BrianGarst.com

The Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31.  All Democrats voted yes, while most Republicans voted no.

Although I have serious problems with her performance before the Judiciary Committee (her obfuscation bordered on rank dishonesty), I’m not going to chastise those who decided to vote for her, as there are legitimate debates over the appropriate constitutional role of the Senate when it comes to their responsibility of “advice and consent.” Should they merely enforce a basic level of competence and independence for judges, or should they use their own judicial philosophy as a criteria? I don’t know the answer.

I can see the merits of both sides. On the one hand, Sotomayor is a competent, albeit unimpressive, judge. Her decisions paint her as a mainstream left-liberal on the bench, which is exactly what one would expect the elected left-liberal president to appoint.  It seems to be what the people wanted. From this school of thought, there is little reason to oppose her nomination absent evidence that she would be incapable of acting independently of the other branches, particularly the executive that appointed her.

On the other hand, being a mainstream member of the left-liberal school of jurisprudence still places her well out-of-whack compared to the original constitutional understanding. The constitution is not subject to popular vote, and drifting public opinion that runs counter to its meaning need not, and ought not, be mindlessly heeded.

But that debate never really mattered in this confirmation vote, because only one side was interested in it.  The  other provided a predictable rubber stamp for the President and more than enough to pass her through without any need for honest answers on her part. She will be a predictably liberal vote for the court, but won’t significantly change its make-up.

Sonia Sotomayor