The ‘generic’ process in nominating Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the ‘generic statements’ she made to become a Supreme Court Justice means she will be unproductive in her time serving in the highest court of the nation, law professors said at a Boston University School of Law forum Tuesday. ‘Sotomayor knew precisely the types of questions she would be asked, and answered in precisely the way the Senate was expecting,’ LAW professor Pnina Lahav said. ‘Sotomayor is unproductive because of her generic statements,’ New York University School of Law professor Mattias Kumm said.’ Three professors and a moderator gathered at the BU School of Law’s Barristers Hall Tuesday to discuss the confirmation process of the United States Supreme Court in commemoration of the U.S. Constitution’s 222nd year. About 40 students and faculty members attended to hear the discussion. BU LAW professor Daniela Caruso moderated the panel, which consisted of BU LAW professors Lahav and Larry Yackle as well as Kumm, who is currently a visiting professor at Harvard Law School. All three panelists emphasized the small role the Constitution plays in determining the process of nomination. Article Two of the Constitution gives the president the power to appoint the justice, ‘by and with the Advice and Consent [sic] of the Senate.’ Lahav said the Senate should primarily ask, ‘Are these people legally qualified?’ Yackle agreed that a series of questions should be asked during the process of nomination. Among them is whether the president and Senate are entitled to take a candidate’s political views and their views on a precise legal issue into consideration when choosing nominees.’ ‘The answer to all of these is yes,’ he said.’ Kumm said he agreed with Yackle and compared the U.S. system to the one in continental Europe, where he said the selection of nominees is private and their tenure is limited.’ ‘The European Union judges take their world views into consideration,’ he said. ‘There are no public hearings, which undermines the authority of the judiciary.’ Overall, Lahav said, the U.S. can learn from Europe regarding the nomination system. ‘The public hearing system does not have to be a circus,’ she said.’ Audience members said they found the discussion interesting, but some disagreed with what was said.’ Second-year LAW student Caitlin Monjeau said she does not think a public hearing like the one in the U.S. is necessary. ‘The public should not have a voice in the judiciary process,’ she said. ‘It is a bad idea because the process wouldn’t be based on legal credentials, but on personal opinion.’ Second-year LAW student Andrew Churella said he thinks the public should have a voice at least on the state level. ‘ ‘Maybe not on a national level, but the public should have a voice in the state judiciary processes,’ he said.’