and speaking about Sotomayor...

...it seems her defenders are getting ready to play their high Joker...

Sorry for those of you who don't get the Spades reference, but it seems that those who are not concerned about arguing on the merits about Sonia Sotomayor's potential confirmation to the US Supreme Court are going to frame their arguments that any opposition is racist. There is a view among the pro-Sotomayor crowd that this puts the Republican party in a predicament where they cannot alienate the Hispanic crowd, but at the same time, placate the conservative base that sees Sonia as not only incompetent, based on her rulings, but another reason why we should oppose judicial activism. Obama made a reference to one of Sotomayor's more profound rulings, one that made the balance of the United States as we know it, uncertain. It surrounded the baseball strike of 1994-1995, her decision, according to George Will, upset the negotiations that had been on going for about 260 days, and forced baseball to be slaves to the union for the next seven years (there you have it...she's pro-union, far from a centrist...).

Similar to the Harriet Miers disaster of 2005, as well as Obama's track record on nominations, this nomination shows that Obama clearly did not vet Sotomayor and only did this to pacify the rabid dogs on the left-wing fringe. This isn't about her being Hispanic, as Democrats made that plainly clear when they opposed Miguel Estrada in 2003 because he had no experience (my how five years changes things...) at the local, state, or federal level. In fact, other liberals dismissed Estrada as Bush's "affirmative action" pick, and they did not want former President Bush to score much needed Hispanic voters by having the first Hispanic on the bench. It seems odd that liberals would use this argument to frame any opposition to Sotomayor, since they used it against Estrada. Liberals and Democrats should be looking at Democratic senators in red states who must choose to either tow the party line, or vote in accordance with their constituency (we'll see if Maddow says anything about that...).



In the interview with Rachel, US Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that Sotomayor would bring her life experiences to the court, and the notion that life experiences should not be used in issuing rulings is ridiculous (Earth to Boxer: That's not what judges do...). Political Science professor and Maddow comrade, Melissa Harris-Lacewell, believes that a woman, could bring a perspective that a white man cannot. That is very dangerous. It's true that we all have different life experiences, but as Chief Justice Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, the judge is the umpire in a baseball game. Umpires do not alter the rules of the game, they make their decisions based on it.

Barring something extraordinary, Sotomayor will be Souter's replacement. This should be a rallying cry for conservatives to support more conservative Senators to keep Obama responsible. I know it will be difficult to see what type of justice Sotomayor will be, but at least her past rulings will provide us a window into how she may rule. One problematic ruling involves a case where racial discrimination was the central theme, where she sided with the city's racially discriminatory promotion policies, and tried to sweep her support for it under the rug. She has also been heard claiming that her minority status allows her a special type of insight that is denied to white males. It falls in line with the identity politics mantra of Democrats, but it should not be a criterion for nominating a judge for the US Supreme Court. And if you think her belief in "reverse discrimination" is bad...you ain't seen shit yet!

According to the American Bar Association, Mrs. Sotomayor is a member of La Raza, (yes, THAT La Raza) which has lobbied for a relaxation of the laws enforcing illegal immigration and advocates the secession of several southwestern US states to ally with Mexico. I sense that her membership will influence her ruling provided an illegal alien has the ability to appear in front of the US Supreme Court. The problem will be that unlike her past rulings, her future ones will not be subject to reversals. The Republicans should ask Sotomayor the hard questions and bring her ineptitude to light, thus forcing Obamessiah to be more responsible and they should make the case for voting for more conservative Republicans in the US Senate to at least slowdown the Obama juggernaut.

Have a great day...