In terms of momentous occasions, this week is like the C-Span version of the Olympics for a person like me: Supreme Court Confirmation time is here! I'll be watching for religious liberty and church-state references and questions, as well as discussion of other related constitutional concerns.
If recent confirmations are any guide, such conversation could be rare, especially today which will likely be limited to opening statements by the Senators and the Judge, and not questions. Still, come back regularly through the day and week for any reference – including transcript when available – we do get to the very important constitutional protections of our religious freedoms.
UPDATES:
Judge Sotomayor did not address any specific areas of law, or – I was a little disappointed – issues of diversity and life experience, but I'm sure those will come up during the week of questions. She did say this:
Throughout my seventeen years on the bench, I have witnessed the human consequences of my decisions. Those decisions have not been made to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice.
Questions start tomorrow!
Lunch Break thoughts: Of course, all the statements today have been very general, and as expected references to religion and church-state separation have been glancing, at best. Still, I'm encouraged that Senators have mentioned religious liberty in their list of concerns during opening statements. The Committee seems at least capable of adding religious perspective to the list of qualities that could use some judicial empathy, the word that has been front and center in this nomination. Hopefully that concern will translate into a more detailed discussion of constitutional philosophy during question time. Updates from the morning speeches below:
In urging a view of the Constitution as a "living document", Senator Cardin (D-MD) recalls the segregated era of his youth in which his parents were fearful for his safety and opportunities were denied because he was Jewish, a time when Catholic immigrants were discriminated against as well. Looking forward to the Judge's responses to his concerns, Cardin adds (my rough transcript):
It's likely that the Supreme Court will consider important protections in our Constitution, for women, our environment, and consumers, as well as voting rights, privacy and separation of church and state, among others, in coming years.. . . I look forward to hearing from Judge Sotomayor on these issues, and expect that she will share with this Committee, and the American people, her judicial views and her thoughts on the protections in our Constitution.
Senator Schumer (D-NY), defending Judge Sotomayor to charges of bias by pointing to cases in which she adjudicated the rights of those with different backgrounds from her, including: "She upheld the First Amendment right of a prisoner to wear religious beads under his uniforms."
Senator Kohl (D-WI) lists "Separation of church and state" as one of the areas the hearing should explore to determine her views.
Ranking Member Senator Sessions (R-AL) lays out the question of bias as he see it, rhetorically questioning whether a judge's religious views (among others) will unfairly impact decisions. [This is the first I've heard of Sotomayor's religious views being mentioned as an issue in any context at all, apart from her numerically adding to the tally of Catholics on the Court.]
Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to change the outcome? Or do I want a judge that impartially applies to the facts, and fairly rules on the merits, without bias or prejudice?
