From the liveblog & CNN stream of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Jeff Sessions’ greatest talent is yelling and interrupting — not making sense. What’s he even want from her? One clue:
I will not vote for – no senator should vote for – an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal backgroud, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court. In my view, such a philosophy is disqualifying.
Apparently, he wants a clear commitment to fairness and impartiality. If that’s so, it’s hard to see how he hasn’t gotten it.
In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make law, it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record … reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms, interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and by my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.
Might it be time to accept that, when Sessions says he wants “impartiality,” what he really wants is his kind of partiality, the kind that Chief Justice Roberts & Justice Alito have faithfully given for their past few years on the Court? With Sessions’ inability to move into substantive issues, we have still further proof of the intellectual shallowness of the right’s understanding of “judicial activism.” For God’s sake, Jeff, sit down!