Question of the Week
Do You Expect to Learn Anything From the Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings?
Posted Jul 8, 2009 12:11 PM CST
By Molly McDonough
Endorsements and protests of Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor are pouring in as Senators ready their opening statements and strategic questions for the woman who President Barack Obama has chosen to replace retired Justice David H. Souter.
The hearings, which tend to run between four and five days, are rare enough that they will be a spectacle even if you buy Tom Goldstein's argument that "it's all over but the swearing in." Note: We'll provide gavel to gavel highlights from the hearings and snippets from the blogosphere here at ABAJournal.com.
All this lead up and political posturing got us to wondering about the actual value of these hearings. Has the process evaporated into a vapid TV presentation? Or is there still value to be found? For many Americans, this may be the only chance to see Sotomayor in action, albeit a well-rehearsed version of herself.
So tell us...
What, if anything, do you expect to learn from the hearings? And what, if anything, would you do to improve the confirmation process?
Answer in the comments below.
Read answers to last week's question: "Briefs and Oral Arguments: What’s Worst of the Worst?"
Featured answer:
Excerpted from Raleigh: "My personal favorite is when an attorney uses 'clearly' in a Brief. In my first read, I always circle it and focus my attention there, because almost invariably it is a red flag that the drafter thinks their own argument is weak and that they needed a persuasive adverb to get that argument over the threshold."
- How B of A’s GC Got Fired: Leave Now, and Leave Your BlackBerry Behind
- Schools Ranked by 'Super Lawyers' Produced
- Law Firm Price Wars Break Out as Some Try ‘Loss Leader’ Bids for Work
- Five Questions for Law Firms Abandoning Lockstep Compensation
- Judge Jails 2 Attorneys for Contempt in 4 Days
- Court Deputy Ordered to Apologize or Face Jail After Taking Lawyer's Paperwork
- Skadden Jumps on the Bonus Bandwagon
- ABA Executive Director Resigns
- Nasty Attitude to Co-Worker, Naughty Word in Web Comment Cost 2 Their Jobs
- NU Law Dean Adjusts 'Super Lawyers' Rankings to Reflect Law School Size
Should Supreme Court Justices Be Able to Review News Accounts Before Publication?
Comments
T.R.
Jul 8, 2009 12:36 PM CST
The whole bloody affair will be as much a confirmation hearing for Judge Sotomayor as it will be a coming-out party for Senator Franken. To that extent, it could be fairly interesting…I guess.
associate
Jul 9, 2009 9:41 AM CST
I expect a whole lot of not answering any questions. There’s going to be a lot of psycho babble and kissing up, and then… next question.
B. McLeod
Jul 10, 2009 7:15 AM CST
This show will be more about posing by committee members than anything to do with the nominee.
LJCB
Jul 10, 2009 7:41 AM CST
This will be a show that should start a lot of people’s red flags to waving about the direction progressive mandates are going to be taking the Constitution and this country in the next decades. Hold onto your seats and take off your rose-coloured glasses!
Bill
Jul 10, 2009 7:59 AM CST
I wonder if the Senators will drone on for 10 minutes without actually asking any questions, like they did for Roberts and Alito. Chuck Schumer loves nothing so much as the sound of his own voice. At least we won’t have to listen to Biden going on and on and on and lecturing the nominee.
Answer to the question “do you expect to learn anything” - not really.
JF
Jul 10, 2009 8:22 AM CST
This will be an opportunity for the Senate GOP to set the bar at a new low and proceed to slither under it. Highlight: reverse-discrimination poster child and sometime New Haven firefighter Ricci.
Kalifornia Arnold
Jul 10, 2009 9:06 AM CST
Only that the New Haven firefighters were lucky in that : (1) They won and (2) The case was decided before Sotomayor gets on the court (and she will—).
Kafka Equire
Jul 10, 2009 9:24 AM CST
I expect to learn nothing surprising about a nominee at a confirmation hearing.
I cannot speak for the judicial branch, but in the executive branch, confirmation hearings are merely well-rehearsed plays. The play is written and rehearsed well in advance; the answers scripted and cleared by the White House.
Many years and several administrations ago, I was part of a team (quite large) that poured over a nominee’s disclosures and Hill-provided questions. Based on (a) the known questions, (b) the most likely questions and issues likely to be posed by flame throwers in the other party; (c) the Administration’s agenda; and, perhaps of least importance overall, (d) the nominee’s disclosures, we prepared what we considered to be a Bork-proof draft written statement / speech filled with middle-of-the-road talking points, possible answers, apple pie, and the appropriate “I will work with Members and their staffs” language. This document was then subjected to numerous serial reviews and edits by stakeholders within the administration, and the nominee then was provided with the script.
At the hearing, the known “friendlies” asked the known questions and received the pre-approved responses; and the known “unfriendlies” bated the nominee, postured against the administration, and received the “I will work with you” responses. All questioners received the apple pie.
The nominee was confirmed, voting along party lines.
J W Frank
Jul 10, 2009 9:28 AM CST
The committee hearsing for the confirmation don’t add much of real value to the vetting process that must occur for any new judge, at all levels of the judiciary. All we will see is politial posturing and grandstanding by members from both parties without adding any infomation of real value to the process.
Bjones
Jul 10, 2009 6:24 PM CST
Yikes—we already know than that she appears to be:
1. A bigot.
2. Thin on reasoning.
3. Contemptuous of an appellate judge’s proper role.
I hope she is just B.O.‘s Miers and the next pick is less of a policy preference driven judge.
rob kunkel
Jul 11, 2009 11:06 AM CST
I will again marvel how the media tries to make this look interesting for Joe T-V. Of course, any media event is furtile fodder for the emergence of a special GOP leader. One never knows who may have that magic moment and when. In the end, this is probably just a few more blocks of 10 minute air time for Chris Matthews and Meet the Press.
BMF
Jul 11, 2009 12:58 PM CST
Oh, let’s see… There will be a competition among the conservatives to see who can provide provide the most—and most tasteless—sound bites. Much howling from liberals will ensue. Shortly thereafter, the “winning” conservative will be followed by the MSM who will provide lurid details of his non-marital sex life. Yessir, we’re gonna learn us something about how the system works!
Add a Comment
We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.
Commenting has expired on this post.