In 2005, Pres Bush nominated John Roberts and Sam Alito.
They were outstanding during the confirmation hearings. At one point, John Roberts looked like a master explaining the law to Dem Senators.
It was fun to watch. Again, Roberts and Alito were judges with quite a reputation.
We should add that then Sen Obama opposed both Roberts and Alito!
So much for bipartisanship and keeping the pro-abortion wing contributing to your campaign!
Senator BO even tried to filibuster Alito! Again, so much for bipartisanship and change we can believe in!
So let Sotomayor talk.
Don't treat the same way that Dems butchered Manuel Estrada, a Hispanic lawyer with a wonderful life story but an "R" next to his name.
Dems don't like minorities who escape the liberal plantation and pursue their dreams elsewhere.
Remember Clarence Thomas? The high tech lynching?
What about Alberto Gonzalez, the son of migrant workers?
Take a trip down memory lane: The Sotomayor Rules
Let's recall how "the party of diversity" treats those who want to pursue their dreams outsde the liberal plantation.
Back to Sotomayor.
Let her explain positions.
I could be wrong. Sotomayor could turn out to be as sharp as Roberts or Alito.
However, I'll place an early bet that she is not!
How do I know that she is not?
Because most liberals don't think that she is. Many liberals were hoping for someone who could stand up to Scalia in the court.
Some liberals are even wondering about her commitment to abortion.
Trust me. Let her talk!
First, let's see how rural Dems react to her position on gun control:
Let's see how Dems in Virginia, Arkansas and Montana react to her position that the states do not have to obey the second amendment.
Second, let's hear her views on business and capitalism in general. IBD has a great editorial about one of her decisions:
"In a 2007 2nd Circuit decision, Sotomayor ruled the Clean Water Act required power companies that operate water-cooled power plants to use the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" to prevent fish and other aquatic life from being sucked into vents and killed.
Cost was not to be a deciding factor." (Of Fish And Men)
Third, let her explain the Ricci v. DeStefano decision.
John C. Eastman is the dean at Chapman University School of Law in Orange, Calif., and holds the Donald P. Kennedy chair in law. He is also the founding director of The Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence.
"This case involved a serious constitutional challenge to a decision by the New Haven fire department to decertify a promotion exam after its results, which had been properly validated and carefully vetted by civil rights groups, did not yield an adequate racial mix of candidates.
The Supreme Court took the rare step of granting review despite the fact that the Second Circuit's decision was unpublished.
Under the Second Circuit's rules, unpublished summary orders are supposed to be issued only "in those cases in which decision is unanimous and each judge of the panel believes that no jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion (i.e. a ruling having precedential effect)."
The brief, two-paragraph order Sotomayor joined (and perhaps wrote) makes no mention whatsoever of the constitutional challenge.
The firefighters – and anyone who's been discriminated against on the basis of race – deserved better."
The Ricci decision is a potential embarrassment. It may be reversed by the The Supreme Court a few days before the hearings.
Can you remember a Supreme Court nominee having a major opinion reversed during the confirmation hearings? I can't think of one!
For now, be nice to Sotomayor and give her the microphone.
This is a win-win situation for our side.
First, her confirmation does not change the ideological balance.
Second, Republicans have a wonderful opportunity to win a debate about judicial activism.
In politics, things don't always turn out as planned.
Remember how The Obama White House couldn't wait to get into a debate with former VP Cheney?
Who is reversing campaign promises about military tribunals and detaining terrorists indefinitely?
It's not Cheney!
Let Sotomayor talk! Why don't we start the hearings next week? The sooner the better! Put this lady behind a microphone!
I have a funny feeling that Dems, not Republicans, will have a bad case of indigestion when Sotomayor has to explain some of these decisions and quotes. (It looks like The White House is concerned: White House Damage Control on Sotomayor)
P.S. Cheers to Townhall for this funny but provocative video:
