Relevance or lack of bias isn’t a test for inclusion on the Sotomayor witness list?
Posted on 16 July 2009
Senator Jeff Sessions, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
included two New Haven firefighters on his witness list Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas. Ricci the lead plaintiff in Ricci v DeStefano, the case in which Sotomayor ruled the new Haven fire department acted constitutionally when it discounted the results of a qualifying test for promotions after two few black firefighters scored as high as their white counterparts.
But has there ever been a time when disgruntled former litigants testify against the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee? Clearly they are not impartial and what do firefighters have in the way of education or experience with which to evaluate the judge’s record?
I must confess that this is the first time I have literally watched every word of Supreme Court nomination proceedings but this doesn’t feel right. What it feels like is an attempt for certain republican members of the Judiciary Committee to generate “empathy” for their lawsuit. But isn’t empathy one of the very things republicans have complained about after President Obama used the word in describing his criteria for nomination?
Linda Chavez was next, with a history as Director of Public Liaison under President Reagan and former staff director of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, she appears to be somebody who likely has something to say about a Supreme Court nominee. However, in recent years she became a syndicated columnist of Fox News, and is frequently a commentator on controversial, overtly right wing programs such as The O’Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, and The Rush Limbaugh Show. She spoke eloquently and with authority, however she is not somebody one could describe as an impartial evaluator.
The one rather tragic thing that permeates these hearings is that almost without exception, republicans are opposing Judge Sotomayor’s nomination with tough, and perhaps at times inappropriate questions while democratic senators almost without exception seemed to be asking questions which served to do little more than act as segues for Judge Sotomayor to answer to criticism or expand on her qualifications.
Neither side, republican or democrat, appeared to act with a true 
appreciation for their important task; to thoroughly investigate and interrogate the nominee on her qualifications and fitness to serve as an Associate Justice of the highest court of the land. Instead, and alas, over several days we saw Senator after Senator taking opportunities to talk to their various constituencies and take a stand either pro or anti confirmation. Of course this is what we task them to do, but we ask them to do so under a sense of fiduciary responsibility not party lines. At some level one must ask “why bother.” As this partisanship was clear before the hearings even began the numbers (democrat vs republican) told us that Sotomayor’s confirmation was all but a fait accompli anyway.
Perhaps cross examination of witnesses should be permitted? A first year law student would have had a party with Ms. Chavez.
Related posts:
- GOP Struggles with anti-Sotomayor message.
- Is there a place for moderates left in the Republican party? (Their behavior in Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings may be as good an indicator as any).
- Franken wins at last.
1 Response to Relevance or lack of bias isn’t a test for inclusion on the Sotomayor witness list?
I think Stephanie Miller called him (Sessions) a douche nozzle this morning. I think he is looking like an ignoramous and a racist. Most of the panel appears to be more concerned with their own speaking points than anything of value or weight. Most of the questioning would never have happened if she was male. Who would say to a man, “We will … Read Moreconfirm you as long as you don’t have a meltdown” Sessions is not taking her seriously and she is way more qualified than the last dude that was confirmed. This is my “eloquent” rant.