Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) just gave a briefing to bloggers on Capitol Hill, and AUL was there. Here are some highlights:
On Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s answers to the Judiciary Committee regarding her controversial past speeches, he says her “lack of clarity is really a great surprise”: “The problem is, we don’t know whether we’re going to get Sonia Sotomayor the speechwriter or Sonia Sotomayor the federal judge on the court.”
If she had shown any contrition or any understanding of why those statements are provocative, it would have been more human, he says. “Now we’re left with guessing what kind of judge she would be. … Her unwillingness to walk back from these extreme positions causes me even more concerns.”
“She’s used that’wise Latina’ formulation at least five times,” he adds, countering the nominee’s dismissal of her statement as a passing “rhetorical flourish.” He sees her as being dismissive of very legitimate concerns.
Cornyn observes that Sotomayor’s answers often lack depth and precision: “I think she’s playing for time.” She’s talking at great length “about process and about things that would make your eyes close.” At the same time, she seems to be “channeling Roberts and Alito” in some of her answers, giving the overall impression that she is “way too malleable.”
He agrees with a blogger’s observation that she seems rehearsed. “I would have hoped for more candor. I don’t think we’re getting candor. … It seems like she’s very scripted.”
Regarding her comments on stare decisis, Cornyn notes that “there are occasions, although they ought to be rare, when precedents can and will be overruled” — e.g. the Dred Scott decision — “but I’m not sure how much this discussion really tells you.” In some ways, he says, it’s a “futile exercise to get some hint of how a nominee will rule in a future case.”
Sotomayor’s record as a circuit judge and trial judge is “pretty traditional,” Cornyn says, although he does not agree with all of her decisions. “What concerns me the most is that once she gets to the Supreme Court, there is no restraint, no limitation on her ability to pursue her wishes.” If those wishes reflect her speeches, “that is a real concern.”
{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }
The part of this testimony that makes Sotomayor unbelievable is that as a Judge, she must have a masterful command of language, both in spoken and the written word. For her to testify under oath that she is a poor communicator that is unable to convery intended meaning through her words shows that she is either incompetent or untruthful. I don’t believe her to be incompetent.