This week the Senate, probably without much press coverage, will hold a multi-day debate on the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. I asked a Senate source how Republicans will handle the debate, given that the outcome, in a 60-Democrat Senate, is already known. “They’ll continue to explain why the Empathy Standard is wrong for the judiciary,” came the answer.
That indicates that Republicans will bear down hard on Sotomayor’s rejection of President Obama’s famous statement that he wanted “empathy” in a high court nominee. Before Sotomayor was selected, Obama cited “empathy” as a key quality he was searching for in a candidate and said he wanted “someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook. It’s also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.”
At her hearing, however, Sotomayor stressed that “fidelity to the law” has always been and will always be her guiding light on the bench. Which led to this exchange with Republican Sen. Jon Kyl:
KYL: My question is really very simple to you: Have you always been able to have a legal basis for the decisions that you have rendered and not have to rely upon some extra-legal concept, such as empathy or some other concept other than a legal interpretation or precedent?
SOTOMAYOR: Exactly, sir. We apply law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts.
During this week’s debate, look for Republicans to stress that even Barack Obama’s carefully-chosen Supreme Court nominee rejects the president’s standard for judicial nominees. Shouldn’t that tell us something, they will ask, about the president’s judicial priorities?
