Liberals Whine About Sotomayor

Here's a story about hyperventilating liberals who feel as though last week's confirmation hearing featuring President Obama's "wise Latina" nominee Judge Sotomayor represented a "missed opportunity" for liberalism. Here's one statement:

"Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal think tank, called them "a totally missed opportunity. . . . The progressive legal project hit rock bottom [last] week."

I can't figure out whether such drama represents 1) legitimate concern as to the liberal credentials/nature of the nominee or 2) just part of the vast left-wing conspiracy playbook to continue to try and convince Senators of Judge Sotomayor's centrist, non-liberal judicial demeanor. Because if it is #1, then they are showing startling political naivete.

Barack Obama was elected President by publicly suppressing his liberal record and his liberal views. To the extent that he advocated policies that could be viewed as liberal, he couched them in moderate language and extolled them with moderate rhetoric. In office, he is veering the country dramatically to the left, all the while seeming like a moderate, common-sense kind of guy. I think that Americans are beginning to realize this, but we may be too far along for us to do much about it right now.

Sotomayor's public "moderate-ness" is the result of the coaching job she got from the White House, based on its polling data and its knowledge that liberal ideas are not very popular with voters--especially when exposed to scrutiny. Yes, I know--a liberal won the presidency....but he did so by convincing voters he WASN'T a liberal. Sotomayor's path to the Supreme Court--virtually assured from the beginning--would be smoother and play more nicely in the Obama narrative if she too came off as a common-sense moderate.

Anyone who believes the over-heated rhetoric of the liberal intelligentsia is getting snookered...they are all ecstatic over the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, and their only disappointment is that she isn't replacing Scalia, Thomas, Alito or Roberts.

Sotomayor Dodges Questions--She Should Dodge Them All

Story in the Post this morning about how Judge Sotomayor was a bit "elusive" before the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday (as Alito and Roberts were before her). Good. She should be elusive. In fact, she should refuse to answer any and all questions.

Here's my point. Sonia Sotomayor has a long and distinguished record as a prosecutor, federal judge, and federal appeals court judge. The Constitution gives the Senate the "advise and consent" power on nominees to the Federal bench. Just once--I'd like to see a nominee with a record like Sotomayor's say in their opening statement "I'm a good lawyer, I'm a good judge, my record speaks for itself. You have before you all you need to make your decision on my fitness to serve. I'd like to serve on the Supreme Court, in fact, it has been a dream of mine for my entire lawyerly life. But it is not so important to me that I will play the amiable dunce in your political game. I respect the Constitution and the wisdom of the framers in placing my nomination before you for your consent. That power of yours however does not levy a responsibility upon me to participate in your proceedings. I wish you great success in your proceedings however you may wish to measure it, but I shall not answer any of your questions."

Let's be honest here--Robert Bork taught us all that the way to get to the Supreme Court is to answer as few questions straight on as you can. Since his nomination, elusive and evasive answers have been the norm, and the confirmation proceedings have become like North Korean show trials. Every member of that committee already has all the information they need to support or dispute her nomination, and nothing she says is going to change that. Either you are someone who sees her vast experience on the federal bench as proof enough of her fitness to serve, or you are someone who sees that vast experience as evidence of a judicial philosophy that renders her unfit to serve. There is no other choice. The rest of this is all kabuki theater, and it is a waste of time and money.

Sotomayor Pledges Fidelity to the Law

Of course she does. Because she's not now addressing a group of female lawyers, or a group of urban rights activists, or a group of ethnic victimization merchants--or any other group who feels for some reason that the law is insufficient to protect their rights and that empathic judges of diverse and varied "experiences" are best suited to issue justice. She's addressing the Senate committee examining her fitness to serve on the Supreme Court, made up at least in part by people who believe the law is sufficient, and where insufficient, the actions to be taken are those by the political branch.

My thinking has evolved quite a bit on this nomination. I remain convinced that elections have consequences, and in this case, the consequence is that Barack Obama gets to nominate someone he feels thinks about the law like he does. I think it is also essential that an up or down vote be taken on the nominee.

But Republicans must oppose this nomination, and oppose it with direct attacks on judicial philosophy. It is not enough to say that she is fit to serve on the Supreme Court because she has been confirmed twice already by the Senate in inferior courts. That is irrelevant. This is the court of last resort; the framers placed the confirmation power in the political branch, thereby making the "advise and consent" function a wholly political one. While law school records, private practice and time on the bench all serve to give individual Senators a better sense of the overall state of qualification for service, it is in the political process that one's ultimate fitness to serve becomes apparent. The political process has played out to a point in which Judge Sotomayor's elevation to Justice Sotomayor is virtually assured; but the process has not played out to the point where those whose ideology and politics require them to oppose the nomination should sit quietly by and defer to the Executive.

Ideology seems to have become a bad word when it comes to judicial nominees. I believe that the Framers displayed great wisdom in placing judicial confirmations in the political branch, knowing all along that fitness to serve was not simply a function of with whom one had read the law.