The Senate Judiciary Committee this week approved the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, setting the stage for the 55-year-old appellate judge to become the first Hispanic and the third woman to serve on the nation’s high court. The 13–6 committee vote broke nearly entirely along party lines, with all 12 Democrats and only one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, supporting the nomination. The Democratic-controlled Senate is expected to easily confirm her next week.
Democrats cited what they called Sotomayor’s moderate record over 17 years on the federal bench in New York, and lauded her up-from-the-projects biography. But the judiciary panel’s ranking Republican, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, said Sotomayor lacked “the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism.” Some Hispanic groups suggested Republicans would pay a political price for their opposition. “The lack of GOP support is profoundly unfortunate,” said Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.
Sotomayor certainly delivered an “amazing performance” before the committee, said Jay Nordlinger in National Review Online. But a performance it was. “The Sonia Sotomayor of the past was completely gone.” The consummate liberal who once insisted that objectivity in the law was a “fantasy” was replaced by “a champion of impartiality, disinterestedness, and the rule of law.” What a charade.
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
Blame the confirmation process, said John Nichols in The Nation. Judicial nominees now routinely dodge even the most rudimentary questions about their jurisprudence, to avoid giving ammunition to partisan opponents. As a result, as Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold said in frustration, the entire process “fails to educate the Senate or the public about the views of potential justices.” How strange that the only people who can’t express an opinion on abortion and the other hot-button issues that land before the Supreme Court are the ones who will actually decide those issues.
Obama could pay heavy a price for Sotomayor’s artful dodging, said Dahlia Lithwick in Newsweek. By indulging the “fantasy” that a good judge is a “robot umpire,” Obama may have severely curtailed his options the next time a vacancy presents itself. Forced onto the defensive, Sotomayor denounced judicial “empathy” and avoided any blatant advocacy for the downtrodden. There are many excellent Supreme Court contenders who “may not be able to meet this new Sotomayor standard.”
Continue reading for free
We hope you're enjoying The Week's refreshingly open-minded journalism.
Subscribed to The Week? Register your account with the same email as your subscription.
-
What to know when filing a hurricane insurance claimThe Explainer A step-by-step to figure out what insurance will cover and what else you can do beyond filing a claim
-
How fees impact your investment portfolio — and how to save on them
The Explainer Even seemingly small fees can take a big bite out of returns
-
Enemy without
Cartoons
-
NSA surveillance ruled unconstitutional
feature A federal judge ruled that the National Security Agency's mass collection of domestic phone data “almost certainly” violates the Constitution.
-
The gun debate one year after Newtown
feature The first anniversary of the school shootings in Newtown reignited the debate over gun control, as another school shooting occurred in Colorado.
-
A gun revolt in Colorado
feature Two Colorado Democrats who helped push through tough new gun-control laws were ousted in a historic recall vote.
-
The battle over voter ID laws
feature The Obama administration is challenging the right of Texas to enforce rigorous new voting restrictions.
-
Stricter affirmative action
feature The Supreme Court raised the bar for considering race in university admissions.
-
Voting Rights Act gutted
feature The Supreme Court struck down a core component of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
-
A turning point on gay marriage
feature The Supreme Court struck a historic blow in favor of gay rights.
-
Court approves DNA swabs
feature The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that police are justified in taking DNA samples from anyone who’s arrested.