I have a simple question. Can a judicial nominee to the United States Supreme Court be held accountable for misleading Senators in a nomination hearing? OK, maybe two questions. Can a Supreme Court Justice be accused of deceptive advertising?
Interesting article today in Washington Times makes we wonder about the above. Justice Sotomayor seems to have waffled on her 2nd Amendment opinion; giving conflicting answers between her nomination subcommittee hearing and how she voted yesterday in the McDonald Case. Apparently she decided to “vote for” the 2nd Amendment “before (she) voted against it.” Advertising one thing, providing another. Quite a flip-flop.
Do you find it interesting, or a flat out warning perhaps, that Solicitor General Kagan was introduced to the Senate this week by Senator John Kerry, the originator of the 2006 “I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it.”
How does a nominee tell the Senate one thing hoping to be confirmed, only to vote to the contrary as a member of the 9? Perhaps, they’ve learned it from the very politicians they are pandering to for life-long court tenure?
What has it come to when we can’t even count on our Supreme Court Justices to shoot straight?
Continue the discussion with Brian on Facebook
Continue the discussion with Brian on Twitter
Comments
I think they should uphold the law and not translate it how they feel it was meant to be translated. How many different translations can you come up with for ” A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” ?
Roberts assured the committee he wasn't going to be a judicial activist either.
Most people do not shoot straight. What they say, they don't mean which is a shame. Sad it extends all the way to the Supreme Court. What happened to the day when a man's word was his bond?