Variations on vanilla
Why Sonia Sotomayor is playing it safe and saying so little
Variations on vanilla
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
Sonia Sotomayor's purposely bland testimony, her determination to sound robotic and say virtually nothing, is almost enough to make me pine for those distant days when a Senate confirmation hearing could be spiced with talk about pubic hair and Long Dong Silver.
Sotomayor has hewed to the reticent stategy that was best articulated by Ruth Bader Ginsburg during her 1993 confirmation hearing. Ginsburg warned her Senate inquisitors at the outset that she would offer "no hints, no forecasts, no previews" on how she might rule on anything that came before the high court, and she largely stuck to that rule. All nominees since Ginsburg have done virtually the same, if only to avoid making themselves a fat target for the ideological interest groups that are perpetually locked and loaded.
And Sotomayor, of course, has extra incentive to play it safe. She's facing seven Republican white men who are looking for something, anything, to help them paint her as a reverse-racist Puerto Rican woman enslaved by her emotions. (Bill Maher has mimicked the Republican strategy thusly: "For too long, Puerto Rican women have had their boot on the neck of white men in America, and this has to stop!") So it's probably no surprise that Sotomayor has endeavored to lull the opposition to sleep with responses that can best be described as variations on vanilla.
For starters, of course, she has played down her past statements about how life experience is an important ingredient in any wise judge's thinking. (This would be the same life experience that helped compel President Obama to nominate her in the first place.) But here she is at cruising speed:
When asked yesterday by Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley to address the general issue of whether governments had the right to take private property for public purpose, she replied: "Opining on a hypothetical is very, very difficult for a judge to do...I can't engage in a question that involves hypotheses."
When asked by Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch to address a specific issue of gun rights, she replied: "There are three cases addressing this issue, at least, I should say, three cases addressing this issue in the circuit courts, and so it's not a question that I can address...I bring an open mind to every case."
When asked by Democratic Sen. Herbert Kohl to name a current Supreme Court justice whom she admires, she replied: "Senator, to suggest that I admire one of the sitting Supreme Court justices would suggest that I think of myself as a clone of one of the justices. I don’t...Going further than that would put me in the position of suggesting that, by picking one justice, I was disagreeing or criticizing another. And I don’t wish to do that."
Shortly thereafter, she said to Kohl: "I’m a judge who believes that the facts drive the law." At another point, she told Republican Sen. John Kyl, "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts." At another point in the proceedings, she said: "The task before me as a judge is not to accept or not accept new theories; it's to decide whether the law, as it exists, has principles that apply to new situations."
This is the Ginsburg strategy, as further refined by John Roberts, who famously (and fatuously) insisted during his own confirmation hearing that judges are no different from baseball umpires who objectively call balls and strikes. Sotomayor well recognizes - but prefers not to say out loud - that judges frequently disagree on what constitutes "the facts," because the assemblage of "the facts" hinges in part on what legal perspectives and life experiences the judges bring to bear. And baseball fans know quite well - as does Roberts, presumably - that there is no robotically objective way to call balls and strikes; some umps have an expansive strike zone, while others squeeze the pitcher.
Judges are similarly heterogeneous, but high court nominees and their presidential sponsors have come to recognize that the prospects for a smooth confirmation are enhanced by behaving during testimony as if the heart and brain function the same way as a MacBook.
For that reason alone, Sotomayor will continue to say virtually squat about the hot stuff that will likely come her way in the years ahead, everything from gay rights and campaign finance and abortion and environmental law to anti-trust law and executive war powers and the death penalty and church-state relations. Republicans will undoubtedly wind up feeling just as frustrated as Joe Biden, who, as the ranking Judiciary Committee Democrat in 2005, complained to nominee Roberts, "You've told me nothing."
It's arguably unfortunate that high court confirmation hearings have become so substance-free - given the fact that, after all, the nominees are getting lifetime jobs, with the potential to influence national life far more than any president - but Washington is a place where candor is often converted into a weapon, for use against the person who dared speak openly.
There is currently a new TV ad, sponsored by the conservative Committee for Justice, which claims that Sotomayor "led a group supporting violent Puerto Rican terrorists." The ad also seeks to link her to '60s bomber Bill Ayres. I kid you not.
Why should Sotomayor risk saying anything, or exuding any ethnic flavor, that would give aid and comfort to those who are thirsting to take her down? Better to stick with vanilla.
-------
There was one spicy episode yesterday, however:
Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, the GOP's designated point man, was in the midst of painting Sotomayor as a biased judge swayed by her gender and ethnicity when he sought to play his trump card. He told Sotomayor that she didn't measure up to the standard set by Miriam Cedarbaum, a federal judge who, in Sessions' words, "believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices." He then added, "So I would just say to you, I believe in Judge Cedarbaum’s formulation."
...To which Sotomayor replied: "My friend Judge Cedarbaum is here."
Yep, Cederbaum was in the room, as part of Sotomayor's rooting section. Turns out, Cederbaum has been mentoring Sotomayor since 1992.
Sotomayor continued: "We are good friends, and I believe that we both approach judging in the same way, which is looking at the facts of each individual case and applying the law to those facts." (Cederbaum later told The Wall Street Journal: "I don’t believe for a minute that there are any differences in our approach to judging, and her personal predilections have no effect on her approach to judging.")
But back to that priceless retort for a moment: When Sotomayor revealed that she happened to have Cederbaum close at hand, Jeff Sessions looked - ever so fleetingly - as if someone had swiped his pants. As a metaphor for the GOP's frustrations, this episode was almost too good.
Typical of a Republican. Always running off at the mouth without knowing what's going on in the room where they are. Love it.— HandNik- Congressional hearings today are absolutely worthless, and it doesn't matter what viewpoint you're looking at it from. It's just a bunch of narcissistic guys who like to hear themselves talk and get onto the official record. Case in point: I was watching one of the House Financial Services Committee hearings about the financial crisis a few months ago, and the congressmen were bombarding Geithner and Bernanke about their lax oversight and how did they personally let mortgages, AIG, banking, etc get so out of hand and didn't regulate and oversee them. Putting aside any feelings towards Geithner or Ben-they're both new (-ish, at least in Bernanke's case)-didn't these congressmen see the blatant irony in their statements as members of the Financial Oversight Committee, that basically didn't oversee anything for the past?— donde
- the episode with cedarbaum sort of reminds me of the scene in annie hall with marshall macluhan— snarque
- ZZZZZZ. "With all due respect, sir, you're beginning to bore the h_ll out of me". Thomas Highway.— CD75
- ANOTHER post on Sotomayor??? Dick, she's going to be confirmed...this has been known since Day 1. My God!!— Vandy
Speaking of Ginsburg, I would ask Sotomayor what she makes of Ginsburg's recent statement "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.". It would be most interesting to hear her answer.— jmc- jmc (he’s a member of the Republican Special Ed class along with Rush, Beck and the NRO low-trackers) easily wins Wanker of the day already – for purposely and stupidly misrepresenting Ginsburg’s quote. Why do you make yourself look like such a fool when it is so easy to smack you down, hard?: JUSTICE GINSBURG: “Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.” Sotomayor has already provided her personal opinion on this quote, jackazz. Go find it and stop posting here - You’re a waste of space.— LorettaL
- jmc (he’s a member of the Republican Special Ed class along with Rush, Beck and the NRO low-trackers) easily wins Wanker of the day already – for purposely and stupidly misrepresenting Ginsburg’s quote. Why do you make yourself look like such a fool when it is so easy to smack you down, hard?: JUSTICE GINSBURG: “Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae -- in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn't really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.” Sotomayor has already provided her personal opinion on this quote, jackazz. Go find it and stop posting here - You’re a waste of space.— LorettaL
- She sounds like another flaming liberal who dressed up like a conservative in order to get general approval. There is no political points that anyone will score on this. If the economy does not improve then Democrats will pay the political price at the ballot box. Michigan's unemployment rate might now hit 20%. And in case you missed it China, India, and Mexico told Obama and his pollution controls to take a flying hike. So much for that improved world standing...... I saw a person filling up their Escalade today with an Obama sticker on the bumper , but I couldn't seem to find the windmill that was powering this gas guzzler.
- I don't agree with you Smike. She does seem to be a little left of center but not an extreme liberal by any means. Could your objections of her really stem from the fact that she was nominated by Barack Obama who to you is also a flaming liberal? I don't think most people would describe Obama or Sotomoyer as extreme liberals. The voters last fall rather convincingly elected Obama. They have rejected the extreme right wing. Sotomoyer is a viable candidate to the SCOTUS. You cannot expect perfection from any candidate. I believe she will be a fair judge like I believe all the other judges on the court are. She belongs there. I don't always agree with certain conservative SCOTUS judges but I respect their opinion. I guess being a moderate gives me a more objective view. Yours is just too partisan (In my opinion of course).— James TL
Comment removed.- Swedesboromike – I must disagree with some of your comments as well: The Republicans have no chance of political gain from Sotomayor’s confirmation. The only reason they are putting on this vile and disgusting show of racist attack is to appease their extremist base and hopefully attract additional racist supporters. (how out of touch is the GOP to think that MORE people will become racist, when the country keeps moving into diversity accepting majorities all over the map?) When all is said and done, Obama will have seated a highly qualified SCJ and the Repubs will have further cemented their racist, alienating party trait. Keep hoping for more misery with the “failure” of the economy – it’s purely a Republican quality that keeps losing them supporters and election after election. It’s the only way they could ever make political gain, because they have nothing else.— LorettaL
- Comment removed.
- Lorettal- The electorate now agrees with the Republicans on 8 out of 10 key issues so as much as you might wish for the eulogy of the Republican party I think you are just playing partison politics. I get fed up with the whole political system in general to be very honest with you. But right or wrong, fairly or not if the economy does not improve the party in charge pays at the ballot box. It's really that simple. I am really not that positive about this economy. As each days passes it seems like we hear of more job killing policies from Obama and the zombies in congress. Your bitter post seems more like a distraction from reality. You labeling a political party as racists is identity politics at its worst and far from the truth and a grand attempt at diversion from horrific policies that are putting people of all stripes out of a job.
- "The only reason they are putting on this vile and disgusting show of racist attack." That is an insane statement. The confirmation hearings have been remarkably civil, ESPECIALLY when contrasted with how your precious Democrats assailed Justice Thomas.— Vandy
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
