Apparently one key thing was that Sotomayor thinks she can "look to foreign law to interpret the Constitution." Crapo's perception on this point must be keener than mine. I though it was pretty well settled that, since our legal system is somewhat an outgrowth of the English system, at least old English law is instructive in interpreting the US Constitution and other laws. Magna Carta, old maritime and property law, I thought all that stuff can be looked to for guidance on current Constitutional issues.
When representatives of the young republic of the United States gathered to draft a constitution, they turned to the legal system they knew and admired--English common law as evolved from Magna Carta. The conceptual debt to the great charter is particularly obvious: the American Constitution is "the Supreme Law of the Land," just as the rights granted by Magna Carta were not to be arbitrarily canceled by subsequent English laws.I guess that blurb on the web site of the National Archives & Record Administration is wrong.
All snark aside, it was clear from the get go that Crapo (and Risch) would just vote the Party of No line. These Supreme Court nomination hearings are a farce, nothing more that a political kabuki dance. It's all about sending messages and pandering to the base. Good grief. Once the ABA determines the candidate is qualified (like Thomas) or highly qualified (like Sotomayor), shouldn't the argument be pretty much over?
If there's some inappropriate behavior, like failing to pay taxes on a housekeepers salary, or sexual harassment, then bring it out and discuss it. But if you got nothing like like, please, spare us all the faux thoughtfulness.