Christie also told the Des Moines Register that he had only expressed approval for Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation after it had taken place. When she was nominated, he said, he had said that he would not have nominated her if he were president. But once she was confirmed, he recalled, he had said that the Senate was right to give her an up-or-down vote and to confirm her.
This account is false. It was reported on July 17, 2009, that Christie voiced support for Sotomayor’s confirmation (while, yes, noting that he would not have nominated her). In his statement, he noted that he was speaking after she testified before the Senate and urged the Senate to confirm her. (“I support her appointment to the Supreme Court and urge the Senate to keep politics out of the process and confirm her nomination.”) She was confirmed a few weeks later, on August 6.
I don’t see what possible difference it would make if Christie’s timeline were accurate. On his own account, he thought it was right to confirm her but refused to say so until it had been decided. It’s not exactly Profiles in Courage material. What would have been the point of issuing such a statement? And if you think that it was a mistake to confirm Sotomayor–that people who supported her confirmation showed their lack of commitment to a proper understanding of the Constitution and the role of the courts–why would you think it better to approve it after the fact?
Christie’s handling of these issues remains baffling. Either he and his campaign are incompetent at the most basic research, or they are incompetently trying to mislead people.
Christie Tells More Untruths about Sotomayor