Originally Posted by O'Sullivan Bere

I'm sure many will also cite that the SCOTUS majority united and picking the timing to 'help out their GOP buddies' in the coming confirmation hearings.

For that reason, I think the SCOTUS made a mistake rendering the decision on the eve of her confirmation hearing and should have deferred it until afterward, especially with a split like that that shows the usual ideological divides and backgrounds of the current members.

It's a key expressed goal of the judiciary to show impartiality when rendering decisions. Obviously judges come with different ideological philosophies and this decision doesn't surprise me given the viewpoints of the sitting judges, and that is just the natural break of things and doesn't mean impropriety. But given the scenario vis-a-vis Sotomayor being the author of the decision under review, and her impending confirmation hearings which certainly are in the political arena, even the 'mere appearance of impropriety'--the court standard--of other considerations possibly being in the mix, such as political gamesmanship, should never be signalled as being possibly a motivator in a decision.

IMO, the right thing for the SCOTUS to have done is defer the decision until after Sotomayor either gets seated (the likely scenario) or she drops out or gets denied in order to avoid any signal of improper considerations being in the decision and timing of release. Then, as per practice, Sotomayor then recuses herself from the decision making process on that case and any others in which she was part of the decisions making process below.