Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. gave a performance at his confirmation hearing that is considered the modern standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court. Among his lasting imprints: the analogy of the courts to baseball. Roberts didn't invent the analogy, but he did popularize it, telling senators in 2005 that a judge should be like an umpire and simply call balls and strikes.
Today, at the confirmation hearing of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, senators returned to the idea repeatedly. Democrats, in particular, sought to undercut the idea that ruling on cases is as "mechanical" as the process of determining whether a baseball falls within the strike zone.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that some Republican-appointed justices aren't even standing in the position where an umpire should be. "It's a little hard to see home plate from right field," he said.
"Some umpire," said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), after noting that Roberts has consistently ruled in favor of prosecutors and corporate defendants.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the committee, played defense for the analogy. A judge who decides cases based on ideology, he said, "means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over the other."
Expect the analogy to continue popping up this week. Retired pitcher David Cone, a former players' union official, is scheduled to testify about Sotomayor's role in ending the baseball strike of 1994. Senators are likely to ask about the strike, too.
The revival of the umpire-judge discussion is perhaps appropriate today, the first day of Major League Baseball's annual All-Star break. Real-life professional baseball players and umpires have the day off.
Comments