So, final thoughts? Well, even if Sen. Graham showed signs of not being a total ass about things, his remark about how he couldn't say anything like Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment did bring to mind the Stephen Colbert skit that in part:
For instance, take the Dred Scott case. Those justice's life experience, being white men in pre-civil war America some of whom owned slaves, in no way influenced their decision that black people were property. And, their personal backgrounds had nothing to do with the all-neutral court decision that it was legal to send Japanese Americans to internment camps in 1942. Imagine how the life experience of an Asian judge would have sullied that neutrality.
IOW, Graham seemed to understand that diversity matters, even if only in a politically realistic sense with which he isn't totally comfortable, but still didn't quite get it. (1) Action is needed now, not just some time in the past, in the bad old days. [The road to doing nothing -- don't accept things are going wrong, things go wrong, and then admit things went wrong ... but now is okay!] (2) There is a reason why a white guy does not have to give speeches that reaffirm how special they are too, how their perspectives in fact can add something special to the mix. They already do, even if they do not want to admit it.
Republican beating a dead horse (toss in a few other things, on guns so much that Sen. Whitehouse near the end said "enough!") was one theme of the hearings. So much that too many people missed some of the good stuff. Attorney General of Arkansas Dustin McDaniel being pro-gun and pro-Sotomayor panel Ricci opinion.* Sen. Cardin's excellent questions, including yes one on religious freedom (comments). Some useful back and forth with senators with a future Supreme Court justice. And, (see the Cardin link for a taste) some actual sense of Sotomayor as a person and judge. This would be particularly helpful for those who did not read much about her; even if you did, actually seeing a hearing (even if they are always somewhat theater) would help.
I got a mostly positive picture of an intelligent (and crafty), very qualified/experienced legal craftsperson. Clearly, we did not get much of a sense of how she would decide on the ideological divide. Then again, many now feel a bit betrayed by the message that the Roberts hearing sent on that front. [A great sign that people delude themselves or something.] On that front, her judicial record -- which past entries suggest is moderate/somewhat liberal -- is the best sign. I can forgive her garbling of fundamental rights rules, particularly since all the lawyers on the panel or their staffs did not call her on it either.** And, though she was loathe to stick to the full meaning of her past speeches, they suggest a realistic strand (including on foreign law) and play in the joints of judging that is so un-PC in hearings these days.
Particularly since she was not filling a key seat (swing, Chief Justice, major change of ideology), was safe, and other issues like health care have the everyone's attention, yes, the hearings had something of a pro forma feel. But, I still thought they were useful and interesting. And, overall, good feelings for several senators (including -- somewhat -- a couple Republicans) and the nominee overall. See you soon Sen. Sotomayor!
---
* The panels provided a possibility to really learn something, even with some of the ideologues and character witnesses (Mayor Bloomberg, who came into power in 2002?) adding little, but they were rushed over as largely a late afternoon afterthought.
** At one point, she noted: "I don't mean to be funny, but the court has held that it's 'fundamental' in the sense of incorporation against the state." As Palko v. Connecticut noted, the test is a "principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental." The grand jury is "fundamental," even if it is not incorporated. It also is a test of scrutiny: "fundamental rights" have strict scrutiny.
But, this does not mean other rights are not applied to the states. Since the term was mostly used in the gun context (the quote applies it to religion too), the different contexts appeared to be somewhat confused. The Cardin Q&A underlines (as did others) some constitutional issues were discussed. OTOH, this sort of thing suggests only so much. Not a high point.