Advice and Consent,

Parakeets and Mirrors

Sonia Sotomayor has become the Center Perch act in the bird circus of the United States Senate as she seeks confirmation to become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. She deserves better.

So do we -- even if we elected the circus and always wind up cleaning the cage.

The Constitution gives presidents the right to nominate Supreme Court justices with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. That means a nominee must secure a majority of the 100 Senate votes.

Senate rules start a nominee’s journey in the Judiciary committee, which can eventually move the nomination to a full Senate vote with a recommendation of yes, no or don’t care – positive, negative or neutral as they say in the world’s most empowered geriatric center.

Since Democrats control both the Judiciary Committee and the Senate itself, confirmation ought to be quick and assured. But that’s in a rational world. Now let’s deal with the birdcage world of the United States Senate.

That’s a world where Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee can chitter about whether Judge Sotomayor could be objective about matters of race and ethnicity.

Given Sessions’ background, being “objective” means voting as Sessions might. And how might Sessions vote? Well, he’s been quoted as calling the Voting Rights Act of 1965 “intrusive legislation.” You know – it “intruded” on the white monopoly in Alabama and elsewhere and allowed people of color to vote.

Which may have entered into Sessions’ own failed nomination in 1986 to the U.S. District Court when a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee couldn’t hold its nose long enough and voted against his nomination.

Then we have Sen. Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, sharpening his beak by asking Sotomayor whether or not she had a “temperament problem.” Last thing a candidate who tries to please Sen. Graham would need is a temperament problem that might make them seem uppity and disrespectful. Nawsuh.

Not to be outdone by the Dixie Dimwit branch of the Republicans, Democrats on the committee vied with each other to see who could offer Judge Sotomayor the sweetest birdseed questions. Or flutter the sweetest compliments. As the New York Times quotes California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, “I must say that if there’s a test of judicial temperament, you pass it here with an A plus-plus.”

We trust that is the Senator’s considered, measured opinion as she weighs elevating someone to the nation’s highest court. Otherwise, it could be mistaken for partisan wing-flapping.

Rounding out questions designed mostly to score points with the questioner’s base were queries on abortion and guns. The Republicans came squawking from the hate abortion/love guns perch to peck Democrats who flew claws-out from the hate guns/love abortion swing. Judge Sotomayor was almost beside the point in the now-ritualized exchange.

This act will continue a while and then Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. The Democrats had the votes going in, and barring some unforeseen disclosure, they’ll have them coming out.

So why do Senators waste all this time and energy fluttering, squawking, posturing and primping on “hearings” about a done deal?

For the same reason parakeets pitch love to their cage mirrors – they know perfection when they see and hear it and so can’t resist themselves.

And because we continue to elect these birds, it’s apparent we can’t resist them either.

But we ought to try.

###