Top of the Ticket

Political commentary from Andrew Malcolm

« Previous Post | Top of the Ticket Home | Next Post »

Sotomayor hearings: Nominee takes a punch

Jon What just transpired at Hart 216 might have been the sharpest Republican critique of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) clearly articulated the GOP's main concern about Sotomayor and gave this hearing perhaps its defining moment to date.

Kyl first asked whether Sotomayor would agree with President Obama's analogy about judging that suggested there is place in decision-making for empathy for certain disadvantaged groups. But Sotomayor rejected that approach flatly. "We apply law to facts," Sotomayor said. "We don't apply feelings," evoking a grateful response from Kyl. (For a moment, he almost made it sound like they were simpatico. For a moment.)

But then Kyl, a lawyer, got to the heart of the matter, reading aloud several passages from a speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University in 2003. "To judge is an exercise in power. There is no objective stance. No neutrality. No escape from choice," Kyl quoted Sotomayor as saying.

Kyl is in the Republican leadership in the Senate -- and was expected to question Sotomayor aggressively. He didn't disappoint, although it was clear that he was attempting to be respectful, if sometimes he sounded a bit patronizing. "Let me try to help you along here," he said at one point.

Sotomayor's response was plain.

"I have a record of 17 years, decision after decision after decision," she said. "It is very clear that I don't base my judgments on my personal experiences or my feelings or my biases. All of my decisions show my respect for the rule of law."

Although Kyl's critique was the sharpest and most aggressive of the day, Sotomayor also appeared more comfortable, even joking at times, and more secure with her answers than during a similar exchange with Jeff Sessions earlier today.

"The words I chose, the rhetorical flourish," she allowed. "A bad idea." And she again maintained her words were about the importance of diversity on the bench. "I believe every person, regardless of their background, can be good and wise judges," she concluded.

At the end of the exchange, there was a feeling that Sotomayor had been hit with perhaps the hardest punch she may take. Although more will surely come her way.

Sen. Patrick Leahy called for a break afterward. And Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Senate assistant majority leader, slammed the narrowness of the Republican attacks, saying it was about "one case and one speech."

-- James Oliphant

Photo: Senate Judiciary Committee member Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., questions Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearing before the committee. Credit: AP Photo / J. Scott Applewhite

Don't miss a single Ticket item on any political issue. Click here for Twitter alerts. Or follow us    @latimestot

 
Comments () | Archives (2)

The comments to this entry are closed.

The big fat lie: that judges only apply the law withoug bias.

What these Republican rats want is some who will see the world through the narrow vision the have, that is, we want all decision to favor business, politicians and their lobbyists pals.

Example, Renquists decision to accept bribary as a free speech right. Tell me where in the Consitutiion or law does it say bribary is equal to free speech. This has allowed our country to sink into a sickening mess of politican corruptions where politicians vote for their wallets, not for the people; law are created that run counter to logical rational and open doors to a society of slaves working for corporate dogs sharing none of the food bowl with the average worker. They live in glamor more disgusting than kingdoms of old, with serfs begging for crumbs.

Our streets are full of criminals with guns all supported by a bogus decision of Roberts, the most corrupt judge since Renquist. Any reading of the Consitution with a historical perspective would have yielded a decision far different than that made by Roberts.

Well, we can't change the bribary issue that has created so many crooks in power, but at least we have the right to carry a gun and shoot a few.

The big fat lie: that judges only apply the law without bias.

What these Republican rats want is someone who will see the world through the narrow all biased vision they have, that is, we want all decision to favor business, politicians and their lobbyists pals. Don't tell me judges interpret the law favoring no one.

Example, Renquists decision to accept bribary as a free speech right. Tell me where in the Consitutiion or law does it say bribary is equal to free speech. This has allowed our country to sink into a sickening mess of political corruption where politicians vote for their wallets, not for the people; laws are created that run counter to logical rationale and open doors to a society of slaves working for corporate dogs sharing none of the food bowl with the average worker. They live in glamor more disgusting than kingdoms of old with serfs begging for crumbs.

Our streets are full of criminals with guns all supported by a bogus decision of Roberts, the most corrupt judge since Renquist. Any reading of the Consitution with a historical perspective would have yielded a decision far different than that made by Roberts.

Well, we can't change the bribary issue that has created so many crooks in power, but at least we have the right to carry a gun and shoot a few.


Connect

Recommended on Facebook


Advertisement

In Case You Missed It...

About the Columnist
A veteran foreign and national correspondent, Andrew Malcolm has served on the L.A. Times Editorial Board and was a Pulitzer finalist in 2004. He is the author of 10 nonfiction books and father of four. Read more.
President Obama
Republican Politics
Democratic Politics


Categories


Archives
 



Get Alerts on Your Mobile Phone

Sign me up for the following lists: