The magazine of the North Carolina Center for Voter Education • Sunday February 05, 2012

The Charade of Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings

By Damon Circosta
Published: Jul. 16, 2009

RALEIGH - When I was younger my mom used to insist that you could tell how ripe and sweet a melon was by thumping on the rind with a forefinger. I have no idea if she was just pulling my leg, but the tapping didn’t yield results. Sometimes we would get a good melon, and sometimes we would get a mushy one.

Watching the confirmation hearings of Judge Sotomayor this week, I am reminded of my melon-thumping mother.  The tap, tap, tap may not let you know what you are going to get, but whoever is doing the tapping can demonstrate their acumen -- real or imagined -- at melon selection.  

Such is the case in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Judge Sotomayor is clearly an able judicial thinker and an extremely bright judge,  but watching the spectacle that is a confirmation hearing offers no glimpse on what’s inside.  

Question though they may, these probing senators will not learn how she will rule on the Supreme Court and what her judicial philosophy is. Other than platitudes about following the Constitution similar to those offered by Chief Justice John Roberts (who likened judges to baseball umpires), we know nothing of Sotomayor’s thoughts on the specific questions that might come before the quasi policy-making body the Supreme Courtmost certainly has become.

One could argue endlessly about the proper role a court should play in society, but nobody participating in these hearings is under the assumption that a judge on the Supreme Court is powerless to effect policy. So instead of talking about what those policy views are, the senators ask questions about fidelity to principals of judicial restraint, and the prospective justice artfully dodges any questions about substantive policy matters that happen to come her way.

Is there a way to get past this charade? Probably not. Unless and until politicians on both sides of the aisle are able to forego their policy agendas and narrow their inquiry to qualifications and nothing more, then the mellon-thumping charade is what we get.