DiagnosticsEditorials Examine Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings, Prospects
Four newspapers recently published editorials responding to last week"s confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Summaries appear below.~ Boston Globe: Sotomayor "far surpassed" the "meager standard" of "just [having] to avoid saying anything damaging," according to a Globe editorial. During the hearings, she "made it clear she believes that Supreme Court justices base their decisions on the Constitution, the law and the relevant precedents," and her "judicial record offers no reason to think otherwise," the editorial states. It continues that "the hearings did nothing to undermine -- and much to underscore -- the notion that Sotomayor has the right temperament, intellect and credentials for the Supreme Court. She should be confirmed" (Boston Globe, 7/20).~ New York Times: The Senate "has learned more than enough about [Sotomayor"s] qualifications to give her a seat on the court," according to a Times editorial. However, "[i]t would also be good if senators -- and the nation -- had a deeper sense of her views on some of the most pressing legal questions of our times," the editorial continues. It adds, "We were disappointed that at her confirmation hearings last week, she continued what is becoming an unbreakable habit of nominees dodging controversy." For example, "[w]e would have liked to hear her boldly defend the idea of the Constitution as a living document, one that changes with the times," and "we would have preferred if she had used the hearings to explain to the public that the much-mentioned distinction between judges making and applying the law has little meaning," the editorial states. Sotomayor "avoided saying much of substance about abortion rights, the scope of presidential power, and other hot-button issues," although this is "not entirely her fault," as the "Senate has shown repeatedly that it will tolerate this sort of evasion." However, "the public has a right to know where judicial nominees stand on important legal issues that will have a direct impact on their lives," the editorial states. It concludes, "We hope the Senate confirms her without delay so we can see more clearly what her contribution will be" (New York Times, 7/21).~ Washington Post: During her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor "proved herself well-qualified and worthy of confirmation," according to a Post editorial. The editorial continues, "She spoke convincingly about her belief in and record of consistently respecting legislative prerogatives -- an approach that signals a modest style of judging." Although the hearings focused on Sotomayor defending her previous speeches and comments, her "attempts to explain away and distance herself" from the statement that a wise Latina might make a better decision than a white man "were unconvincing and at times uncomfortably close to disingenuous, especially when she argued that her reason for raising questions about gender or race was to warn against injecting personal biases into the judicial process." The editorial adds, "Her repeated and lengthy speeches on the matter do not support that interpretation." According to the Post, "It"s too bad that she felt she had to disavow her true intent, because, though a wise Latina won"t necessarily judge better than a white man would, diversity on the bench is indeed important" (Washington Post, 7/19).~ Washington Times: During the hearings, Republican senators "failed to ask questions of great relevance to public understanding of the judge"s record and integrity," a Times editorial states. The editorial continues, "They owe it to all Americans to get tough enough to force an examination of whether the judge may have perjured herself during her testimony." According to the editorial, "The questions for which Judge Sotomayor"s answers are almost impossible to believe involved legal briefs on abortion cases that were filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund during the 12 years Judge Sotomayor sat on its board." Republican senators also "failed to ask sharp follow-up questions on other important points too numerous to mention," according to the editorial. It continues, "The public deserves full answers and a full and open debate," adding, "Senate Republicans ought to demand enough time to review the judge"s answers to written questions they submitted to her on Friday." Senate Republicans also "should use their automatic "hold" in the committee to put off a committee approval vote for at least a week" and "should demand and use every last hour of available debate time on the full Senate floor both before and after the majority files for cloture," according to the editorial (Washington Times, 7/20).
Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women"s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women"s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.