L.A. Times: Sotomayor "Revealed Almost Nothing About The Philosophy That Would Guide Her On The High Court"

The L.A. Times reports that the Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "revealed almost nothing about the philosophy that would guide her on the high court" during her confirmation hearings. The newspaper rightly notes that "the sad state of Supreme Court confirmation hearings is usually traced to the 1987 defeat of Judge Robert H. Bork, a scholarly conservative. To no avail, he tried to explain and defend his many legal writings that had condemned the Supreme Court as too liberal on abortion and civil rights. Four years later, Clarence Thomas won a close battle in the Senate by portraying himself as a blank slate with no views on the law. He told senators he had not discussed Roe vs. Wade or formed an opinion on the controversial abortion ruling.Ever since, Supreme Court nominees have assumed it is more dangerous to explain too much, rather than too little, when talking about what they think of the Constitution and the law." Candor and honesty is no longer a part of the confirmation process, instead the entire hearing is a charade marked by political calculating on the part of the nominee. The vicious Democrat attacks on Robert Bork over 20 years ago and his failure in being confirmed by the Senate still have an unfortunate negative impact on the process today. Bork was not confirmed despite his clear qualifications on the grounds that he was too honest in defending his actual opinions. The Democrats then painted him as a dangerous extremist and voted him down. It is a shame that Democrat politics from the 1980's has turned confirmation hearings into a total waste of time.

Sotomayor's "mantra -- 'I just follow the law, I just follow the law' -- is an insult to the intelligence of the American public," said Abigail Thernstrom, an analyst at the American Enterprise Institute.

UC Davis School of Law professor Vikram Amar said the hearing was "less than useless. If Judge Sotomayor won't meaningfully discuss any legal topics in front of the Senate, then what's the point of the hearings?"

"Sotomayor stayed to the Roberts script," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine School of Law.

Cato Institute senior fellow and editor of its Supreme Court Review said the following: "She filibustered well. . . . The sharper the Republicans got in their questioning, and they kept refining and working out what needed to be probed further, the more she mastered the art of saying a lot while saying very little. It seems like she was running out the clock. . . . She had a pattern of saying things that were good and should assuage people, but it was the exact opposite of what she said in previous speeches. She declined to either approve of or criticize the citing of foreign law in some death penalty cases. There was some frustration on the side of the senators that she wasn't answering."I am less favorable toward her than I was when the hearing started because of the manner in which she responded . . . to pretend to answer the question." Tweet