Next Gen Journal

By Clint Akarmann

As the Senate Judiciary Committee began its confirmation hearings into the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor as the newest Supreme Court Justice, many were curious to learn more about her legal views.  Because she was appointed by Democratic President Barack Obama, it was assumed that she would reflect many of Obama’s key values and beliefs.  Yet, her full legal beliefs were still unknown, and the Senate hearings were seen as an opportunity to learn more about her background and her standings on controversial issues.  Following four days of hearings, however, it became clear that not much else would be learned about the first Latina Supreme Court nominee.

Sonia Sotomayor with President Obama (Public Domain- An Official White House Image)

In an interesting article, The Wall Street Journal described Sotomayor’s hearing (and those of past Supreme Court justices) as a “kabuki dance.”  The euphemism refers to an activity that is played out in a very stylized and predictable fashion.  Once the hearings began, it became obvious that the Democratic senators would heap much praise on Sotomayor without challenging her too deeply on any hot-button issues.  The Republicans, on the other hand, would try to pin Sotomayor down by calling into question her statements on being a “wise Latina” or her beliefs about judicial “empathy.”

Newly-minted Senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) joked that he and Sotomayor were both fans of the Perry Mason detective TV series when they were younger.  Although it may have been an amusing anecdote, it also served as a sign that Sotomayor faced little challenge from the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-California) gave Sotomayor’s judicial temperament an “A++,” and many Democratic Senators were quick to point out her inspiring life path from the Bronx projects to the ivy-adorned halls of Princeton University.  In the end, however, little was revealed about Sotomayor’s view on the law itself.

In response came the Republican senators, seeking to grill Sotomayor on her controversial statements while being careful not to belittle her Latino heritage or her qualifications to serve on the nation’s highest court.  South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham (R) emphasized that Sotomayor’s most controversial speeches “bug the hell out of me” but when challenged with her previous quotes, Sotomayor calmly described how she will faithfully follow the law without any bias.  When questioned on abortion by Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn (R), Sotomayor refused to speak “in abstract” on any hypothetical cases.  Throughout the hearings, she refused to take the bait of Republican queries, repeating over and over what the precedents had put forward without expanding on her personal opinions or hopes for the future.

In the end, the Republicans stated that they would not filibuster or obstruct Sotomayor’s ascent to the Supreme Court, paving the way for a slam-dunk confirmation.  Yet, these recent events demonstrate that Supreme Court confirmations do not so much delve into a justice’s beliefs or views but instead result in a sort of cat-and-mouse game, with supporting senators heaping praise while senators of the opposing party attempt to trip up the nominee.  In a wise move, Sotomayor rebuffed any attempts to challenge her views or dig deeper into her personality, leaving Republican senators frustrated as a result.  Unfortunately, many Americans were also left in the dark by a confirmation hearing that resulted in more questions than answers.

Clint Akarmann is the NGJ Politics Editor and a student at Cathedral Catholic High School in San Diego, CA.

The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.