Reflections on the Senate Confirmation Hearings
Can you imagine a trial in which either the judge or the jury commenced the proceedings by announcing or hinting at their verdicts and then calling for the submission of evidence?! True, the Senate hearing on a judicial nominee is not a trial, but it certainly is supposed to be akin to one.
The purpose is to take testimony and then reach a conclusion after hearing all of the evidence. With all of the pontificating about the need for judges and justices to be fair and impartial and leave their biases at the door, the senators do just the opposite. They come to the hearing predisposed to decide in a certain way and they are more persuaded by their own pronouncements and questions than the answers of the nominee.
Will those who vote against Judge Sotomayor have concluded that she is not qualified to be an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court or will they merely carry forward their predetermination that her judicial philosophy is unacceptable under the guise of a single sentence uttered years ago and totally ignore her actual record while on the bench?
They insist that judges should decide cases based upon the facts presented and the applicable law. Under the circumstances, should we not expect that they do the same?
This line of primarily white "first responders" makes for a vivid non-verbal argument that Sonia is stepping up to the high court on the backs of these white heroes.
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
What it really is is a political embarrassment. The party of the appointing president is for the nominee and makes complimentary pronouncements instead of asking questions, and the party opposite to the appointing president is against the nominee and makes pronouncements slandering and criticizing the nominee. It's a pigpen where united states senators slop around in the mud and splash it onto the nominee before finally letting her go to work.
Imagine a trial where the Judge told the Plaintiff or Prosecution before the proceedings commenced, that “baring a meltdown you are going to win.” It would undermine the trial. Kinda - Sort of. So what was it that Lindsay Graham told Judge Sonia Sotomayor – “baring a meltdown you are going to be confirmed.
You just have to laugh at whatever scrutiny the Republicans decide to enforce today. Still, these games don’t cast doubt on Sotomayor being the most qualified Judge to be put before the Judiciary Committee in a long time. I wonder what sham scrutiny the Republicans will decide to enforce tomorrow. It's different every day and changes every minute.
You are so right.
I am British and have lived in several different counties for two years or more. The thing I find startling and more than a little concerning is the extreme politization of the judiciary in the USA. Compared to the UK, Germany and Denmark it is generally accepted that it is essential for judges at all levels to be completely apolitical and judge based exclusively on existing law and precident. Even the "supreme court" of the UK, the "law lords" are (members of the House of Lords which hear the ultimate appeal in legal matters) a subset of the House of Lords appointed entirely due to their legal extertise with no political considerations.
I think the USA should scrap these confirmation hearings as they are a complete sham. Party politics at its worst. This is more about playing to the TV audience than any genuine evaluation of the nominee. Much though I favor openness I think the rules should insist that only matters of constitutional law are considered and - if necessary to avoid posturing - at least some of the hearings should be behind closed doors.
Either that or skip the hearings altogether and just go straight to a full senate vote. It appears the hearings will never change anybody's mind so why bother?
No, we should not expect them to do the same as judges. They are the other branch of the three which is charged with the burdensome duty of bloviation, blather, idiocy in the face of opportunity, and the duty to vote only if it will perpetuate their tenure in the senate. On the rare occasion when one of them acts as a statesman is expected to act, we are as shocked as if the senator is somehow temporarily possessed by a creature from the heavens.
The low moment in the hearings came when Sen. Graham attacked judges for "judge-made law" and asked judge Sotomayor if judges had been a force for good over the past 40 years. I wanted someone to raise the name of federal judge Frank Johnson,
http://www
We should pay attention to the facts, but Republicans have always been scared of the truth. THAT THEY ARE OUT OF POWER!!!!
Turn TX Blue in 2012, OUT w/ PERRY!!
Deriter said it well, as did Judge Sarokin. I consider the hearings to be a travesty of "justice." This is true for hearings conducted to confirm cabinet posts, too. I do think one cure to the grandstanding would be for Senators on the various committees having to submit questions in advance, and throwing out all duplicates. Senators would rotate down the list of questions, asking the next one, not necessarily the one they wrote. There could be followup questions, all very structured, but all very adult and governmental, rather than ridiculous. Frankly, the sexist and racist tone that has infected the airwaves has embarrassed me as an American. The posturing and pretense has been revolting, But, then, I'm tired of being sold anything and everything based on talking points.
People like Coryn, Sessions, Graham, Limbaugh, and Buchanan, et al, deeply embarrass me as an American with their thoughtless rants and faux upsets--their hate speech. But, they accomplish one thing: they make me proud to be an American and that we do have freedom of speech. When we allow the despicable 24/7 coverage, we're living our political values.
Better that we have video recordings of the racist and sexist comments made by senators than that their sentiments be expressed in private.
My reflection:
There was a scene in the Godfather II when Frank Pantangeli was the star witness against the Corleone family in the congressional hearings on organized crime. Pantangeli changed his mind and does not testify against Corleone.
(Pantangeli changed his mind on seeing his brother Vincenzo in the gallery. Frank did not want to violate the Mafia's code of honor, you don't rat out the family).
It is too freaking coincidental that here we are in 2009, with:
Congressional hearings;
An Italian named Frank;
Who will testify against someone;
Who is pressured;
Because of the pressure changes his mind about what he will testify;
To the dismay of the Senators who called Ricci as a witness to hurt Sotomayor.
----------
Frank Ricci was getting a lot of flak BEFORE he was scheduled to testify. Many people were contacting him or his fire dept. bosses expressing anger about his upcoming appearance before the Committee.
By the time of the hearing I suspect he was pressured by his to take a neutral stance and not to attack Sotomayor.
That explains his neutral testimony.
And it explains his appearance on Hannity's show. Hannity tried to get Ricci to attack Sotomayor. But he refused to, to the exasperation and embarrassment of Hannity. Hannity had to switch gears and tell the firemen how honorable they were on his show to not attack Sotomayor.
I wonder who Ricci's "Vincenzo Pantangelis" were, who got to Frank Ricci to back off on attacking Sotomayor. LOL.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
Of course, I think the idea of having litigants who won or lost before the nominee appear as witnesses is ludicrous. Judge Sotomayor ruled in 3000 cases. That means that there are at least 3000 persons out there (or more if there were multiple parties) who would be pleased or displeased with her rulings. They add absolutely nothing to the proceedings except dramatics.
If one has the entire court proceedings, i.e., transcript, why is any litigent necessary as a witness? It's just another incident of grandstanding.
Of course the Senators of the Judiciary committee use confirmation hearings as a soapbox for political speeches that end with question marks, and then demand answers they ignore. But that’s old news, and it cuts both ways. Bork was derailed by Biden, and Obama voted against two eminently “qualified” judges, Roberts and Alito, solely because of their conservative views. And in his “trial” analogy, Judge Sarokin neglects the more troubling irony: the witnesses in these hearings can’t tell the truth!
The process is embarrassing to any thoughtful American. I suggest that a nominee’s “political bent” should be irrelevant. The Senators can ask all the questions they want about education or experience. They can ask about the nominee’s thought process in a written decision, but the decision itself, and whether the Senator agrees with it – is beside the point. A fantasy? Well, if that’s not the law, then it should be.
The President has the Constitutional authority to make Supreme Court appointments, but that power is meaningless if Congress can prevent the appointment on the basis of the nominee’s political views.
“Qualified” should mean character and competence, not conservative or liberal. The politics will even out over time -- the Constitution sees to that. If you disagree with the current nominee’s views, you can vote for you own President. Meanwhile, with stricter rules of relevance in place at these hearings, we won’t have to sit and gag through displays of self-promotion by the Senators, and sophistry by the nominees.
Well stated. I expect better from our elected representatives. Appointments to the U.S. Supreme Court are too important. Do your jobs, senators, and save your grandstanding and political harangues for a more appropriate setting.
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
I totally agree. The hearings are not longer about the qualifications, integrity or temperament of the nominee, but rather about judicial philosophy---the choice of which should be relegated to the elected President.
I respectfully disagree. The President of course has the right to consider "judicial philosophy" in his selection of judicial candidates. The Senate, in their "Advice and Consent" role, have the same right. As far as "qualifications, integrity or temperament of the nominee" go, the ABA is probably more qualified than the Senate to pass judgement.
What is irksome and hypocritical is their posturing and pretense that they are not considering judicial philosophy.
Obama gave us the wise Latina Sotomayor. John McCain gave us the wiseass Caribou Barbie aka Sarah Palin. Which one is more deserving of power in our government?
Hi, Ken here.
Lately the news has focused on the political trials of two women who wish to advance in the government arena, one Republican and one Democratic.
So, I ask, how do the public Q&A a "wise Latina with all of her experience" stack up against an Alaskan governor?
Only the republicans are guilty of bias and predispositions.
Actually I am a Republican and I can tell you that Republicans are forever prejudiced against anyone who is not in favor of the "good old boys" white network. However, having said that, Republicans this time around just exposed their selective outrage at what any judicial candidate might say. The very same things that Sotomayor said that came out of Alito and other conservative judges without vitriolic comments from Republicans were pounced upon when Sotomayor said them. Although i am a Republican, the behavior of Republicans at this hearing is so disgusting to me that I am leaving the party. I must say that for several years I have been less than thrilled about my political support of Republicans but alas now, I must in good conscience, re-register as a Democrat before the next election. It is simply impossible for me to continue with that bunch of racial bigots. Further, some of my Hispanic friends here in Arizona will do the same after listening to the hate filled questioning of Sotomayor. I guess Republicans will never learn till they chase every Hispanic out of the party. No longer will they have a lock on the Hispanic vote. It probably deserted Republicans in the last election, but now, they are switching parties by registering as Democrats.
Fanned for several reasons, part of it writing style.
YOU ARE SO RIGHT !
DITTO, MARIA
See Judge H. Lee Sarokin's Profile
No. I didn't mean to imply that. Both parties are guilty.
"They insist that judges should decide cases based upon the facts presented and the applicable law. Under the circumstances, should we not expect that they do the same?"
Judges and particularly Supreme Court Justices are required to be 'nonpartisan-neutal arbiters'
Politics is inherently 'partisan'
The Judiciary and the Legislative branches of government are separate and distinct. The only problem is with partisan politics creating a rubber stamp puppet in the guise of a justice to dispense partisan politics.
We should not expect judicial neutrality from a political stage.
Recent polls indicates 90% of the people polled do not want Sotomayor confirmed. The people are writing their Senators telling them not to confirm Sotomayor. So, is this going to be another cram it down your throat, it will taste better when it comes back up thing? How are we going to stop these people?
What recent polls? I see the direct opposite.
90% eh?
Hey, remember that bridge you had for sale? Love it.
Cram what down our throats? Don't like what about her? She's got absolutely nothing controversial about her other than the fact that she's Puerto Rican - which is why one of the only things the reds focus on is her "wise Latina" comment.
Which brings me to the one other thing they bring up - her comments about experience and opinion possibly coloring her ability to judge impartially. Why they always spew pab about how judges don't make law, they don't legislate, they just apply the law.
If that's so, why then would the republicans in the gallery question how she'd go with Roe v. Wade? Isn't the law already written and had numerous challenges? Wouldn't wanting to change that law, as many reds wish, constitute letting your opinion color how you interpret that law? Wouldn't that be writing law? Legislating rather than ruling?
Recent polls indicate that the news media does not recognize Justice Benjamin Cardozo's Hispanic heritage because he was Jewish
His ancestors were Sephardic Jews who were run out of Spain during the Inquisition. He did not claim to be Hispanic.
It's a job interview, not a trial, but it's an interview in which none of the candidates ever answers questions honestly. I can see how these are frustrating events for everyone concerned.
AGREE, SIMON
Ironically, all or most of them are lawyers, are they not? of course first, polticians,;second, actors in a quasi tragic comedy and third, extremists, a quality they think is an exclusive patrimony of the Taliban/Al
I AGREE TOTALLY WITH YOU, REALISTIC !
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
