The Process

We have a process in this country wherein the Senate gets to examine our president's nominees for certain positions, such as cabinet posts and judges. Few are seen as more important than US Supreme Court nominees. There are several reasons for this:

1. The nominee, if approved, gets a lifetime appointment to the position.
2. The position is only one of nine.
3. Once on the bench, the opinions of the person can have a great impact on policy and the direction the country takes.
4. The Supreme Court is the only court which can override itself (and seldom does it do this).
5. The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of issues of law in this country.

It's also a great opportunity for senators to play politics and get their names and pictures blasted all over the media. But that is the essence of politics, I suppose.

In any event, when a person is nominated to such an important position, the public gets quite a show. Having watched a few of these shows over the years, I note that certain things seem to happen repeatedly.

At first, there is almost unanimous praise for the nominee. This comes from both the president's party and the opposition party (or parties). This is echoed in the media, for the most part, though there is some questioning from the media representing the opposition party (or parties). The nominee's approval is considered a foregone conclusion.

After a (very) short period, and as more is learned about the nominee, louder criticism begins to appear. This starts on the fringes but rapidly grows into the mainstream. Even so, constant predictions of approval by the senate continue.

As more of the nominee's past and opinions become known to the public, more criticism is voiced and the overall tone begins to get a bit ugly. Accusations start to fly about the nominee and his/her supporters and detractors.

Throughout all this, the nominee tries to appear to be what the supporters praise while not to be what the detractors accuse.

In the end, the nominee is approved and the public is left further divided.

Isn't America great?

But let me leave you with some homework about our latest nominee.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11judgebox.html?ref=global-home

The above link offers quotes regarding three subjects:

Empathy on the part of a judge
Temperament of a judge
Diversity

I found only one position to be troubling to me. And only because it was brought up. I refer, of course, to the first one: empathy. In her interview, she states that she is empathetic. She also states that, while it has no impact on her rulings, she thinks it is important to be empathetic as a judge. Try as I might not to, I see that as a flaw for a judge. Especially one whose job is to examine issues solely on the basis of law and Constitutionality. At some point, and without the constraints of having to be approved again (at the polls or through re-appointment to another term), could this trait begin to affect her rulings?

[1263/1264/1133]