Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Echo of Cellucci in Sotomajor testimony

By

I was reminded this week of Paul Cellucci’s prostration in 2001 before Jesse Helms, who stood in the way of his timely escape from the pressures of Beacon Hill to a very soft landing in Ottawa. Cellucci was forced to pledge to curtail any efforts to expand homosexual rights in Canada if confirmed as ambassador, and pledge he did. It was an inglorious political moment.

Listening to clips of Sonia Sotomajor’s testimony, I felt she was also saying exactly what she needed to say – in an admirably disciplined way, mind you – to ease her passage onto the Court:

Not only did she back away from and express regret for her “wise Latina” comments, but the official said Republicans were also pleased that she seemed to repudiate President Obama’s formulation that a judge needed to have empathy for those who came before the court.

And the Republicans lapped the genuflection right up:

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), who has discussed supporting her, told Sotomayor that her “record as a judge has not been radical by any means.”

“You have been very reassuring here today and throughout this hearing that you’re going to try to understand the difference between judging and whatever political feelings you have about groups or gender,” he said.

Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), who has voted in favor of every Supreme Court nominee in his 29 years in the Senate, said that Sotomayor’s answers were effective but that he is trying to decide whether she was “pandering” to the committee’s conservatives.

“I still got a big question mark about whether or not I really know her,” Grassley said in an interview after the hearings.

If I’m being unfair and she showed more spunk than I perceive, let me know. Perhaps all SCOTUS nominees genuflect or exercise extreme discretion during confirmation hearings.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  2. How would an Ambassador of the United States have any authority or ability to say or do anything about a Canadian domestic policy such as expansion of homosexual rights?

  3. From Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun:

    The Senate Judiciary hearings could provide an opportunity for liberals to present their worldview to the millions of Americans listening in. But once again, they are showing that they have no such worldview except the worldview of not having a worldview! It’s a stark contrast to the Republicans who unashamedly are asking Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor to swear loyalty to their perspectives on major political issues facing the court.

    Yes, I know that the candidate has to pretend to think and act like a white upper-class man to get confirmation to the bench, and to have no political views shaping her judicial perspective.

    But Democratic Senators could use their time to ask questions and make statements that explain why a liberal or progressive worldview is precisely what is needed on the Supreme Court.

Archives