Confirm or Deny

Hearings began this week as to whether or not to confirm Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. If she is eventually confirmed and sent to the Supreme Court then it would be only the third time a woman has joined the Supreme Court but more importantly, it would be the first time that a Hispanic woman has been admitted to the the highest court in the land. Now like any public figure, Sotomayor has made some comments in the past which have brought her into question among the Senators at her confirmation hearings but is this truly criteria for confirming someone or are we seeing an exercise in partisan politics again.

Given the fact that this nomination came from a Democratic President, it's not surprising that many are in opposition to the nominee simply because a Democrat nominated her. Those who are quick to jump onto that fact would then have egg on their faces because she was nominated to higher courts by President's from both parties. She was nominated for the US District Courts for the Southern District of New York by George H.W. Bush and was nominated to the US Appeals Court by Bill Clinton. That being said apparently President's from both parties found some merit in her qualifications and abilities that make her appealing as a judge. In that case the whole "deny her because she was nominated by the opposing party" is a moot point and should not even be a consideration. But opposition members won't stand up and say blatantly that this is the reason why they are being stubborn. There are other means of showing that stubborness.

One way is to say that like any Supreme Court nominee (or any nominee by a President for that matter) it is important to weigh the facts and make a determination. Some such as Republican Senators Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Jeff Sessions (Alabama) have stated repeatedly that Sotomayor and others who are nominated, should be judged (pun intended I suppose in this case) on the basis of their understanding and respect for the law and not on personal feelings. This statement stems from a remark Sotomayor made several years ago in which she said, "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reacha better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This statement which was made in reference to how her background would influence how she judges a case or makes a decision regarding legal matters. Suddenly many were up in arms over the fact that Sotomayor would apparently let personal feelings get in the way of being an impartial judge.

Excuse me but is there ever going to be such a thing as an 'impartial' judge? In the whole history of the world I don't think there can be a single judge who can claim to have followed the example of the statues of Justice sitting outside the courtroom with blindfold on and scales in hand. Can any judge claim that their background hasn't influenced them in some way? Senators also have made repeated statements that Sotomayor should let her personal background remain in the background and should not be brought into the discussions. I find that a bit amusing considering the fact that when George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas he spoke repeatedly about his rags-to-riches upbringing and how that had influenced him.

A judge, any judge, is supposed to look at the law and make judgements based on their understanding and interpretation of the law. If you want to know what kind of judge you are potentially confirming then talk about her past cases and how she ruled on them. And if you are looking at that and don't want Sotomayor to bring up statements in her past then don't bring it up. I mean after all, if we're going to start looking into the past conduct or actions of nominees then how can the Republicans complain about Clarence Thomas (who was accused of sexually harassing his former aide Anita Hill) or John Ashcroft (who was Attorney General and who had some sketchy run-ins with opposing desegration in his past) or Alberto Gonzales (whose past associations with George W. Bush made him more of a "yes man" than an independent Attorney General). Well I suppose because they were Republican nominees made by Republicans then everything should have been A-OK.

But all those things aside, what is the real issue here? There are accusations that the nomination of Sotomayor would not have even gone through were it not for the fact that she is a woman and that too of Hispanic descent? Oh? So it's okay to bring up Sotomayor's sex as a basis for her nomination but not in the case of ill-qualified Sarah Palin? If that's not hypocrisy then I don't know what is. I'd like to have a little faith in my government and think that regardless of who is nominated, the facts would be presented in as neutral a manner as possible. I don't think Senators from either party should be made to come out and make statements on whether or not they are in favor or against a potential nominee. They should make their own judgement. We don't need the media asking away and telling us what we should and shouldn't be thinking. If we elected them then we should have the confidence that they'll do what we want and not something that they want. After all, isn't that what they are expecting Sotomayor to do? Listen to the law and not her own will?