The Hearings to nominate, Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court have drawn to a close. It is debatable if any testimony given could sway either side from their beliefs, in her appointment or non appointment to this high court. The Republicans appear to have hurt their party more than help it through all of these proceedings. The deep divide within the party is well pronounced as a split between the GOP exists in confirming or blocking her nomination. The following is an excerpt from an article by Frank Rich of the New York Times; http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19rich.html?_r=2The hearings were pure “Alice in Wonderland.” Reality was turned upside down. Southern senators who relate every question to race, ethnicity and gender just assumed that their unreconstructed obsessions are America’s and that the country would find them riveting. Instead the country yawned. The Sotomayor questioners also assumed a Hispanic woman, simply for being a Hispanic woman, could be portrayed as The Other and patronized like a greenhorn unfamiliar with How We Do Things Around Here. The senators seemed to have no idea they were describing themselves when they tried to caricature Sotomayor as an overemotional, biased ideologue.
At least they didn’t refer to “Maria Sotomayor” as had Mike Huckabee, whose sole knowledge of Latinos apparently derives from “West Side Story.” But when Tom Coburn of Oklahoma merrily joked to Sotomayor that “You’ll have lots of ’splainin’ to do,” it clearly didn’t occur to him that such mindless condescension helps explain why the fastest-growing demographic group in the nation is bolting his party.
I strongly urge you to read the complete article. I feel Mr. Rich has hit the nail on the head when it comes to issues within the GOP. As for the hearing in general, no testimony given, appeared to present evidence sufficient to derail the first nomination offered by President Obama.
I do believe the testimony of New Haven Firefighter Frank Ricci and Lieutenant Ben Vargas, also from the New Haven Fire Department, was unnecessary. I believe their testimony was more of a ploy, by the GOP, to bash Judge Sotomayor and to lash out at her because of her ruling against them, more than to show evidence to discredit her qualifications for the Federal Post. Both of these individuals had no objection to her becoming a Supreme Court Judge. So, why did the Republicans on this committee feel their testimony was necessary? I believe it was a political move that backfired to their cause more than offering a logical and substantial rebuttal to her confirmation.In the end, I believe Judge Sotomayor, will be confirmed to the highest court. I believe the hearings have shown her that people do pay attention to what you say. I believe she has learned that any decision she makes will be scrutinized and her legacy of fairness and interpretation will either brand her as a wise justice, or as a candidate who lied to a committee to gain a position of prejudice. We can only wait and see.
That’s How I See It.
Websites of reference;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-sotomayor19-2009jul19,0,7689719.story
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/huckabee-maria-sotomayor_n_207620.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124784239343058333.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2219037/
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/election/1444
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090717/ap_on_go_su_co/us_sotomayor_ricci_9
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/opinion/19rich.html?_r=2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/17/AR2009071701310.html
A special acknowledgement to Andrew Cohen of CBS News via Twitter for the research information provided.
No comments:
Post a Comment