Sotomayor, on whether the Supreme Court should have gotten involved in Bush v. Gore in 2000: “As a judge, my instinct is not to criticize it or judge it because I don’t take a position on that . . . Some good came from that discussion. There has been and is continuing enormous electoral process changes in the states. That is a tribute to the greatness of our American system. Whether you agree or disagree with the decision, all of the branches get involved with the discussion of how to improve things.”

Punt!

Sotomayor on Kelo v. New London: “It is now a precedent of the court. I am bound by it. As a judge, I must give it the deference it warrants. The reach has to be examined in the context of each situation . . . I understand the concern citizens have expressed on whether or not it respects property rights, but the question in Kelo was a complicated one . . . but they determined that it was a blighted area.”

Punt!

Kohl says he understands that as a district-court judge, she has to recognize precedent, and asks what she will do if the issue comes up to the Supreme Court again. She responds, “I don’t prejudge issues . . . every case is a new one to me.”

I’ve been thinking about whether Sotomayor would have been Obama’s pick if the Senate were closer to 50–50. The good news for the nominee is that she comes across as pleasant, well-versed (or perhaps well-rehearsed), even-tempered, and soft-spoken. The bad news is that, so far, her defense on all of her controversial past statements is that she didn’t mean what everyone thought she meant; it was all a big misunderstanding and she just chose her words poorly, over and over again. As long as you ignore everything she’s said in past speeches, and judge her only by what she’s saying this week, she seems like a fine, uncontroversial judge; the Sonia Sotomayor of today seems to have very different opinions and views from the Sonia Sotomayor we’ve seen and heard from in recent years.

If there weren’t 60 Democrats in the Senate, this nomination might be on shakier ground. As it is, the hearings are useful for demonstrating that Sotomayor’s past statements are indefensible in the context of a Supreme Court hearing.