Monday, July 13, 2009

The Senate Sotomayor Dog and Pony Show

I purposely haven't paid much attention to the Sonia Sotomayor Dog and Pony Show underway in the U.S. Senate. I began to tire of watching "confirmation hearings" during the Robert Bork lynching in the 1980s. Nothing I have seen since then has convinced me to change my mind or sit through them again.

It goes without saying that Judge Sotomayor will win confirmation with 60 Democratic/liberal votes in the Senate. She would have to be exposed as a serial killer or child pornographer to be voted down, and I'm not sure the current Senate makeup would vote her down even then.

What makes me mad -- aside from the fact that no one pays any mind to the Constitution or to what it says about the proper role of the judiciary -- is that the Senators are gasbags preening and pontificating for the cameras. They really think they're impressing people with their prognostications. The purpose for these hearings is not for the gasbags to wax eloquent. Who needs these ridiculous "opening statements?" We know what you guys (and gals) think. Ad nauseum. We want to know what the nominee to the court thinks. And that brings me to my next point of disgust.

I am tired of scripted questions and scripted answers. I want to know what the appointees' GENUINE judicial philosophy is, and I want to know their view of the Constitution. In detail. I don't need to know how they'll rule on cases. Once I know what their philosophy is, and how they view the Constitution, that will tell me quite a bit.

I really do wish that there would be some statutory requirement that any appointees for any court would be required to observe the letter of the Constitution according to the intent of the authors, and to interpret law by the intent of the ones who wrote the law. It should be grounds for impeachment if they rule according to their political ideology.

But that's just me, and I know it's impossible. The gasbags need to vent their facial orifices to show us how smart they all are. And I have one other observation.

Elections have consequences.


Randy said...


As always, you are so on target.


Ron said...

I have one question. Seeing that diversity is such an issue in our society these days, and since Consitutional Law is supposedly constant (or should be, c'mon the words don't change), what bearing does diversity actually have to do with any SC candidate? I know what the answer would be from someone who isn't concerned with the actual integrity of the Constitution, but let'sget real.

Wavey Davy said...

Good post Joel. It IS difficult to watch these hearings since the Bork and Thomas debacle. Sonia Sotomayor is a radical femminist and a judicial activist. At least Jeff Sessions has put her feet to the fire! Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a reproach to any people.

Solameanie said...

I think the courts (and legislatures) stopped paying genuine attention to the Constitution a long time ago. And they will keep ignoring it until enough people get mad enough to do something about it.