Impressions of Sotomayor hearings so far

Along the lines of Senator Lindsey Graham's terminology in his opening statement, Sonia Sotomayor has avoided a complete meltdown and will thus be confirmed, probably by this time next week.

The Judiciary Committee hearings, however, have not been void of memorable moments and questions have been posed that were worthy of solid answers. At times, such replies were offered, and then there were the other occasions.

I have heard from so many commentators that I can't remember where this particular observation originated, but someone remarked along the way that the Republicans have displayed a startling degree of unanimity throughout this hearing. I agree. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, signalled early on that the line of questioning would be polite, but tough. Sessions came at Sotomayor with marked skepticism over her comment that a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions in certain instances than someone else who did not share that ethnic strand. It is noteworthy that early on, Sotomayor implicitly withdrew this phrasing, stating that it "fell flat" in the context in which she originally employed it and even that it was "bad." She did not say whether it was a bad choice of words or a bad premise; I suspect she meant the former and perhaps does not even realize that there is a world of difference even between these two designations.

Orrin Hatch of Utah followed up with a dizzying array of legal cases that, admittedly, I could not follow, but his line of questioning traced back again to the subject of empathetic judging, as opposed to strict legal reasoning.

Lindsey Graham, whom I generally regard as a less than ardent Republican (I'm being kind), did a superb job in what, again, another commentator referred to as "cross-examination in the style of the lawyer he is" (not exact verbiage, but close). I am not sure, though, how I feel about his questioning regarding whether or not Sotomayor had a temperament problem. When asked whether she felt she might indeed, encounter such difficulties, what was Sotomayor expected to say? "Yes, I think I might have real personality issues?" This begs the question: Why even ask that? It is true that a majority of her former colleagues on the Second Circuit posted such anonymous accusations. I also have to wonder if the same question would have been posed to a male candidate? Yet, when one considers the gutter-level accusations that were flung, with no substantiation, at Clarence Thomas, it is also veracious beyond dispute that Graham's question doesn't even begin to compare to the nastiness Thomas endured.

The Democrats on the Committee are so syrupy and give Sotomayor the verbal equivalent of a sloppy French kiss every time they speak. "What a wonderful woman! What an amazing life story! What level-headed ability! What respect for the law!" It is revolting.

But then, Arlen Specter, a recent Democrat proselyte, was so rude that I ended up feeling sorry for Sotomayor. Can't they find a middle ground?

Senator Al Franken was trying to impress somebody; I'm not sure who. But because of that, he mixed in a bit of demagoguery against originalism (calling it "judicial activism", in a burst of Orwellian brilliance) in the middle of his own brand of excessive delight over Sotomayor's "impressive qualifications."

All of this is interesting for a political junkie like me. I wish more of America were watching or were able to comprehend what they were seeing if they did. (Not that I understand every sentence, mind you, as I've noted previously...there, does that sound less elitist now?)

Fox News broke away for the last part of the day to cover the Kennedy Health Care bill, which Obama is determined to see passed by the August recess. More on that very soon.