I was reading this article about Judge Sotomayor's upcoming confirmation hearings and how Republicans plan to have one of the firefighters from the recent Ricci Supreme Court decision to testify, believing it shows she lets her personal and political beliefs influence her interpretation of the law.
I probably just don't get it I suppose. Its not like the decision was Sotomayor's alone, she was on a panel of three judges. Its not like the decision was so obviously against what the Supreme Court has ruled the law to be, it was a 5-4 decision, meaning that 4 of the justices agree with Sotomayor's panel decision. And further, its not like being overturned means someone is a bad judge, or not qualified to be a judge. I really don't see why the Republicans are attempting to make this a big production. I don't see legitimate questions to raise about her qualification to be a justice.
McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, talks about how several decisions call into question Sotomayor's ability to apply the law in an even handed fashion. If she is making decisions that are against the clear language of a statute, than yes, that should raise concerns. But nobody remains a judge for very long if they make those types of decisions, let alone become a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. Its not even handed to McConnell and the Republicans because its not the decision they agree with...to a huge extent, that's what the law is about, two competing sides, two differing interpretations, with persuasive arguments for both, and people of great intellectual integrity come down on both sides. Its bordering on idiotic to me for the Republicans to do this, both from an intellectual standpoint and a political standpoint.
Then, the Republicans undermine their own credibility by having witnesses testifying to abortion issues. I'm not sure, from a strictly legal standpoint, anything that has personal viewpoint in it than both sides of the argument to abortion. For the Republicans to sit there and state Sotomayor is not qualified because, allegedly, her interpretation of law is based on her personal and political views, and then part of the argument is that she interprets the law to allow abortion, where they would interpret the law to overturn precedent (which is somewhat activist to overturn precedent) and allow abortion, or at least give the decision to the states, is contradictory and disingenuous.
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are two of the more "conservative" ones on the Court (I use the quotations because I don't like giving political labels to judicial philosophy, they rarely match. For a short aside - when Justice Stevens was appointed by Nixon, he was considered Conservative. Now, he's considered one of the most liberal justices on the Court. As he says, "my views haven't changed."). I disagree with their interpretation of some constitutional issues; I agree with it on others; in no way does that mean that they are not qualified. The way they would decide a case has no bearing on their qualification to be in that position. Its the law...lawyers like myself get paid because its so darn confusing and is open to so many darn interpretations. Its frustrating to see the Republicans turn this into a political spectacle, when it doesn't have to be (and its not limited to them, the questioning of Roberts and Alito by the Democrats during their confirmation hearings was also political sideshow at times).
Thus, it makes no sense to me intellectually for the Republicans to do this. But often times, politics isn't intellectual business. But that gets me too, this has the potential to be incredibly harmful to Republicans politically. They already face the outcome of the law election where they have practically been relegated to a regional party. They have no draw in the Northeast or on the Pacific Coast. They are quickly losing ground in Mountain area, and even losing ground in the Midwest. They retain the South. Partly due to the conduct of some of their followers in the last election, they are perceived as a white male party. They draw no significant portion of the African-American vote. They are in the minority in drawing women votes. They are in minority when it comes to the Hispanic vote (which, due to its strong ties to Catholicism and pro-life stances, should be stronger for the Republicans, but isn't). They face this "white male" perception, and need to make headway into the voting groups to come back as a viable political threat in 2010 and 2012.
Attacking a nominee to the Supreme Court, that the majority of the public is going see or get nuance legal arguments as to why her legal interpretations may not be "even handed" (allegedly), who happens to be both Hispanic and a women is very risky. The general public is going to note that she is a Appellate Judge at the federal court of appeal level, which is right below the Supreme Court. Where else do you go to find someone qualified - its Roberts was from, its where Alito was from. The Republicans attack her, they risk minority groups converting that "white male" perception into, psychologically, "white male" oppression. It doesn't matter if that's what's really happening. Its politics, perception with the voters count. That's the bottom line.
As someone who, admittedly, doesn't agree with Republican policy stances very often, but believes very deeply that the country, at a minimum, needs two strong national political parties for an effective representative government (would be nice to have more than two though), as interesting as the train wreck would be to watch if the Republicans go down this road, I kind of hope they avoid it.
I probably just don't get it I suppose. Its not like the decision was Sotomayor's alone, she was on a panel of three judges. Its not like the decision was so obviously against what the Supreme Court has ruled the law to be, it was a 5-4 decision, meaning that 4 of the justices agree with Sotomayor's panel decision. And further, its not like being overturned means someone is a bad judge, or not qualified to be a judge. I really don't see why the Republicans are attempting to make this a big production. I don't see legitimate questions to raise about her qualification to be a justice.
McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, talks about how several decisions call into question Sotomayor's ability to apply the law in an even handed fashion. If she is making decisions that are against the clear language of a statute, than yes, that should raise concerns. But nobody remains a judge for very long if they make those types of decisions, let alone become a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals Judge. Its not even handed to McConnell and the Republicans because its not the decision they agree with...to a huge extent, that's what the law is about, two competing sides, two differing interpretations, with persuasive arguments for both, and people of great intellectual integrity come down on both sides. Its bordering on idiotic to me for the Republicans to do this, both from an intellectual standpoint and a political standpoint.
Then, the Republicans undermine their own credibility by having witnesses testifying to abortion issues. I'm not sure, from a strictly legal standpoint, anything that has personal viewpoint in it than both sides of the argument to abortion. For the Republicans to sit there and state Sotomayor is not qualified because, allegedly, her interpretation of law is based on her personal and political views, and then part of the argument is that she interprets the law to allow abortion, where they would interpret the law to overturn precedent (which is somewhat activist to overturn precedent) and allow abortion, or at least give the decision to the states, is contradictory and disingenuous.
Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas are two of the more "conservative" ones on the Court (I use the quotations because I don't like giving political labels to judicial philosophy, they rarely match. For a short aside - when Justice Stevens was appointed by Nixon, he was considered Conservative. Now, he's considered one of the most liberal justices on the Court. As he says, "my views haven't changed."). I disagree with their interpretation of some constitutional issues; I agree with it on others; in no way does that mean that they are not qualified. The way they would decide a case has no bearing on their qualification to be in that position. Its the law...lawyers like myself get paid because its so darn confusing and is open to so many darn interpretations. Its frustrating to see the Republicans turn this into a political spectacle, when it doesn't have to be (and its not limited to them, the questioning of Roberts and Alito by the Democrats during their confirmation hearings was also political sideshow at times).
Thus, it makes no sense to me intellectually for the Republicans to do this. But often times, politics isn't intellectual business. But that gets me too, this has the potential to be incredibly harmful to Republicans politically. They already face the outcome of the law election where they have practically been relegated to a regional party. They have no draw in the Northeast or on the Pacific Coast. They are quickly losing ground in Mountain area, and even losing ground in the Midwest. They retain the South. Partly due to the conduct of some of their followers in the last election, they are perceived as a white male party. They draw no significant portion of the African-American vote. They are in the minority in drawing women votes. They are in minority when it comes to the Hispanic vote (which, due to its strong ties to Catholicism and pro-life stances, should be stronger for the Republicans, but isn't). They face this "white male" perception, and need to make headway into the voting groups to come back as a viable political threat in 2010 and 2012.
Attacking a nominee to the Supreme Court, that the majority of the public is going see or get nuance legal arguments as to why her legal interpretations may not be "even handed" (allegedly), who happens to be both Hispanic and a women is very risky. The general public is going to note that she is a Appellate Judge at the federal court of appeal level, which is right below the Supreme Court. Where else do you go to find someone qualified - its Roberts was from, its where Alito was from. The Republicans attack her, they risk minority groups converting that "white male" perception into, psychologically, "white male" oppression. It doesn't matter if that's what's really happening. Its politics, perception with the voters count. That's the bottom line.
As someone who, admittedly, doesn't agree with Republican policy stances very often, but believes very deeply that the country, at a minimum, needs two strong national political parties for an effective representative government (would be nice to have more than two though), as interesting as the train wreck would be to watch if the Republicans go down this road, I kind of hope they avoid it.
No comments:
Post a Comment