Courtwatch
July 16, 2009 2:46 PM

Sotomayor Confirmation a Done Deal

(AP)
It takes brains, temperament and really good timing to become a Supreme Court Justice. The legal landscape is littered with the careers of brilliant jurists who weren't the right person in the right place at the right time. And the Supreme Court has been littered with yahoos who lucked out and squeaked through.

What it takes to "pass" modern-day, post-Bork confirmation hearings, however, is a completely different matter. You don't need candor. You don't need courage. You don't need to be right. You don't even have to pretend that you have all the answers. All you really need is patience, a large bladder, thick skin, and the unwavering strength to sit upright and awake, hour after hour, and speak at great length and in serious, sonorous tones without saying anything at all.

John G. Roberts, Jr. accomplished this arduous if fairly mindless feat in 2005 and is now chief justice of the United States. Samuel A. Alito, Jr. did it in 2006 and he's now an associate justice. And Sonia Sotomayor, a wise Latina woman if there ever were one, has just managed to match the boys. She is on her way to getting, oh, I'd say 70 or so votes for confirmation to become only the third woman in American history to land the law's big prize.

With the main part of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing now complete, with the judge finally off the hot seat, it's fair to say she did everything her compulsive White House handlers had hoped she would. She talked at length to her critics on the Senate Judiciary Committee about her "motivational" speeches. If some of her explanations didn't really make sense—and often they didn't—there isn't anything Senate can do about it anyway. What's left to say after you've said sorry about your many "rhetorical flourishes" that fell flat?

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
Indeed, the lawmakers couldn't shut Sotomayor up when it came to her explanations about "Wise Latina" women and how judges don't really make policy and the Ricci firefighters ruling and all the rest of the third-rate faux controversies her enemies had ginned up against her. That none of these matters were remotely material to determining whether she's capable of handling the job—there were no high crimes or misdemeanors alleged, after all—was irrelevant. In the absent of any legitimate concerns the tribunes of politics churned up phony ones and the questions from earnest senators poured in.

Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again thinking that you'll reach a different result. This didn't stop committee members from asking Sotomayor, over and over again, if she'd allow cameras into the court, or if she agrees that the court ought to accept more cases, or if she concedes that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms blocks state regulations, or if she believes there ought to be more (or fewer) restrictions on abortion. Over two and a half days the questions were nearly identical and so were the non-answer answers.

When it came to her core judicial beliefs, when it came to what she really thinks about the major substantive issues of the day, Sotomayor pulled a Roberts, an Alito, a Breyer and a Ginsburg. In fact, she may have out-Ginsburged Ginsburg, who first started this disappointing trend of nominees stoically and earnestly refusing to shed any light in their confirmation hearings about issues the American people care about most. In this way, all of us are paying the price for the sins (on both sides) of the Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas hearings, which are now a generation old.

The White House hopes that the Congress, and the American people, will judge the judge upon what she has done over 17 years on the bench and not what she has said in a few decades off of it. Indeed, that is going to happen. And, indeed, it probably should. We like to say: "Do as I say and not as I do" but in reality the only thing that matters about judging is how a judge votes in a particular case. And despite Sotomayor's inflammatory words, her record as a centrist, moderate, practical, cautious judge is very, very deep. She talks smack. She judges carefully. It's not the worst combination. Better that than those soft-spoken judges who issue wing-nut opinions, right?

Committee members soon will start scratching each other's backs with praise about having performed the "advise and consent" function given to them in the Constitution. And perhaps that solemn (if ambiguous and unworkable) duty is what pushes these windy lawmakers, hour after hour, to ask hundreds of questions to which they know they won't get an answer from the nominee. Either that or it's the cameras, and the free air-time, and the opportunity to pretend that the rare exercise is meaningfully insightful when we all know it isn't.

What did Sotomayor prove this week? That she is smart and controlled and patient and indefatigable; that she can say the same thing over and over again, using slightly different words, to avoid direct answers to questions; that she can stare down inquisitors; that her ability to dodge and duck was greater than was the ability of committee members to pin her down; and that she really didn't want to tell us what we really wanted to know. She'll make a fine justice and if that doesn't work out clearly she'd make a really good player at the World Series of Poker, too.

More Coverage of the Hearings

Sotomayor Still Standing After Testimony

GOP Unable to Pin Sotomayor Down

Sotomayor Dodges Gun Rights Questions

Sotomayor Still Standing After Two Days

Sotomayor Pressed on Gun Rights

Republicans Aren't Sold on "Wise Latina" Explanation

Sotomayor Goes to Rope-a-Dope Strategy

Analysis: Sotomayor Has Been Very Cautious

Sotomayor: Abortion Law Is "Settled"

Sotomayor Promises "Fidelity to the Law"



(CBS)
Andrew Cohen is CBS News' Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor. CourtWatch is his new blog with analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events. For columns on legal issues before the beginning of this blog, click here. You can also follow him on Twitter.


Tags:
Sonia Sotomayor ,
Senate ,
Supreme Court
Topics:
Sonia Sotomayor
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 33 Comments
by cwdfreedom July 22, 2009 10:09 AM EDT
sotomayor should never be allowed to serve on the supreme court. she disrespects our constitution including the first and second admendments that say we have freedom pf religion, speeck and the right to bear arms. she is also a judicial activists which oversteps her boundries.
Reply to this comment
by ladypirate2 July 19, 2009 11:15 PM EDT
My memory may be failing me but I don't recall them having the vote yet! I think everyone just might be "counting their chickens before they hatch"! No doubt she probably will be elected simply because she's Obama's pick and there is not one senator or congressman with backbone enough to go against him but maybe I'm wrong! I certainly hope so! Stranger things have happened!
Reply to this comment
by South-of-Heaven July 16, 2009 9:27 PM EDT
Man the Repigs are having a CryFest this year...


LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by ladypirate2 July 20, 2009 6:07 PM EDT
Your time to cry will come in 2012 and then we will love it!
by kcrum112 July 16, 2009 9:14 PM EDT
How can she be dumb as dirt if she made it into the judicial system. let me see you do a better job. It's easy to comment on something that you can not do yourself. What's your educational abilities compared to her's.
Reply to this comment
by kcrum112 July 16, 2009 9:08 PM EDT
I think that the republican party is afraid of what is to come and they are trying to eliminant any one that they can to not be apart of anything that President Obama has to bring to the White house and bring equality for all people. You can tell that he is trying to mix things up and get people thinking about the choices they make for all people. They are afraid and they should be. I do believe that Judge Sotomayor can make better decisions than white males and I am glad President Obama chose her in the judicial system.
Reply to this comment
by cs4466 July 16, 2009 8:28 PM EDT
Wise Latina: 1
Bitter neocons: 0

LOL! Way to go Judge Sotomayor!!!

*boogie*
Reply to this comment
by Musentango July 16, 2009 8:11 PM EDT
Sotomayer? Wise? You've gotta be baked out of your gourd. :|
Reply to this comment
by democracy1 July 17, 2009 7:29 PM EDT
You say that she's "dumb as dirt", yet she has achieved more in her 55 years than you could ever hope to achieve in 1,000 lifetimes. Doesn't say much for you, does it?
by mary-miami July 16, 2009 6:33 PM EDT
It is a good thing if Sotomayor becomes a Supreme court judge. There are not enough women judges in the Supreme court; also, it's a good idea to have different ethnic groups and races represented.
That is what justice is about, having equal representation.
She seems to have a good record on being impartial.
Reply to this comment
by gravyboat4000 July 16, 2009 6:40 PM EDT
You are one of the FEW sane people here.
by Musentango July 16, 2009 8:12 PM EDT
Race and gender shouldn't be one of the top priorities. Sotomayer is as dumb as dirt.
by gravyboat4000 July 16, 2009 8:39 PM EDT
You're dumb as dirt, did you see the hearings?

She even managed to impress some of the racis...er...white southern Republicans...
by skipptowne July 17, 2009 1:02 AM EDT
Sotomayor got the kid glove treatment from Repubs. throughout the hearing because the GOP needs desperately, in 2009, to reverse their stale image of a Party that repressed women by confining them to stereotypical roles and effectively barring them from key positions. Confirmation hearings of yore, as evidenced by the absence of women, have left us a sad record of this tacit practice of exclusion, where, despite all the lofty rhetoric, the ideal candidate's only real necessary qualifications for Justice where whittled down to just two: No bias, no boobs.
by Runnyumede July 16, 2009 5:47 PM EDT
How can someone that use the wrong words when speaking glean the nuances precisely worded briefs she reads and reach a wise decision? There is great danger in some one that has English as a second language on the court. I doubt that she will have clerks that can solve that for her. The law requires a precision of language required in no other field and she has failed to demonstrate that.
Reply to this comment
by gravyboat4000 July 16, 2009 6:18 PM EDT
Did you WATCH the hearings?

Wow, the latent, yet blatant racism is sorta funny, sorta scary,and sorta sad.

My chihuahua weeps...
by KazooD July 16, 2009 7:01 PM EDT
After reading your comment, Runny, I have to wonder if English might not be a THIRD language for you.
by polisigh July 16, 2009 5:44 PM EDT
The entire confirmation is a charade. The harshest and most critical Republican questioners know that the true activist judges are the conservatives on the Supreme Court. No one can rationalize and contrive legal connections better than Scalia and Thomas. The Republican senators decry foreign law but embrace Alito' reliance on obscure 16th century British law to justify their rulings.

Sotomayor and the Democrat senators surely know how she would likely rule on issues such as abortion. Ay least Sotomayor was not as absurd as Thomas was as to claim that she never thought about the issue.

And shame on all of them for perpetuating the myth that legal decisions do not reflect the political and religious beliefs of the judges who render the opinions.
Reply to this comment
by Jack_Davis1 July 16, 2009 5:39 PM EDT
True, it IS a fait accompli. So...why are you wasting space on the story at all?
Reply to this comment
by gravyboat4000 July 16, 2009 6:16 PM EDT
Because it keeps people on thier site longer, with the possibility of their sponsors selling more shyte?
by gravyboat4000 July 16, 2009 5:20 PM EDT
Did Rush Limbaugh's head explode when he saw Senator Al Franken ask Judge Sotomayor about Perry Mason?

ROTFLMMFAO!!!

Congrats, Justice Sotomayor.
Reply to this comment
by GovernmentControl July 16, 2009 4:36 PM EDT
Why does the obama/media complex refuse to pursue critical investigative journalism about sotomayor?
Reply to this comment
by earlysaid July 16, 2009 6:37 PM EDT
There is no Obama/media. As much as republicans hate the facts bubbling out about corruption during the Bush administration, or hate how grateful most are that Bush is gone and President Obama is in. The country was going down into financial ruin because republicans had their way. Now it is up to President Obama to fix the mess republicans engineered greedily, and hopefully have time to investigate the crimes of corruption, abuse, and incompetence of the Bush/Cheney administration.
by tbbaot July 16, 2009 4:25 PM EDT
It was a done deal before it started. Dem house, Dem President, Dem senate. Waste of tax payers money to put on this farce
Reply to this comment
by RandyIsQuicker July 16, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
I found the comment, "a wise Latina woman if there ever were one," just a tad distasteful. I understand it was harmless, a mere figure of speech, but the perception of this phrase may stir some wrongly. Some may consider the author prejudiced based on the logic of the phrase "if there ever were one" because interpreted literally implies the possibility of no intelligent foreigners. People who don't understand all the nuances of English thought may consider this offensive.
Reply to this comment
by earlysaid July 16, 2009 6:30 PM EDT
If we can add this wise latina woman to the Supreme Court we will be doing a great thing for America. Judge Sotomayer has more experience as a judge and prosecutor than anyone on the Supreme Court now or in years. She knows what is most important and is highly qualified.
by fred-mertz July 16, 2009 7:53 PM EDT
"so what do you have to say about the FACT that 81% of her" -- IThoughtItWasFunnyNupe

I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THAT FOR YOU! Either you are too effing stupid to learn, are you just like spreading BS. efF Off, Bozo!
by SAMTORRES66 July 16, 2009 8:43 PM EDT
She made the comment after being married to a white guy for 8 years.
by cs4466 July 16, 2009 3:17 PM EDT
Welcome Judge Sotomayor!! WOOOHOOO!!!!! Poor neocons. LOL
Reply to this comment
by earlysaid July 16, 2009 6:22 PM EDT
Judge Sotomayer has spoken wisely to her chior (the Democrats) and intelligently and ernestly to her attackers (the Republicans). She will be a great new Supreme Court Judge. Now hopefully President Obama will name another one or two if God wills it. We are a country that has been run into the ground by policies of greed. It is time that we come back to reason and honesty for our government.
by fred-mertz July 16, 2009 7:50 PM EDT
"she's not qualified for the SCOTUS bench for the simple reason that 81% of her cases brought to the Supreme Court have been overturned..." -- IThoughtItWasFunnyNupe

I EXPLAINTED THIS TO YOU elsewhere, yet you continue to spread your BS. Are you MENTAL?

The Supremes ONLY hear cases they WANT to modify or overturn!! Either you know that's true, which makes you a deceitful scum-bag, or you are an idiot because you know NOTHING about the Supreme Court and the qualifications required to sit on it.

Judge Sotomayor is more qualified than ANYONE who has been confirmed on the supreme court for the past 70 years! You, OTOH, appear to have NO qualifications. You should S.D. and S/T-F Up.
by fred-mertz July 16, 2009 7:57 PM EDT
"Her statement about growing up watching Perry Mason was a total lie to try to pump herself up...the stooge doesn't even know anything about Perry Mason's cases..." -- IThoughtItWasFunnyNupe

HOW is it YOU KNOW she is "lying"? She's the right age to have watched Perry Mason. SOMETHING inspired her to go into law! The only question she was asked about Perry Mason was the name of the episode where Perry lost. I used to watch Perry Mason EVERY WEEK, and I didn't remember the name of that episode!

You are a DESPERATE and IGNORANT FOOL. You have NO FACTS to support your ridiculous assertions. All you want to do is stir up hatred and fear. You might as well let Rushed LimpBoogers do that! You are adding anything to the mix. IMBECILE!
by Musentango July 16, 2009 8:15 PM EDT
fred-mertz, please stfo/****. Also, stop soiling the name of the actual Fred Mertz. I'm sure he wouldn't vote commie.
See all 33 Comments

About Courtwatch

Lively analysis and commentary on breaking legal news and events from CBS News Chief Legal Analyst and Legal Editor Andrew Cohen.

E-Mail CourtWatch
Andrew Cohen's Bio
Follow Andrew Cohen On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
COURTWATCH ON TWITTER