Readers of this website know that one of my “buttons” – things that make me quite angry and that is not to excuse an un-Christian reaction – is when people insult my intelligence.
The nomination of Judge Sotomayor and the confirmation hearing are an insult to my – to all of our – intelligence. Just how stupid and gullible do the president and Senate Democrats think we are?
There are two major problems even if you agree with the judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor and support her being on the Supreme Court. And I would like to think there are principled liberals and Democrats who would be troubled by these.
First is the issue of fairness and consistency.
Republicans are supposed to roll over and wag their tails because Sonya Sotomator is a Latina. If they question her too strongly or vote against her confirmation they supposedly risk offending and alienating a huge chunk of the American electorate. Given the conversation I had with a gentleman on the plane from Los Angeles to Houston I think there is some truth to this. He was deeply angry and offended by conservative opposition to and criticism of Sotomayor basically because his wife is Mexican. Is that logical or rational or reasonable? Frankly no. But that is not the issue. The issue is perception and reaction.
But let us recall how Senate Democrats have treated non-Anglo nominees in the past yes? Robert Bork – oh wait he was male and white and deserved what he got. Clarence Thomas? And dare we recall Miguel Estrada? And according to Democratic staff memos later unearthed Estrada was not even allowed a hearing because (a) he was Latino and (b) then President Bush was possibly grooming him for the Supreme Court. Senator Leahy of Vermont has lied about this claiming that Republicans opposed Estrada.
What is it about liberals and some Democrats – this obsession with rewriting history?
I am not a big fan of Ann Coulter. She can be harsh abrasive and hyperbolic. But she is right on target with her latest piece which addresses the unfairness and inconsistency of Senate Democrats when it comes to Supreme Court nominees.
So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his “hope” is that “if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment,” I think it’s a lovely speech.
It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.
But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war — while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example. (emphasis added)
Read the whole thing at Townhall. You do not have to register.
I will come back to that point in bold.
So that is the fairness and consistency issue. Senate Democrats will engage in vicious ruthless cynical possibly racist tactics in order to block Republican nominees and/or conservative judges. And get away with it. And then lie about it later. And expect us to believe all this.
Second – the confirmation hearings themselves and the apparent disconnect between what Judge Sotomayor is saying now and what she has said/done/written during her previous career.
There is much to say about Judge Sotomayor’s record – in terms of speeches in terms of articles and in terms of decisions. But Jim Geraughty brings it all home in his latest article:
But if you were a Republican senator, and wanted to vote in good faith to confirm Sotomayor, you would have to believe:
· That her “wise Latina” argument was just a bad “rhetorical flourish” that accidently left listeners believing she disagreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, when she actually agreed with her.
· That the misperception of the “wise Latina” argument remained uncorrected through six separate uses of it.
· That Sotomayor genuinely has “no idea” why George Pavia, a senior partner in the law firm that hired her as a corporate litigator, would say, “I can guarantee she’ll be for abortion rights.”
· That she did not read the legal briefs filed by the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while she was on that organization’s board.
· That she genuinely does not have an opinion on whether citizens have a right to self-defense, and could not think of “a case where the Supreme Court has addressed that particular question,” despite the fact that the Heller case decided last year declared, “The inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right.”
· That she “actually agrees” with Justices Scalia and Thomas that judges have to be “very cautious” about using foreign law, despite a speech earlier this year in which she said, “Suggest[ing] to anyone that you can outlaw the use of foreign or international law is a sentiment that’s based on a fundamental misunderstanding.”
· That she really believes that “we don’t make policy choices in the court,” even though she said in a 2005 appearance at Duke University that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
· That she genuinely believes that “the process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind,” when she said in a 1999 speech that there is “no objective stance but only a series of perspectives. . . . Aspiration to impartiality is just that, an aspiration.”
· That she thinks the man who nominated her has a fundamentally flawed perspective on the role of judges, and that she will not “approach the issue of judging in the way the president does.”
Read the whole thing at National Review Online. You do not have to register.
Precisely. In a nutshell the confirmation hearings have revolved around the theme of “everything I have said in the past – I meant the opposite”.
Let us assume for the sake of argument and at the strain of credulity that she is telling the truth. That she is not just pretending to be a rabbit for the sake of satisfying the Senate and the public – when for years she has walked and talked and quacked like a duck.
What we then are being asked to believe is that for years Judge Sotomayor has been incapable of making herself understood.
Does that not trouble even liberals and Democrats? Surely the ability to communicate clearly and be understood is important for a judge or a Supreme Court justice. Will her decisions be misunderstood as badly as all of her previous speeches writings and decisions? What “rhetorical flourishes” might there be in a dissenting or supporting opinion on the Supreme Court that would radically disrupt lives and businesses and organizations – and all because she did not mean what she said in fact she meant the opposite of what she said?
This is an insult to my intelligence. And God have mercy on me because that makes me quite angry.
Look. You want a Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? Fine. You even want a liberal Latino-Hispanic on the Supreme Court? I do not like that but hey guess who won the last election. One expects that.
But surely we can do better than this. Why not the liberal Hispanic judge who harshly denounced how Sotomayor handled (or not) the Ricci case? Why not just be honest and consistent?
“Yes Senator. I think some people of some races and backgrounds are wiser and make better decisions than others. I do not believe impartiality is possible – or even a goal to which a judge can and should aspire. I think judges and justices make policy. I think racial discrimination against individuals in order to correct past wrongs against other groups is a fine way to go.
Yes Senator. I swim. I fly. I quack. I am a duck”.
