Sotomayor: Then Vs. Now

It looks like, in the words of National Review, Justice Sonia Sotomayor has had a "Confirmation Conversion".  Case in point are decisions that were handed down today where she the 2010 version of Sonia Sotomayor is different then what she said in her confirmation hearings only a year ago.

Justice Sotomayor sided with Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer. That is noteworthy on its own, but it is especially noteworthy in light of the fact that the White House and its allies bent over backwards to sell Sotomayor as the next John Roberts. According to their narrative, Sotomayor was a restrained and non-ideological jurist who would faithfully apply the law and the original meaning of the Constitution. During her hearings, nominee Sotomayor did her best to perpetuate that idea.

On the use of foreign law, Justice Sotomayor stated, “I will not use foreign law to interpret the Constitution or American statutes. I will use American law, constitutional law to interpret those laws, except in the situations where American law directs a court.” But, as Senator Coburn has done a nice job of highlighting, that commitment did not stop her from siding with the liberal justices in Graham v. Florida, citing foreign law to hold that it is unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile offender to life without parole for a non-homicidal crime.

On the Second Amendment, Justice Sotomayor took the absurd step of pointing out that “one of my godchildren is a member of the NRA. And I have friends who hunt. I understand the individual right fully that the Supreme Court recognized in Heller.” According to Sotomayor, “I understand that how important the right to bear arms is to many, many Americans.” But, as the McDonald decision demonstrates, she didn’t understand it to be protected by the Constitution.

The fact that Sotomayor was able to say one thing to be confirmed and then acted a completely different way once on the bench.  As National Review closes, it points out the stakes (and food for thought) for the Kagan hearings, and quite frankly, for all future hearings.  Especillay when a nominees record doesn't always match what they are saying on the hearing room.

So what does this mean for the Kagan hearings? Expect a confirmation conversion, and don’t buy it.