Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Dow Jones Gets Patents Tossed | Main | Morning Wrap »

July 15, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20115711582bc970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Senators With Contrasting Experience Query Sotomayor:

Comments

Martin Stone

It seems to me that the Senate ought to consider post-confirmation hearings on the gap between statements made during confirmation hearings and actions while on the bench. Dianne Feinstein had an interesting recitation of just such conflicts.

While we're thinking about post-confirmation hearings, it also seems to me that there ought to be such hearings on opinions (or even dicta) such as "actual innocence is not a bar to conviction at a properly conducted trial." Any justice (or judge) who subscribes to such an analysis fails to understand his or her role as a jurist and ought not to be allowed to continue in office.

Ray Beckerman

I find the whole process a tedious bore, a waste of taxpayer money.

It should have very severe time limitations.

The Senators should be limited to asking questions. When they violate that rule, they should be sanctioned by having their time for questions reduced. E.g., when Lindsay Graham said that anonymous lawyers believe she's short tempered, he should have been sanctioned for that.

They ought not to be permitted to ask questions about issues that could come before her. Any questions like that should be disallowed by the Chairman before the nominee is even called upon to answer.

Jay S. Goldenberg

I find it humorous that on the one hand:
she's urged to adhere to "the law"
and at the same time they're hoping she will abandon the precedent of Roe v. Wade

Law Offices of Marc Grossman

I saw the same debate and felt as though Sotomayor won. I found it funny that there were many questions asked but no one really gave good answers, which I like in a way because they both wanted to gather the facts before they made an opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements