 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Souter Vacancy Interim Period
In today's digital wireless world of instant communication, the interim period for a nomination begins before the president even makes a nomination. Within minutes of the announced retirement, reporters have to report, bloggers gotta blog, twitterers need to tweet. Advocacy group leaders, senators, and others quickly make public their views about what kind of person the president should appoint, often offering names of specific individuals. President Obama's nomination came swiftly, before an actual vacancy,
but again within the hour came reactions from left, right, and center
either praising , regaling, or taking a wait-and-see attitude about
the nomination. Obviously it takes opposition to generate controversy. These opening shots by opponents are designed to stir public opinion, to see which, if any, of the various lines of attack can gain a foothold in opposing the nominee. If advocacy groups can raise money from those convinced that the nominee should be defeated, then they will continue the attack. If not, the opposition will be more tempered. The more tempered opposition approach is to call for careful scrutiny of the nominee, to explore those concerns raised by her nomination. Opponents will explore different votes and opinions authored by Sotomayor, along with ex parte statements, seeking evidence that she could be characterized as "outside the mainstream (the standard critique from the left of conservative nominees)," lacks appropriate judicial temperament, fails to meet proper ethical standards, or is a judicial activist (the standard critique from the right of liberal nominees). The claims and counterclaims produce rhetorical excesses, often through the appropriation of poorly defined pejorative terms (again, "mainstream" and "judicial activism") and their inconsistent application. Follow politics long enough, and you'll likely find these sins of commission committed by most ideologues. Over the next few weeks, I'll try to evaluate the various claims being made. Perhaps this will provide a perspective for you other than that of those who are making the claims. In the meantime, Judge Sotomayor will make the rounds of meetings with senators of the Judiciary Committee and Senate leaders. Those private sessions are particularly important for the Republicans. They will gain a sense of whether this is a person they wish to oppose and on what grounds such opposition might be based. Senators generally cannot afford to rush to judgment unless the nominee's record clearly warrants.
Created on June 1, 2009 by GW |
||||||||||||||||||||||
The
ideologues, both left and right, brought very predictable responses.
The left praised the nomination: "a brilliant and fair-minded jurist
. . . (with) sterling credentials" (Nan Aron of the Alliance for
Justice); "a superb choice . . . one of the sharpest intellects
on the federal bench" (Michael Keegan, People for the American
Way); "eminent legal qualifications" (Wade Henderson, Coalition
for Constitutional Values). The right pilloried it: "a horrible
pick, the antithesis of a judge" (Rush Limbaugh); "questionable
intellect, temperament, ethics, and judgment . . . ensures that the
confirmation process will be a bumpy one" (Curt Levy, Committee
for Justice); " a liberal judicial activist of the first order
who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important than
the law as written" (Wendy Long, Judicial Confirmation Network).