Someone needs to explain to me how we can derail a Supreme Court nomination before we’ve ever held the hearings. All sides are fast and furious with sound bites and video clips that buttress their position; they all want to paint Sonia Sotomayor and she is in a position where she can’t answer her critics. When there are hearings these questions can be asked and the public can hear the candidate answer the questions, I’m tired of hearing the same people beat the same drums time and again.
With the Internet, You Tube and other technology, no one can say anything that can’t be pulled up and brought back to haunt them, it will become increasingly impossible for anyone to stand up to scrutiny when they are selected for a public position, because something they did or said years ago is in the ether on the net and it’ll be there forever. When the opposition gets ready they just Google the candidate and collect what they need. Even now, many great candidates for positions are walking away because the inquisition isn’t worth the position. We’ll get people who have never taken a position on an issue, or said anything controversial because they’ll have nothing to be caught on. The most hypocritical thing is that the people with the loudest voices and the most strident rhetoric couldn’t stand up to scrutiny themselves, and they’re sitting on the outside of the political arena throwing stones at the combatants.
Of course, is what a Supreme Court nominee says all that important? We all say things in situations that aren’t necessarily what we believe, we want to endear ourselves to an audience, and sometimes that’s not smart. In the case of Sotomayor we have over 3000 decisions to review and that would appear to be the best way to decide if Sotomayor has the credentials and the temperament to become a Supreme Court justice. It would appear that since we’re asking her to become a Justice, her body of work in performing her job should be the deciding factor.
Some of the population believes that as a Justice you are totally impartial and objective in using the Constitution, and that’s the way it is. If that is true, then why do we need nine Justices? It would seem that we should get one Solomon and give them the power to make the final decision on cases and let it go. The number of Justices isn’t written in the Constitution, and has been changed at different times by different Presidents. It would appear that these Presidents felt that they needed more than one point of view. There have been seats that have been historically reserved for a certain religion or a certain sex or a certain ethnicity, and that seems to have been accepted. Presidents have picked replacements because they felt it was important to get these points of view, and to satisfy power groups, it’s still the same. Both Democratic and Republican Presidents and Senates have accepted this and the opposition has fought against it, that politics.