Sotomayor

I am thoroughly unimpressed with Sotomayor after her confirmation hearings. I watched about half of the hearings and one thing remained consistent throughout, her inability to respond quickly on her feet. Her answers were rambling, horrific grammatically and sometimes quite absurd.

Every answer took her 3 minutes of gibberish to ramble around to her point. Its not like one could argue this was a good plan to stall. You can do that by repeating yourself in different ways. She also didn't really hide her point, refuse to ansewr or obfuscate the matter, she just managed to look like someone unable to collect their thoughts and requiring an excessive period of time to figure out what she wanted to say. The "uhs" and "umms" were almost too numerous to count.

As far as grammar goes, I rest my case at "the states need to have a reason for the actions they did." Umm, yeah, do I need to explain that actions are performed, taken or done but never "did". That was a fairly typical sentence for her.

The absurdity of some answers was also frustrating. For instance, she was asked what role foreign law should play in interpreting our laws and Constitution. She said none. When confronted with a statement she made when first nominated about how it is important for courts to look to foreign law and she hopes this practice is widespread she claimed no inconsistency. Her justification was that her statement was referring to times when Congress commands the courts to look to foreign law and that it is sometimes helpful to see how others have analyzed a problem but that her testimony was stating foreign law should not be controlling. Really? She really thought the question she was asked was if foreign law actually applied in US courts? CMON. That is inane. It is inconceivable to me she actually thought that the question presented to her by a Senator was whether or not foreign laws are applicable on US soil and can trump US laws. Thats just ridiculous.

Unforunately she had a string of such answers. For instance, refusing to admit that rational basis is an easier test to satisfy than strict scrutiny. There is no ambiguity there. Nothing can pass strict scrutiny that fails rational basis review but things can pass rational basis review and fail strict scrutiny. End of inquiry. When rational basis is applied a law is more likely to be found valid. Which, incidentally, led to the next mind boggling answer, claiming it was unclear whether or not incorporation of the 2nd Amendment through the 14th on th estates would cause gun laws to be more or less likely to be struck down. Incorporation could only raise the level of review, not lower it.

Her efforts to avoid answering questions were made at bizarre times and in pathetic ways. She showed no ability to think quickly on her feet or speak eloquently. I was quite disappointed. I had hoped my opinion of her would be changed by the hearings. It was, for the worse.

Madison