Gloria Borger
CNN Senior Political Analyst
In the past decade, it's become a given that Supreme Court nominees are expected to tell you - not to mention the senators actually voting on confirmation - absolutely nothing about how they will rule on the Supreme Court.
Think of it this way: a job interview without a hint of what the applicant would actually do on the job.
That's because back in 1987, when Judge Robert Bork came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he did answer questions. He also came with a long, scholarly record that outlined an obviously conservative judicial philosophy. He lost. And he lost ugly.
Looking back, Bork told CNN's Campbell Brown this week, his honest approach was a big mistake.
"I think I could have been more intelligent in my approach and more aware of what was taking place," he said. "I kept responding to questions as if it was a rational discussion, which it wasn't. I think I would have taken that into account more if I were to do it over again."
Exactly.
It's no longer a 'rational discussion,' or even remotely candid. It's a game of hide-and-seek, a choreographed kabuki in which little is revealed. The nominee hides behind the notion of abiding by "precedent" - as if that's enough in applying for a job on the high court, which actually sets precedent.
Keep reading...
| tregpblog |
July 17th, 2009 11:01 am ET I definitely agree with that, in my opinion all of this about Sotomayor is ridiculous. It has really turned into an "election," instead if a "nomination," which is what it should be. The reason for all of this, is because the democratic government does anything and everything our president says, and doesn't put into account what will be best. Until republicans have control again we will always deal with these problems. Not to say that republicans don't cause similar problems, but, since republicans are for smaller government, we wouldn't have to deal with all of this social health care (RIDICULOUS), or these trillions of dollars put forth to fix this economy, I mean really, who in their right mind would think that giving money that we don't have to fix our debt would work, listen to that, that's crazy! |
|
| Annie Kate |
July 17th, 2009 5:21 pm ET The GOP may have put Obama on notice for his second pick for the Supreme Court, whenever that comes, but they will have to be careful how they actually act and what they say when that comes around or they will look like a bunch of naysayers, a role that has appeared easy to them in the past. I don't think a judge can say in confirmation hearings how exactly they would vote on a certain issue – issues that come before the court and that are heard are very specific with their own specific details. The issue may be like another issue for which there is precedence but in the details it may vary enough to where an altogether different ruling makes sense. You cannot predict that in a confirmation hearing and we don't need to put a prospective jurist on the spot by making them say which way they would decide – they need to be able to decide based on the case's merits and not according to what they said in their confirmation hearings. |
|
| JC- Los Angeles |
July 17th, 2009 7:17 pm ET Gloria, your piece articulates two extremely salient points; first, you rightfully mention that the Supreme Court nomination process, like running for President, is like a job interview without any hint of what the applicant would do on the job. Secondly, you mention that Judge Sotomayor claims she "wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the President does." It's starting to feel that President Obama is merely a great campaigner and someone a Supreme Court nominee wouldn't even follow. |
|
| louis |
July 17th, 2009 10:33 pm ET I believe Colin Powell is the answer with regards to filling the leadership vacuum the Republicans have. Indeed he was set up when it came to his presentation in front of the UN over weapons of mass destruction. |
|
| Lampe |
July 17th, 2009 10:35 pm ET Annie Kate: You keep saying "Republicans have to be careful about how they act and what they say." Why? Dems treated women with so much disrespect during the campaign trail starting with the treatment of SOTUS HRC, but that sure didn't stop Obama from getting elected. Why do you suppose that was? Why does it seem like there is two sets of standards for these two parties? And with the amount of debt we already have, I would hope someone from either party, I don't really care who has enough common sense to say "Wait we can't rush into this, we need to really think this thing through, before we jump the gun here." Anyone who would have the brains to do that is exactly the type of person I would like to represent me. |
|
|
Comments have been closed for this article |
||
A behind the scenes look at “Anderson Cooper 360°” and the stories it covers, written by Anderson Cooper, the AC360° staff and a network of contributors. Insight you can’t find anywhere else.
We search the news each day to show you what’s on our radar and what we’re planning for the show each night.
For more details, read our tips on how to win 360° approval for comments.
Send your instant feedback to Anderson Cooper 360°.
- Live Blog from the Anchor Desk 02/09/10
- Evening Buzz: Digging Out.... Again
- Returning to Haiti. Tipping the scales of faith.
- Toyota Recalls: What you need to know
- Severe Weather Update
- Treating addicts: What we may (or may not) learn from the Conrad Murray case
- The view from above
- Interactive Haiti Map: Aid, supplies and stories
- Video: Doctors: Haitian may have survived 4 weeks in rubble
- One year in, Obama must define himself
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2005

