Retire the 'Ginsburg rule'
Supreme Court nominee hearings are most noteworthy for what they don’t reveal
By Jonathan Turley
This week, the public is again witnessing the ritualistic exercise of the confirmation of a Supreme Court nominee. Of course, the outcome of
(Sotomayor: The Supreme Court nominee has served 17 years on a federal appeals court./Robert Deutsch, USA TODAY)
The content-light character in these hearings is largely the product of the "Ginsburg rule" — named after Justice
Later nominees for both parties have relied on the Ginsburg rule to turn the hearings into prolonged photo-ops for senators, who largely ask wafer-thin questions to solicit largely scripted answers.
The Ginsburg rule allows nominees to get by with meaningless sound bites that promise to respect precedent, the Framers and collegiality in general. This is akin to a surgeon general nominee explaining how veins bring blood throughout a body. It tells the public nothing about a nominee's philosophy or purpose before giving her life tenure on the world's most powerful court.
At the hearing in 2005 for
The 'Roe' recital
This hearing has proved to be the same formulaic event. Reporters excitedly reported how Sotomayor expressed support for such doctrines as stare decisis to uphold precedent
Ironically, while she skirted questions about Roe v. Wade during her confirmation, Ginsburg had no problem discussing her views once she was confirmed — despite the fact that she is likely to vote on these issues while on the court. Recently, Ginsburg said the Roe decision was predicated on a desire of some people to diminish "populations that we don't want to have too many of"
A nominee's legal philosophy is rather difficult to understand without discussing legal doctrines. It is like watching The Sound of Music without any of the musical numbers. One can certainly appreciate the acting, but you can hardly get a feel for the movie without the songs.
Once you discard answers that simply restate basic legal doctrines or principles, little is revealed in these hearings that you could not find in a standard legal hornbook. The Sotomayor hearings have been long on insights into her personality and short on insights into her philosophy.
Yet, despite her moderate voting record, she has some worrisome rulings for civil libertarians. If Sotomayor votes the way she has on the 2nd Circuit, liberals could still lose ground on the Supreme Court over free speech, student rights and other core areas. Her life story will mean precious little to those people who might be stripped of rights or denied legal protections. For example, Sotomayor held in one case that schools could discipline students for statements that they made on a blog in their personal time. The impact of such a sweeping denial of free speech rights is hardly lessened with the consideration of Sotomayor's life story.
Mum can't be the word
There is a simple solution to returning substance to the confirmation process: End the Ginsburg rule by insisting that nominees answer questions about their specific views on constitutional rights. The only basis for refusing to be forthright should be limited to questions regarding how a nominee would vote on pending cases.
The current system works well for presidents, nominees and senators. It does little for the public or the system of justice. If you found yourself bored to tears during these hearings, don't just change the channel — change the system and demand substance when we next select a justice for the United States Supreme Court.