I looked around for oath's of office, Senate and Judges. I found these somewhere in the internet.
28 USCS 453: Oaths of Justices and Judges
Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath
or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:
"I, ------, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice
without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the
rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform
all the duties incumbent upon me as ------ under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. So help me God."
and this, for U.S. Senators.
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God"
In the Senate Judicial hearings, only Sotomayor, as a Federal judge, took an oath of office to be impartial. The Senators took an oath to support and defend the Constitusion of the U.S., etc. The Senators did not swear to follow their political party's agenda, but that is what they are doing, both sides. In the case of the Republicans, the party of NO, being wholesale against the President and any Democrat, or Democratic Party idea.The Republicans would be against anyone nominated by the Prez. It is more important to follow the party line and mindlessly goosestep, without thinking, to be against any Democrat party idea. That is not defending the Constitution, it is defending policies of the Republican party.
The Democrats are not much better, if at all. The Democrats are all voting for Sotomayor. Why? Cause she is a Democratic party nominee. The Republicans are all voting against Sotomayor. Why? Cause she is a Democratic party nominee. Nothing like being partial.
As far as the Supreme Court overturning 60% of her decisions is meaningless. Why? Because if the Supreme Court decides not to hear a case, it goes not further. It is affirmed, They agree with the lower court. For the 60% to be a valid statistic, a count of all appeals of Sotomayor's decisions, whether heard by the Supreme Court or not is needed, total count not just the ones heard by the Supreme Court. Again, not all appealed cases are heard by the Supreme Court.
Example:
1) 100 cases are appealed to the SCOTUS.
2) They decide to hear 10 of those cases.
3) They decide to overturn 6 of those cases they heard.
That is 6% overturn rate of the original 100 appealed cases not 60%.
How does she compare with all the other judges?
Questioning someone's intelligence because of a disagreement does not mean they are unintelligent. Her academic credentials and accomplishments alone show she is very intelligent. She has the papers to proved it.
I am not interested in the outcome of the Sotomayor nomination since it is already decided. The televised hearings are a stage for the Republicans to try to make her look bad and the Democrats to affirm her nomination.
