Commentary Magazine


Contentions

“Who Are We Getting Here?”

Lindsay Graham says he is troubled by the gap between her speeches and what we are hearing today. He asks what “legal realism” means. She gives an answer about as bad as Sarah Palin’s explanation of the “Bush doctrine.” She says it is looking at things in the context of “realism” — or words to that effect. Graham helps her out — “touchy, feely stuff”? Well, she’ll agree with that. She is now wowing us with her legal philosophy. Is the Constitution a “living document”? She avoids “going there” by saying the Constitution doesn’t change but society does.  He is asking crisp yet important questions and she frankly looks unprepared. Does the Constitution as written prevent states from regulating abortion in the Constitution? Anything in the document? She retreats to the “broad liberty provision of the Constitution.” And Graham says it is that “broad provision” which brings us here. He speaks rather eloquently in favor of letting the elected branches “change” society. But then he frankly wimps out a bit, and only asks her whether she can understand that. Sure!

He then goes through the complaints on her temperament. Not my favorite line of questioning because lots of judges are pistols and she’s not up for a trial judge slot. And it is easily rebutted: Yes, she says, she asks tough questions. Well, you’re tougher than your colleagues, aren’t you? She says she has no temperament problem.

It isn’t clear how Graham is leaning here. Is he really disturbed or just stepping up his rhetoric to calm irritated conservatives? He plainly isn’t giving her complete “deference” as he spoke about in his opening comments.

UPDATE: He focuses on the “wise Latina” comment and says that had he made the comment in a campaign against a minority opponent it would be curtains. She “understands” that and asks for her comment to be understood in the context of her whole career. Graham seems to leap at that, declaring that would be a great thing to come out of this hearing. Sigh. But what did she mean? And why did she say it? And if it is not a single statement but one repeated over and over again, shouldn’t we be very concerned?



Join the discussion…

Are you a subscriber? Log in to comment »

Not a subscriber? Join the discussion today, subscribe to Commentary »





Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.