Things get "curiouser and curiouser" over at the skunkworks where they're manufacturing - or attempting to manufacture -- the case against Judge Sotomayor's confirmation.
As you may recall, one line of potential attack on the Judge's confirmation was
Oooooh my goodness! She's written so much, so many opinions, we can't possibly read them all until 2012 or so! We need more time!
Well, just in case that didn't persuade you, here's the latest attack:
Ooooooh my goodness! Judge Sotomayor writes such short opinions, how can we ever understand what it is she's saying!!! We need more time to figure it all out!
Which is it? Could it be .... neither?
OK. You remember the ploy the Repub's were recently using to protest the decision of Chairman Leahy to begin hearings on the Sotomayor confirmation on July 12, right?
Republicans argue that they would need to read 76 cases a day to get prepared for the hearings.
"She has 10 times as many decisions as Roberts did," said Kyl, who is also on the Judiciary Committee." "It takes a long time to go through that material. We’ll simply have to wait and see how that review goes. I’ve checked, and it’s not going really fast. It’s hard to do."
OooooH!!! It's hard!! so much reading!! my eyes!! what can we do?
But Senator Leahy pushed aside concerns about Reepub. workload, pointing out that Senators have this modern invention, called "staffs," for a good reason.
Well, since the hearings have been scheduled, and it seems clear that the "I can't possibly read that fast" excuse won't fly, there's now a new one. According to an editorial in today's Washinton Times, Judge Sotomayor actually hasn't written too much, she's written too little:
The bigger the issue, the less Judge Sonia Sotomayor has to say.... she was terse, even dismissive, when ruling against individual weapons rights, property rights and the employment rights of white firefighters and against a state's traditional authority to prohibit currently imprisoned felons from voting.
Judge Sotomayor's astonishingly brief opinions in those important cases ill served not just the litigants and the attorneys involved in the cases, but also the entire national bar and the American public - all of whom should expect full explanations of legal reasoning in landmark decisions.
I have to admit, I never knew litigants were entitled to a minimum number of words in the decisions deciding their cases, but thanks to the Washington Times for bringing it to my attention. Next time, I'll make sure I'm not cheated. "I hereby appeal to the Supreme Court on the grounds that the lower court only used one word -- 'Gedouttahere' -- in rejecting my meritorious appeal. I'm entitled to thousands more words telling me how really asinine my argument was."
On the issue discussed in my prior diaries, here and here, regarding Judge Sotomayor's Second Amendment decision, upholding a N.Y. state law outlawing possession of lethal martial arts weapons, Washington Times also found the Judge to be unconstitutionally brief:
In the Maloney v. Cuomo case, in which Judge Sotomayor ruled against a person's right to own a "nunchaku" martial arts stick, the judge took a mere 1,300 words, with only a cursory constitutional analysis, to determine that "neither of [the weapon owner's] arguments has any merit."
"Surely," the Washington Times says (I know, "Don't call me Shirley"),
Surely the U.S. Supreme Court deserves a justice who is willing to provide more reasoning than a few hundred words for controversial cases in which the public clearly sides against that justice's position.
Well, I'm afraid not. If the Supreme Court ever wants to hear more words from a lower court, it will "ask" for them. And, you know, I don't think it ever has. Maybe better, more sensible words, but never just "more" words.
What will the next Republican excuse be? Any guesses? The dog ate my confirmation hearing questions?