Share This Page

Confirming Sotomayor: Quell the rush

Here's a question regarding U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor that the Obama White House needs to answer: What's the hurry, especially when Democrat control of the Senate virtually guarantees her confirmation?

A similarly unseemly stampede toward confirmation of a Republican president's Supreme Court nominee by a GOP-controlled Senate would beg the same question.

The problem is not partisanship but a pace at odds with the Senate's constitutional duty of "advice and consent."

The White House counsel bragged online about Ms. Sotomayor's unusually swift completion of her nomination questionnaire. Senate Republicans rightly want more time to deal with matters left out of her responses.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, has set Sotomayor's hearing to start July 13, just 48 days after her nomination; for Chief Justice John Roberts, it was 55 days. Again, GOP senators' desire for more time is legitimate, particularly because the Supreme Court's next term doesn't begin until Oct. 5.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life, so haste in confirming them is extraordinarily unwise. The breakneck speed with which the White House and Senate Democrats are moving toward Sotomayor's confirmation does a disservice to her, the Senate, the high court and the nation.

Additional Information:

Sonia Sotomayor

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.