The confirmation hearing for Sonia Sotomayor begins on Monday. Where do we stand? Senate Judiciary Minority Leader Jeff Sessions says her confirmation is “not a done deal” and lists his concerns:
Sessions pointed to statements that Sotomayor made in 2001 — and repeated subsequently — in which she said that personal experiences affect how judges view the facts, as well as iterations of her oft-cited comment where she said that a “wise Latina woman” could sometimes reach better conclusions than white men. The senator also criticized her decision to join a ruling as an appeals court judge saying that the Second Amendment did not apply to states under long-standing precedent; her position in a New England firefighters’ case on race-based employment; her association with a Puerto Rican legal group; and what he said was her role as a “leading advocate” of the citation of foreign law in reaching decisions. “For the most part, the statements she has made that give insight into her judicial philosophy were statements she volunteered,” Sessions said. “It’s those words that would cause difficulty in the confirmation process, not a knee-jerk political opposition. There are serious matters that need to be dealt with and questions that need to be answered. … I think her speeches and writings go further than originally expected and are more troubling than I expected.”
While Republicans are short on votes they have a plethora of issues, many of which resonate with the public at large. And indeed recent polling shows that voters aren’t that enamored of the “wise Latina” Supreme Court nominee. They approve of her confirmation by a modest 47-40% margin. (Recall that prior to his hearings, John Roberts had favorable poll numbers in the 60% range.) She’s actually closest to Robert Bork and Harriet Miers in polling.
That doesn’t mean her nomination is in peril, but it should remind Republicans (and the stray Democrat or two inclined not to rubber-stamp whomever Obama sends up to the Court) that there is no great political peril in doing their job thoroughly and without apology. She is up for a lifetime appointment. She has, after all, voiced views on judging and race that no other nominee has ever identified with. Can she put her admitted biases aside? Does she take seriously a judge’s responsibility of avoiding outcome-based decision-making and give both sides full and fair consideration?
That is what the hearing is designed to illuminate. And her performance will ultimately need to convince a majority of the Senate (perhaps a filibuster-proof majority) of her legal skill, impartiality, adherence to the rule of law, and respect for the structure of our constitutional system. At the very least, it will be enlightening as her defenders and critics explain their own views on racial preferences and judicial impartiality. The votersc can then see for themselves which side’s view come closest to their own. I suspect they will discover those elected to the majority in the Senate, as well as the president who nominated Sotomayor, are not in fact embracing anything remotely resembling a post-racial, let alone a colorblind, society.
Of course the Orthodox whackos could always join Kadima, let Obama and his O-bots carve Israel’s foreign policy, allow the State Department to break Israel to the bit, and allow them to dictate to Israel that she will “accomodate” and “accept” Tehran going nuke.
And after Tehran goes nuke, arms their terror proxies with nukes, ———————- maybe then, at that dire hour, the whacked Orthodox can recall the time they rejected Netanyahu, embraced brain-deadness, and screwed Netanyahu and Israel’s only chance at stopping Tehran, and did so all for the arcane issue of “conversions.”
It’s nothing short of courting, absolutely COURTING disaster.
Why does Dan (#1) scream about the “Orthodox whackos”? Exactly the same thing can be said about the “Yisrael Beiteinu” whackos who refuse to compromise on the conversion issue. With the Iranians arming themselves and others, is this the time to insist on changes to the conversion process? I read on Jpost that at least some of the religious parties are loosening in their opposition to civil marriage, one of Lieberman’s big agenda items. If they are giving in on that, why can’t he give in on conversion? It sounds like Dan just hates religious Jews (and Barack Obama)…..
Don’t dismiss the fact that the “Ultra” leadership is correct on this point.
Looks like a lot of people need to go back to school and learn about Judaism. And by the way, there can not be a compromise on conversions. One who has an improper conversion will never be allowed to marry an “orthodox”, or be considered a being jew by orthodox, or be allowed to be a part of minyan. So, why make problems for children, just bite the bullet and do it right once.
BenG’s experience in the matter seems limited. Orthodox Jews can’t even agree amongst themselves as to who is a Jew. That’s the point of all the changes in order to bring everyone (actually force everyone) into a more stringent standard. It follows the logic of computer standards. When building a computer you don’t build 5 computers for 5 standards. You pick the most stringent standard that is realistic and build your computers to that standard. Then your design is sure to meet the other standards. (I used to work for Dell so excuse the computer analogy.
)
However, it seems that current standard requires the potential convert to prove beyond doubt that she will be Orthodox for time beyond even death. So… if she remains observant her entire life but when she dies her foolish relatives bury her incorrectly, her child’s status will come under question when he is asked whether his mother had a proper conversion. If his only proof is a picture of her grave site, it may not be enough that she was in fact observant all her life. She will have to rise from the grave and declare it.
And, incidentally, no one is questioned about whether they are a Jew when they come for minyan (prayer service). They also don’t ask you if you are shomer Shabbat (observant in the laws of the Sabbath). For the purposes of gathering a quorum for a minyan they assume you are a Jew unless they know for a fact otherwise. Matters of marriage are different of course.
I am a member of the Union for Traditional Judaism and not United Torah Judaism, in case anyone was wondering, and yeah…. I’m a convert.
The conversion issue is one that is primarily related to rabbinic control of marriages. There have been reports that the UTJ rabbinic leadership is prepared to accept a limited type of civil marriage, i.e., civil marriages between non-Jews performed by a non-Jew. This may not seem like much, but in the ultra orthodox world it is a huge step. Who knows, but Lieberman might accept this step as a small down payment in order to arrive at a coalition government and press for further changes down the road.
Alex, I had to look up what is UTJ. And as long as one follows the Halacha, I do not have a problem. About children, my personal opinion, as long a mother at the time on given birth was considered Jewish, the kid is Jewish. And I do realize that being a convert is much harder, then being born a jew. Again, our law requires treat a convert just like any jew, and do know that there are some ignorant “ulta”s who do not accept convert at all, although it is spelled out in Torah. Still an easier conversion is not an answer.
Do you really mean “construed”?
I’m not talking about easier conversions. I’m talking about Halakhic conversions that don’t increase the burden beyond reason. I can live with a fence around the Torah, but when one erects a fortress instead of a fence, it is clear that one is no longer being careful. One is being prohibitive. One is outlawing conversions by making the requirements so onerous that almost no one could reasonably qualify.
It’s like charging $100,000 for each and every etrog. One might say that if a person is REALLY serious then he would pay any price in order to fulfill a commandment. But setting the price at $100,000 will only prevent most people who would normally observe the commandments to abandon them. And scorning those poor people for their lack of sincere commitment becomes a cruel joke.
A fence around the Torah? Yes. A fortress? No.