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?