Thursday, May 28, 2009

Back by popular demand

So I have had a couple friends suggest I write more. To be honest, since the beginning of the year, I find myself spending more time on facebook than here. But as summer approaches I am going to begin writing more.

Now my thoughts on Sonia Sotomayor being nominated for the Supreme Court. First, let me say that I really don't care what race or gender she is. To me that kind of stuff should have nothing to do with whether or not a person is qualified to be a judge. But obviously Obama picked her because she is a Hispanic woman. To make matters worse is that she actually thinks that her "rich heritage" will make her a better judge than a typical white guy. Since when does heritage matter in interpreting the law? I thought the law was supposed to be color blind. And if I have to hear one more news story talking up her personal life story as some sort of qualification I am going to throw something at the TV. Nobody talked up Clarence Thomas' personal life story nor should they have. What truly matters in how someone views the law.

As for Sotomayor judicial record I am a little ignorant on it . The two biggest cases I know of both dealt with sports. She ruled against the baseball owners thus ending the lockout in the mid nineties and she ruled against Maurice Clarette and his bid to turn pro after only one year at Ohio State. I probably agree with her on both instances but does that make her a good judge?

I have seen the clip on YouTube of her saying that the appeals court is where the law is made. It sounds to me like she is just stating a fact and it is hard to tell if she condones that or not. My suspicion is that she does but it is hard to prove just based on that clip.

I write all this to say that Republicans are in a box on this one. Hispanics are the new swing voters and attacking the first ever Hispanic nominated to the Supreme Court spells trouble for Republicans seeking those votes. Additionally, while we can all assume she is a liberal who will create the law rather than apply it, there isn't a ton of proof to that point. We won't know the answer to that until she is already on the court and by then it's too late to do anything about it.

Personally, I wouldn't have appointed Sotomayor as I am sure most Republicans wouldn't have. But making this appointment is the president's prerogative and they should defer to his judgement. That's how it was always done until the Democrats decided to block Robert Bork back in 86. He was imminently qualified but they blocked him for purely political reasons. That unfortunately has politicized the court but it doesn't mean Republicans should sink to that level.

Besides, practically speaking I don't think Republicans can win this fight even if they wanted to so why waste what little political capital they have left. They should save it for issues they can actually win like opposing cap and trade. But then again, I am not Rush Limbaugh so they probably won't listen to me.