BCT Editorial – 5/31/09

This page was last updated on June 1, 2009.

Empty pews; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 31, 2009.

The editorial subtitle is “Opposition to high court nominee shows the danger of preaching at the choir.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“The sound and fury coming from the right over President Barack Obama’s selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee for the Supreme Court makes no sense, not just in terms of the composition of the court but politically as well.”

[RWC] At the end of the critique I’ll ask you what’s missing from the editorial.

“To start with, if she is appointed, Sotomayor, who currently sits on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, would replace Justice David Souter, who generally aligns with Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

“Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are still a solid bloc on the other side, leaving Justice Anthony Kennedy as the swing vote.

“So, as it appears right now, Sotomayor’s appointment would change nothing.

“In fact, given the age of Stevens, the health and age of Bader Ginsburg and the relative youth of Roberts, Thomas and Alito, it’s possible the current court alignment might not change through the 2016 presidential election, and beyond.

“The politics of the opposition is even more baffling.”

[RWC] Since my opposition is about principles, I can understand why the Times would find it “baffling.”

“Hispanics make up the largest minority in the United States, and their numbers will continue to grow for decades. The conservative movement and Republican Party seem to have been going out of their way to alienate Hispanics, and their furious attacks on Sotomayor reinforce that perception.”

[RWC] It’s not surprising the Times would look at Ms. Sotomayor in this manor. After all, the left is simply a loose association of grievance and “victim” groups based on idiotic things like ethnicity, income, race, sex, skin color, et cetera. In general, those of us on the right tend to see persons as individuals, not as members of some group based on physical attributes and/or DNA. Finally, why don’t people in these groups see it’s insulting for lefties to assume everyone in the group thinks alike?

For grins, let’s play along with the Times “logic.” Alberto Gonzales (Hispanic) was President Bush’s Attorney General. How many Hispanic votes did that garner Republicans? Mr. Bush also nominated Miguel Estrada (Hispanic immigrant from Honduras) for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, but Democrats successfully filibustered his appointment. How many Hispanic votes did that get Republicans and cost Democrats? Mr. Bush nominated California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown (black) to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Initially Democrats filibustered the nomination, but after two years it eventually came to a full vote before the Senate. Republicans unanimously approved Ms. Brown while Democrats almost unanimously voted “nay;” the only Democrat to vote “yea” was Sen. Ben Nelson (NE). Yes, then-Sen. Obama voted against Ms. Brown’s nomination. How many black votes did that get Republicans and how many black votes did it cost Democrats? Both President Bush and the GOP’s 2008 nominee (John McCain) for President supported amnesty for illegal immigrants, and the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanics. How many Hispanic votes did that garner Republicans? President George H.W. Bush nominated Clarence Thomas (black) to the Supreme Court. You may recall Democrats launched a full out character assassination attack on Mr. Thomas in a failed effort to derail his nomination. How many black votes did that get Mr. Bush in the 1992 election and how many black votes did Democrats lose as a result of their abuse of Mr. Thomas? I hope I made my point.

“They aren’t exactly endearing themselves to female voters by questioning her intelligence or credentials, either.”

[RWC] Whether true or not, these criticisms are also coming from the left, but noting that would muck up the editorial.

As a reminder, ever since his nomination in 1991, Democrats have constantly questioned the intelligence of Justice Clarence Thomas. For example, leftie Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said, “[Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas is the most incompetent, unqualified justice who ever served in my lifetime.” On “Meet the Press,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said of Justice Thomas, “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.” Has that damaged Democrats in the eyes of black voters?

“Of course, Sotomayor’s critics might be playing to their base — the 23 percent of U.S. voters who still identify themselves as Republicans — to raise money (or ratings) or to put Obama on notice in regard to future Supreme Court nominations.”

[RWC] “[P]laying to their base?” Like most Times editorials?

Here’s a poll you can bet a Times editorial won’t cite. As I wrote in my critique of “The politics of hope,” “According to a late-October [2008] Battleground Poll (self-described as a ‘bi-partisan survey’), 59% of those surveyed claimed to be either ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ conservative. 36% claimed to be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ liberal (poll terminology).”

“Still, it’s hard to reconcile the verbal vehemence of the opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination with the reality of the situation.”

[RWC] I get a kick out of any Times editorial that talks about “the reality of the situation.”

“These guys are so busy preaching at the choir that they haven’t noticed the pews behind them are emptying at an alarming rate.”

[RWC] Did you notice what’s missing from the editorial? If you answered “any mention of Ms. Sotomayor’s qualifications,” you are correct.

In a nutshell, for the most part I don’t care about a judge’s ethnicity, political party, sex, sexual preference, skin color, compelling life story, et cetera. All I want is someone who will interpret the law as it is written and not according to their personal policy preferences or how they would like the law to read. There’s a reason we say “justice is blind” and the statue of Lady Justice frequently has a blindfold. I like the way Chief Justice John Roberts put it during his confirmation hearings. Mr. Roberts said, “I had someone ask me in this process, I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me: are you going to be on the side of the little guy? You obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.”

Now let’s look at Ms. Sotomayor. First, remember that during his campaign, Mr. Obama said he wanted judges with empathy. As a result, we must assume Mr. Obama nominated Ms. Sotomayor because he believes she employs empathy in her rulings. That’s exactly wrong when judging points of law. There can’t be different interpretations of the law simply because a judge is or is not sympathetic with a party, political position, et cetera.

Second, during a 2005 symposium at Duke, Ms. Sotomayor said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is – Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [laughter]” Here Ms. Sotomayor takes the position appellate judges make policy. The problem is, that’s the job of the executive and legislative branches of government, not the judicial branch. Policy is to be determined by our elected representatives, not judges with lifetime appointments not answerable to the people.

Third, during a 2001 lecture at Berkeley, Ms. Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” There are two problems with this. First, personal “experiences” should not affect interpreting the law. If it did, every judge would be free to interpret the law as he saw fit. Second, the comment appears to be a bit bigoted in terms of ethnicity and sex. Can you imagine if a white male had said anything anywhere near comparable to that comment? Not only would that guy never have been nominated, I can just about guarantee he would have been impeached from his current judgeship. I’m not claiming Ms. Sotomayor is a bigot, only that she made a bigoted comment. We should not be surprised when lefties make such comments, however. As I noted above, the left is all about group identity politics. It’s only natural for members of these groups to believe they’re better than the members of other groups.