Nominations to the Supreme Court by the President are chief among mainstream ongoings that should not be politicized. I’ve never cared for how nominees are treated, as most seem more subject to political grandstanding than actual testament to relative qualifications.

This goes for the treatment of Clarence Thomas and Harriet Miers to Samuel Alito, John Roberts and now Sonia Sotomayor. While it’s justified to give critical examinations into records, and yes, even such things as temperament and character, the ultimate test is judicial and decision-making skill. Can the nominee do the job she or he is appointed to do, and can they do it effectively? How well do they think and process incredibly complex problems?

Where critics have gone too far with the current nominee is by assailing her character on the bench — Lindsay Graham (R-SC) called her a bully — without thorough thought given to current Supreme Court justices. It took National Public Radio to point it out.

Nina Totenberg brilliantly digs up the criticisms against Sotomayor and then does a back-to-back comparison of her so-called bullying behavior against that of current judges, in particular Justices John Roberts and Antonin Scalia. Totenberg both read court transcripts and listened to actual questioning by the Sotomayor and then pits them against questioning by Roberts and Scalia.

Totenberg’s complete story is here, but her conclusion bears repeating:

So, if Sotomayor sometimes dominates oral arguments at her court — if she is feisty, even pushy — then she would fit right in at the U.S. Supreme Court.

• Share, print or email this:
• Digg it  
• Recommend  
• Buzz it  
• Buzz it up
• Share on Linkedin
• share via Reddit
• Stumble  
• Tweet  
• Email  
• Print