» This Story:Read +|Watch +|Talk +| Comments
Bio & archive  |  Milbank Q&As  |   On Twitter   |    RSS Feed

Washington Sketch: Plenty of Static on the Party Line About Sotomayor

Jeff Sessions of the "No" Party and Patrick Leahy of the "Yes" Party.
Jeff Sessions of the "No" Party and Patrick Leahy of the "Yes" Party. (By Melina Mara -- The Washington Post)
Buy Photo

Network News

X Profile
View More Activity
By Dana Milbank
Wednesday, July 29, 2009

It looked bad enough that only one Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on Tuesday. What made the proceedings shameful, though, is that half of the senators voting no couldn't be bothered to stick around and cast their votes in person.

This Story
View All Items in This Story
View Only Top Items in This Story

The clerk called out the name of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). "No by proxy," responded Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.)?

"No by proxy," said Sessions.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)?

"No by proxy," said Sessions.

You could see why they might want to hide. Supreme Court confirmations have for years felt the strengthening tug of partisanship, but the absent Republicans voted to reject a nominee even while acknowledging that her judicial record is, as Cornyn put it, "in the mainstream."

If they had listened, they would have heard a thoughtful rebuke from a fellow Republican, South Carolina's Lindsey Graham, the lone member of the committee's minority to support Sotomayor. He looked across the table at Patrick Leahy (Vt.) and Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold (Wis.), who voted, along with 19 other Democrats, to confirm John Roberts as chief justice four years ago. "You decided to vote for a man you would not have chosen," the conservative Graham said. "I'm deciding to vote for a woman that I would not have chosen."

Why? "What I'm trying to do with my vote is to recognize that we came perilously close to damaging an institution, the judiciary, that has held this country together in difficult times," Graham said. "The law should be a quiet place, where even the most unpopular can have a shot," he added, "because there's something a little bit bigger going on in that courtroom than 50 plus one" -- the math of the Senate.

But the law, instead, is getting noisier. Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), two veterans of the committee, never opposed a Supreme Court nominee sent by a president in either party -- until Tuesday. The National Rifle Association took the extraordinary step of warning lawmakers that it would "score" their votes on Sotomayor and punish those who vote for her.

Democrats in part have themselves to blame for this situation. During the Roberts confirmation, when 22 Democrats voted for the nominee, Democratic leader Harry Reid declared that "the president is not entitled to very much deference" in his judicial nominees. Back then, Grassley, recalling the 96 to 3 vote to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, scolded Democrats for their "loyalty to their ideological and single-interest groups."

But there was Grassley on Tuesday, mechanically reading his statement of opposition, unable to pronounce the nominee's name. He called her "Soda My Ear" and "Soda My Err" before settling on "Soda My Air." Hatch, justifying his "no" vote, invoked then-Sen. Barack Obama's vote against Roberts.


CONTINUED     1        >

» This Story:Read +|Watch +|Talk +| Comments
© 2009 The Washington Post Company

Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity