"When a Supreme Court nominee such as Judge Sonia Sotomayor comes before the Senate for confirmation, she is promised a full, fair hearing," yet "every nominee's path is booby-trapped by the history of previous confirmation battles," Washington Post columnist David Broder writes. Broder examines prior confirmation hearings, noting that the "[o]ne thing that may make it harder to forget the partisan and ideological battles of the past is that President Obama found reasons to oppose" Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito while he was in the Senate.

During Roberts' confirmation hearing, Obama said that although he was "sorely tempted to vote for Judge Roberts," he had issues with Roberts in cases where "precedent and rules of construction" are insufficient and where justice "can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values." Obama added that the rights of women and minorities are dependent on cases in which "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Obama said Roberts' record on women's rights and other issues was not strong enough to quell doubts about Roberts' "deepest values."

Broder continues, "Based on the Obama precedent, the White House can hardly complain if Republicans push beyond the question of Sotomayor's qualifications and examine her values -- and her biases." He concludes, "Someday, the Senate may again be satisfied to examine only professional credentials, recognizing the uncertain dynamics of a nine-person bench," but while past precedents survive, "that is not likely" (Broder, Washington Post, 6/4).

Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.