Jeff Sessions began his questioning with the most inane of criticisms, that Sotomayor believes judges' life experiences "can and do--and should" affect their rulings. It's sort of mind-boggling that Sessions--who as a DA complained about having to prosecute civil rights violations against African-Americans -- actually believes that judges can decide cases independent of their own personal experiences, without considering how they might be affecting their deliberations.
Sessions described himself as "disturbed" and "concerned" about Sotomayor's statement that "I accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women on the bench and that my experiences will affect the facts I choose to see as a judge." Sotomayor responded, "What I was talking about was the obligation of judges to examine what they're feeling as they're adjudicating a case, and make sure that isn't influencing the outcome. ...We're not robots who listen to evidence and don't have feelings, we have to put those aside, that's what that speech was about".
The question of "objectivity" is important here. "Objectivity" and "impartiality," as defined by Sessions, is actually coming to the legal conclusion that would be informed by Sessions' own background. This is exactly what Sotomayor is trying to prevent--but because objectivity is culturally defined as "how white men look at things," Sessions is unable to wrap his head around the concept.
Sessions repeatedly asked a version of the question, "Aren't you saying there that you expect your background and heritage to affect your decision making?"
Sotomayor, for her part, continued to fall back on her record. "No sir, as I've indicated, my record shows I have never [allowed] my personal experiences to determine the outcome of a case."
Sessions then moved on to Ricci, where he accused Sotomayor of ruling against the New Haven firefighters because they were white. "Was the fact that the New Haven firefighters had been subject to discrimination one of the facts you chose not to see?" asked Sessions.
Sessions complained about the per curiam opinion, remarking that the court "didn't consider the serious legal issues that [Ricci] raised" -- in other words, Sessions is frustrated that Sotomayor didn't change the law instead of interpreting it -- exactly what he's been saying he's concerned about her doing on the court.
Sessions then moved on to criticizing affirmative action in general. "When one race is favored over another, you must have a really good reason for it," said Sessions. Well, as long as the race in question isn't white.
UPDATE: In a remarkable exchange, after hammering the concept of judicial empathy as code for "prejudice" Sessions asked Sotomayor what she thought about whether the Ricci firefighters felt their arguments were fairly considered.
-- A. Serwer
