To the Editor:
Re “Senate Confirms Sotomayor for the Supreme Court” (front page, Aug. 7):
In voting against Judge Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court justice, 31 Republicans elected not only to be obstructionists, but also to disregard the Constitution.
The mandated role of the Senate vis-à-vis judicial nominations is “advice and consent,” not to pick apart an individual on an ideological basis. In order for a president not to be granted his or her choice for the court, the nominee must generally be shown to be unqualified, to have an unsuitable temperament and/or to be so far out of the mainstream as to be untenable.
Notwithstanding my concerns about her infamous “wise Latina” remark and her obvious support for affirmative action, none of the disqualifying factors apply to Judge Sotomayor.
The anti-Sotomayor Republicans have ensured that payback and tit-for-tat partisanship will remain the norm when judicial nominees seek confirmation. When the Republicans occupy the White House again and the shoe is on the other foot, it can be expected that the Democrats will cite this precedent in challenging a conservative nominee for the court on an ideological basis.
Oren M. Spiegler
Upper St. Clair, Pa., Aug. 7, 2009
Note from KBJ: John Roberts was confirmed by a 78-22 vote. All 22 nays were by Democrats. Samuel Alito was confirmed by a 58-42 vote. Forty of the 42 nays were by Democrats. (One was by an Independent, Jim Jeffords.) Did Oren Spiegler complain about the obstructionism of Democrats? If not, why not? Is it obstructionism only when Republicans do it?
Note 2 from KBJ: Twenty-two of 44 Democrats (50%) voted to confirm John Roberts, who was nominated by a Republican. Four of 44 Democrats (9%) voted to confirm Samuel Alito, who was nominated by a Republican. Nine of 40 Republicans (22.5%) voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by a Democrat. If voting against the nominee of the other party is obstructionism, then the worst case of obstructionism, by far, was by Democrats, in the case of Alito. I can't take Oren Spiegler seriously unless he wrote a letter to the New York Times complaining about obstructionist Democrats. By the way, I agree with Spiegler that Sotomayor is qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. I am simply insisting on consistency.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 