Why the Senate should confirm Sotomayor
Ever since Barack Obama announced Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his first selection for the U.S. Supreme Court, there has been vigorous public debate about whether or not the Senate should confirm her. I believe that the Senate should most likely confirm her.
I was working in Washington, D.C. during the confirmation hearings of both Justices Roberts and Alito. Their hearings were intense and debate was furious. Despite both being highly qualified to be on the Court, Democrats threatened to filibuster the Roberts nomination and attempted a filibuster against Alito but failed.
Democrat objections were not about the nominees’ qualifications but about their political stances on issues like abortion. The Democrats were wrong then, and, most likely, the Republicans would be wrong to try to hold up or reject the Sotomayor nomination now.
The Senate’s constitutional duty is to confirm or reject nominations, not delay them. Delay tactics have not always been common for Supreme Court nominations. In 1922, the Senate confirmed George Sutherland, the only Supreme Court justice from Utah, the same day he was nominated. Sutherland was in Europe and may not have even known about it.
From 1789 to 1949, the average time from nomination to confirmation was 13 days. Since then, the average has been 62 days. Perhaps the confirmation period has lengthened simply because the Senate is busier today or there are more resources available to research a nominee’s background, but, more than anything, the Court has become politicized. Both parties want justices to steer the Court in a direction that furthers their political views.
Is Judge Sotomayor qualified for the job? Probably, but I don’t know enough about her to say for sure. I do know that her ethnicity, gender, and political positions on abortion, affirmative action, or civil marriage don’t matter one whit when determining if she’s qualified. As long as she is honest and law-abiding, has appropriate and adequate experience, and hasn’t made any rulings that both parties would consider to be outlandish, then she, and any future nominee, should be confirmed.
Many Republicans don’t agree with what they believe is her judicial philosophy — a broad interpretation of constitutional principles — and I probably don’t either. But the truth is that judges rarely agree on every aspect of their judicial philosophies.
If the nominee meets the basic requirements described above, then the Senate should give deference to the president’s selection, regardless of his party affiliation.
As Rex Lee once said:
One of the most important acts of any president–some have said the most important–is to appoint members of the Supreme Court, whose average tenure has been several times that of our presidents.
Therefore, over the decades of your future careers as voting Americans, just remember that when you vote for a president, you are doing more than picking the person who will lead us in war and peace and have access to Camp David and Air Force One. You are also in effect making a decision as to what kind of person you want on the Supreme Court. (”The Restoration and the Constitution,” Jan., 1991)
Whether Americans like it or not, we have chosen Barack Obama to be our president. We should support any reasonable Supreme Court nomination he makes. So far, I haven’t heard or seen any strong evidence indicating that the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is unreasonable.
What do you think?
Resources:
Sotomayor Questionnaire (detailed background info.)
Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide
My paper on constitutional interpretation
Comment by Lindsay Call — June 7, 2009 @ 9:53 am
Comment by J.P. — June 7, 2009 @ 2:01 pm
Comment by Scott — June 8, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — June 8, 2009 @ 8:42 am