Some people may have been glued to the television set last week, watching the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, but I was not among them.
What’s the point?
You know that committee Democrats will praise her decade of experience as an appellate judge and her adept crafting of opinions while studiously following precedent. You also know that any nomination made by President Barack Obama will be opposed by Republicans.
It is the duty of the opposition to oppose, though, and the subtext runs like this: Sotomayor was just biding her time and behaving herself as an appellate judge so she could become a Supreme. Once installed there with a lifetime appointment, she will gush with empathy while practicing identity politics with a vengeance, especially against the oppressed rich, white males.
Justices have surprised America in the past. Who would have ever thought that Earl Warren, who as attorney general of California in 1942 supported putting American citizens into concentration camps even though they had committed no crimes, would turn out to be a champion of civil liberties?
Right-thinkers were so disappointed by David Souter (appointed by Bush the Elder in 1990) that when Sandra Day O’Connor retired in 2005 and there was speculation that Bush the Younger would appoint his buddy Alfredo Gonzales to replace her, critics fretted that “Gonzales is Spanish for Souter.”
Subsequent developments have demonstrated that Gonzales was no stealth supporter of the Bill of Rights, but there doesn’t seem to be any way to know that in advance.
Anyone smart enough to sit on the Supreme Court is not going to answer questions like “Would you vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade?” or “Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, or is it merely an affirmation of a state’s right to maintain a militia?”
So instead of trying to get those answers, senators ought to ask questions that would help us better understand our constitution:
• “If a federal employee says he did something under orders from the vice president, can you tell me where in the Constitution that the vice president has any authority to give orders to anyone?”
“The Congress has the constitutional authority ‘To raise and support Armies’ and ‘To provide and maintain a Navy.’ Could you point to the provision that allows for an Air Force?”
“The Constitution requires that ‘a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.’ Can you square this with the secret budgets of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and similar organizations?”
“We read that ‘No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts . . . .” Does this mean that California’s IOUs are invalid? Or that I don’t owe any income taxes because the government didn’t supply the proper coins? Exactly what do you take this to mean?”
“The Fifth Amendment refers to ‘jeopardy of life or limb’ in criminal proceedings. Does this mean that capital punishment and amputation are thereby constitutionally protected means of punishment?”
With the right questions, the hearings could be at least educational. But as it is, they aren’t even good theater.
Ed Quillen (ekquillen@gmail.com) of Salida is a freelance writer and history buff, and a frequent contributor to The Post.
