Commentary Magazine


Contentions

Re: None of This Matters

Andy McCarthy also remarks on the Democrats’ new-found reticence to explore a Supreme Court nominee’s extracurricular activities. He observes that Democrats have elicited her testimony about her work for PRLDEF, but haven’t come forward with the documents evidencing her work there. He writes:

Democrats shouldn’t be allowed to have it both ways. If the PRLDEF is relevant enough for Democrats to elicit testimony about, then it’s relevant enough for Republicans to press hard to get the pertinent documents and time to review them. In a legal trial — which is far less important than vetting a nominee for a lifetime appointment on the nation’s highest court — a judge in such a situation would routinely order the disclosure of the relevant documents and grant an adjournment so they could be reviewed; otherwise, disclosure is not meaningful or consistent with due process. Why should less than that be acceptable here?

Moreover, it wasn’t Sotomayor’s detractors who made her nomination all about her biography. The president did, touting her story and making “empathy” a key consideration. No detail — not even her Nancy Drew reading material — was too obscure. But then it turns out she has a load of wacky stuff in her biography — speeches that ascribe “inherent physiological differences” to different ethnic groups and denigrate impartiality, not to mention work for a left-wing advocacy group that insists women are “enslaved” unless taxpayers fund abortions. So now, Democrats tell us, biography is irrelevant. All they want to talk about are major league baseball and her judicial decisions.

But that doesn’t seem right. Let’s be honest here: in a day and a half of hearings she has not said one insightful or original thing about the law. She was not chosen for her legal brilliance. She was chosen for her biography and for being a “safe” liberal vote. So let’s talk about both and review her twelve year affiliation with PRLDEF. Both her biography and her legal philosophy would no doubt be elucidated by a thorough review of her work there. And that, of course, is why her supporters would rather skip the whole thing and forget about those 300 boxes of documents.


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.