Answers to Questions

New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin | Jul. 26, 2009 (Comment)
What Supreme Court Justices really do.

Justices make choices, based largely, though not exclusively, on their political views of the issues involved. In reaching decisions this way, Justices aren't doing anything wrong; there is no other way to interpret the majestic vagueness of the Constitution. But the fact that Judge Sotomayor managed to avoid discussing any of this throughout four days of testimony is indicative of the way the confirmation process, as it is now designed, misleads the ... Full Story »

Posted by Leo Romero

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: U.S., Politics
Topics: U.S. Supreme Court
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Leo Romero - Jul 25, 2009 - 11:04 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Leo Romero (review), Patrick Neal (review), Samuel W. Velsor IV (review), Fred Gatlin (review), Julian Friedland (review), Joel Kulenkamp (review), Paul Dolinko (review), Robert Macartney (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Julian Friedland - Jul 26, 2009 - 4:10 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Samuel W. Velsor IV
3.5
 by Samuel W. Velsor IV - Jul. 26, 2009

Aside from the fact that the confirmation hearing are just a verbal assault on a person politics. As stated the last time there was a "Discussion" was the Bork hearing.

Under the current mode of the confirmation hearings go they are a farst. For a contender to the Supreme Court to speak his/her mind would surly end with being voted down.

See Full Review » (12 answers)
Joel Kulenkamp
4.6
 by Joel Kulenkamp - Jul. 26, 2009
See Full Review » (10 answers)
Fred Gatlin
3.0
 by Fred Gatlin - Jul. 26, 2009

When I see a story from the New Yorker, my fist thought is it will be long and detailed. This commentary is neither. It does not provide new information or take any position. It lacks substance and ideas.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Leo Romero
3.0
 by Leo Romero - Jul. 25, 2009
Leo posted this story.
See Full Review » (1 answer)
Julian Friedland
4.3
 by Julian Friedland - Jul. 26, 2009

This New Yorker comment (as opposed to an article) is characteristically succinct and makes a strong argument that Sotomayor was yet another Justice being disingenuous at her confirmation hearings. Offers an explanation that the process has gotten so politicized that Justices feel they have little other choice.

It's unfortunate politicians hijack the process by grandstanding for their constituents instead of magnanimously enlightening them on the genuine role of the Supreme Court. Thankfully, several democrats on the committee did this time point out that the Supreme Court does and must create law by interpreting the constitution.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Paul Dolinko
4.5
 by Paul Dolinko - Jul. 27, 2009

An underreported, but very important issue is discussed.

His comments make sense to and that is what I suspected, but nice to receive confirmation from a respected lawyer-commentator.

See Full Review » (7 answers)
Robert Macartney
4.8
 by Robert Macartney - Jul. 27, 2009
See Full Review » (5 answers)
Patrick Neal
NO RATING
by Patrick Neal - Jul. 26, 2009

this is a better explanation then what we get in school!

See Full Review » (1 answer)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 8 reviews (45% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Facts
3.5
Fairness
3.5
Information
4.0
Insight
4.5
Sourcing
3.0
Style
4.3
Context
3.7
Depth
3.0
Enterprise
3.0
Expertise
3.0
Originality
4.0
Relevance
4.0
Responsibility
5.0
Popularity
3.7
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
4.3
# Reviews
4.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!