Questioning Judge Sotomayor

The GOP is feeling pressure to "keep the gloves on" so to speak during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor. Why the pressure...and from whom?

An few excerpts from a June 24th AP news story speak volumes.

"The Republican messaging from now through the confirmation hearings beginning July 13 includes issues popular among conservatives: Sotomayor's commitment to Second Amendment gun rights, her opinions on whether the Fifth Amendment protects against public takings without just compensation and on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."

"The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee even questioned whether Sotomayor sufficiently opposes terrorism..."

"Republicans said they have clarified their strategy in recent days by documents Sotomayor has turned over to the Judiciary Committee in advance of her confirmation hearings. But it was clear that with only seven Republicans on the 18-member panel and Hispanics and women already wary of the GOP, the party needs to tread carefully with any outright criticism of the first Latina nominated to the high court."

The first question is why? Because they (named below) don't want an honest debate on core, easy-for-the-public-to-grasp Constitutional issues. In cases related to the 2nd (arms), 5th (private property) & 14th (equal protection) amendments, she has at least joined opinions ruling against these basic civil rights. These very recent cases are Maloney v. Cuomo, Didden v. Village of Port Chester and Ricci v. DeStefano, respectively. In the case of terrorism, she had done extensive work for a group formerly named the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism," GOP Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said. Sessions said the group, now called Latino Justice PRLDEF, in 1990 came to the defense of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.

The second question is from whom? The very tone of the last included AP excerpt indicates the press for one along with those the press cites, namely Hispanics and women. Do you remember any pressure on Democrats to "keep the gloves on" during confirmation hearings for the black D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas nominated by GOP President George H.W. Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How about the black, female California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown or the latino Assistant U.S. attorney and Assistant Solicitor General Miguel Estrada nominated by GOP President George W. Bush to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? Was there any fear of a backlash from blacks, women or Hispanics by fighting these upstanding nominees? Absolutely not. I remember Thomas' hearing; I agree with his assessment of it as a "high-tech lynching". Brown waited 22 months to be confirmed. Estrada waited 28 months before withdrawing his name. The latter two were filibustered which in my opinion was unconstitutional.

When someone tells you that you're wasting your time asking tough but legitimate questions of a Supreme Court nominee who may make decisions of national consequence for a generation or, in general, doing what is in your heart, that's the time to move full steam ahead. Who believes that the GOP has any chance of currying favor with women or Hispanics if they stand down? Not all women and Hispanics will be offended by tough questions of this latina because some if not most of them do not see themselves first as women or Hispanics but as U.S. citizens. Our government officials are obligated to uphold the Constitution no matter which constituencies might be offended. If they want to change it, there is a process to do so.