filed with the us supreme court on Tuesday, the 26th of may, 2009. it was approved and allowed to be allowed by the court on 27 may, 2009. the court has confirmed the items described by the us marshal and us attorney filing the criminal complaint against judge sotomayor are correct and that she violated an an outstanding of a order issued by the us supreme court this year about slander and libel aimed at harming a plaintiff
or trying to discredit the us marshal and us attorney as they are the advocates for this plaintiff.
this action will result in the removal from the bench and disbarment for sotomayor this . the court hs already done this to numerous federal judges in the eight judicial circuit court for less than what she has carried out in the name of obama.
the us supreme court has the authority to deal with ny judge that violates any order of the court
and aids a defendant to cause or harm or violate a federal out court settlement of 2004.
ask Janet Reno, former us attorney, john Ashcroft , former us attorney, and former us attorney Gonzales if the us supreme court cannot put the hurts to your legal carrier if you cross them.
Yes, yes, of course. No need to get upset. Hold on to your tinfoil hat...
John,
As you are no doubt a learned legal scholar, you should perhaps re-read your texts concerning the United States Supreme Court.
Criminal complaints are not filed with the SCOTUS, rather with District courts. With very few exceptions, the Supreme Court handles only appeals.
As I recall, the "short hairs" in question were placed on Ms. Hill's soft drink can. (but that is a detail we really do not need to revisit.)
The problem with Ms. Donohue's thesis (the Republican's will need something bigger than an Anita Hill type expose to derail Judge Sotomayor) is flawed in that Anita Hill's testimony -- as riveting and disconcerting as it was -- did not derail Clarence Thomas. He is twiddling his thumbs during oral arguments on the Supreme Court bench currently.
A better example for the derailing of a Supreme Court nominee is either Abe Fortis or Republican martyr Robert Bork. Bork was tripped up by some racist comments he made. This time, the Republicans seem to making all the racist comments about Judge Sotomayor themselves.
You all are making too much of this.
Republicans are not going to try to derail Ms Sotomayor's confirmation.
They will ask questions in her confirmation hearings (which they are obligated to do on our behalf).
But I guarantee you they won't be visious and personal the way liberals were about Mr. Alito, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Bork.
You all scream about what republicans are "going to do" and the irony is that they never do!!!
Either you're confused because that's what YOU would do, or it's just a tactic. Mr. Obama does it all the time.
"They" are going to (be racists, attack us, etc.)... and all the BOTS line up and treat it as if it had happened.
What an odd and uniquely progressive phenomenon.
This sentence confused me:
"The final full-Senate vote was 52-48, with 41 Republicans for Thomas and two against, and 46 Democrats and two Republicans against him."
It took me several attempts to figure out that 11 Democrats voted for Thomas.
Republican critics of Sotomayor are desperately grasping at straws, reluctantly recognizing the depth of her judicial temperament, intellect and balanced approach to judicial interpretation. They have no basis for honest criticism, knowing that she wouldn't be where she is today if not for George H.W. Bush appointing her to the federal bench in the first instance, so they feel compelled to take anything she says that could be remotely controversial completely out of context. How many more bullets do the Republicans have in their revolvers' chambers with which to continue playing Russian roulette? They simply continue digging their own graves with Limbaugh, Cheney and like-minded yahoos at the helm. May they rest outside peac. Good night & good riddance to the Grotesque Oily Party.
WELL, HOW ABOUT THE US SUPREME COURT DOING THE DERAILMENT ITSELF, WHICH IS WHAT IS HAPPENING.
The top half is what I never get to hear - personal stories connected to daily political events. True, I don't sign on for just the 'this is my life' parts, but it's context. In this case, just enough context to give someone my age a view I would not have otherwise.
Last four grafs are the meat of it all, and some of it I haven't read elsewhere just yet. Keep writing.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
