Sotomayor’s Confirmation “Not A Done Deal”

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.

0
Shares
Google+ Print

Sotomayor’s Confirmation “Not A Done Deal”

Must-Reads from Magazine

We Need to Talk About Genetic Engineering

Sleepwalking toward a revolution.

The most important news of the week was buried underneath an avalanche of dispatches involving palace intrigue in the White House and the Republican Party’s effort to deconstruct the Affordable Care Act. A team of scientists at the Oregon Health and Science University had, according to the MIT Technology Review, used a relatively new gene-editing technique to alter the DNA of a single-cell human embryo.

9
Shares
Google+ Print

A Man With a Plan?

Podcast: Is it a purge or a plan? Or both!

On the second of this week’s podcasts, I get into it with Noah Rothman on whether the president’s behavior toward his attorney general and the new White House communications director’s conduct toward the White House chief of staff constitute a “plan” of action or whether we are just living through nihilistic chaos. Where does Abe Greenwald come out? You’ll have to give a listen.

2
Shares
Google+ Print

Playing Transgender Politics

Posturing, not policy.

On Wednesday morning, at 8:55 a.m., President Trump tweeted: “After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow…” Many in the Pentagon wondered if he was announcing military action against North Korea, which, according to new intelligence estimates, is set to field a nuclear-tipped ICBM as early as next year. Not until nine minutes later was the suspense lifted with another presidential tweet: “…Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military.”

13
Shares
Google+ Print

A Secularist vs. the Progressive Faith

A double standard is, in fact, a standard. Just an immoral one.

Really it should come as no surprise that the scientist and outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins is the latest public figure to have fallen victim to a disinviting mania. After all, if a darling of the left feminist like Germaine Greer can face a campaign to silence her over her views on transgenderism or a woman of color like Ayaan Hirsi Ali can face similar attempts to have her free speech on campus canceled, why should Dawkins be spared?

50
Shares
Google+ Print

Unmasking Is Not a Distraction

Democrats will regret treating this as a partisan issue.

Whenever a former Obama administration official’s name comes up in the process of investigating the Trump campaign’s alleged links to Russian sources, Democrats take the position that the right’s penchant for “whataboutism” neutralizes the implication of wrongdoing. The Democratic objective is to shame those who are committed to crafting a full and unbiased portrait of the events of 2016 into ignoring inconvenient facts, but the Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee remains unintimidated.

15
Shares
Google+ Print