Thursday, July 16, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor

Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee concluded Sonia Sotomayor's testimony on her nomination to be an Associate Justice of The Supreme Court.

Despite the many issues facing the country, right now, these hearings have concentrated the attention of both the Mainstream Media and the Blogosphere as nothing else in recent memory.

So important is this issue that The Thinking Nationalist even set up a 2nd TV in his "office" to follow the hearings live on C-SPAN (The other TV rotates between CNN, Fox News and CNBC).
I have also put other timely and important projects on "hold" to address this important issue.

Why are these hearings important? Because long after President Obama and most of the Senators are gone from the political stage, Ms. Sotomayor will be legislating policy for the Nation from our highest Judicial forum.

Herewith, then, my conclusions:

First, independent of considerations of Ideology and Philosophy, is she qualified?

My answer: Yes. She has more Federal judicial experience than any nominee in recent memory.

Moreover, she was appointed to the Federal Bench in the first place by that conservative Republican President, George H.W. Bush, and elevated to the Appellate bench by that conservative Centrist Democrat, Bill Clinton. On pure experience alone, she's qualified.

Second: Assuming she's qualified, what was the rationale for her appointment?

For President Obama, she's a dream Supreme Court Candidate.

She's not just a "Two-Fer"(Female and Minority), she's a "Three-Fer" (LIBERAL, Female, and Minority). He could not have gone to Central Casting and gotten a better candidate - politically reliable, a down-the-line supporter of the liberal agenda and racial indentity politics, yet non-confrontational enough to be confirmed without divisiveness.

Even though her political and ideological beliefs are the the polar opposite of those of The Thinking Nationalist, I was favorably impressed with her businesslike demeanor and adult seriousness. More than anything else, what this country and its institutions need is some Adult Supervision. I think she'll bring that to the Court.

Another point in her favor is that of "balance" on the Supreme Court. Despite all of the ravings of my fellow bloggists to the contrary, at the end of the day she's merely replacing another doctrinaire liberal. And unlike some of my fellows, I feel that the Court does need to reflect some difference of ideology. This country is often described ideologically as "Pragmatic Center-Right". Which to me means that a 5-4 division, either conservative or liberal, is what we ought to have and about as good as we're going to get.

A Supreme Court composed of nine "Militant Moderates" would probably be ideal, but it would be unconfirmable.

Finally, as a matter of practical politics, it's a done deal.

The Republicans do not have the votes to either defeat her nomination or prolong debate on it.

That's what happens when you lose Presidential and Senatorial elections. A lackluster 2008 Republican presidential campaign was matched by equally feckless Senatorial contests. Result- they have the votes - the Republicans don't.

I'm not going to discourse here on Ms. Sotomayor's "Quota Queen" background or beliefs.

She's a poster child for Affirmative Action, Set-Asides, special consideration for Minorities, and all of the divisive baggage that that represents. In her past public comments (but NOT before the committee), she has continually upheld her belief that racial minorities need and deserve special favors and consideration from the rest of society.

But there's one big difference - "quotas" got her "in" to Princeton and to Law School, but she doggedly made the most of her opportunities.

Top grades, top-flight professionalism, and a world-class work ethic have put her a Senate vote away from the pinnacle of the U.S. legal profession.

I applaud that.

I wish I could say the same for some of her critics.

- The Thinking Nationalist

1 comment:

  1. I could only conclude that Mr. Bush was in error in appointing this lady to a court (any court, except the Court of Courtship). She will continue the racial divide that came down in time from the 60s. It cannot be true that "capitalism is racism" and that "socialism is anti-racism". It may not be the other way around, but, I quote Abraham Lincoln:

    "The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party—and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect His purpose. I am almost ready to say this is probably true—that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere quiet power, on the minds of the now contestants, He could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And having begun He could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds."

    Plainly said, Mr. Sotomayor frightens me a little.