Soto What?
The code of the Aggressively Opinionated Political Blogging Association suggests that I am required to opine about President Obama's nomination of some judge named Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. No matter how fervently I may protest that I don't know anything about the nominee and only have a hazy understanding of proper qualifications for such an appointment, the code insists. Just click around the blogosphere if you doubt me. It's got a full range of opinions about this matter ranging from knee-jerk all the way to official political party talking points. You think that kind of uniform agreement to cover something just happens on its own? No, no. It's the demanding AOPBA code forcing all of our bloggy hands.
To that end, here is my opinion on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:
Ever since the Democratic Party broke from precedent and politicized Supreme Court nominations with their infamous "Borking" of President Reagan's nominee in the 80's (by some cosmic coincidence he was actually named Judge Bork!), these things have become ever more naked exercises of pure political muscle. The process isn't yet quite debauched enough to get a barnyard animal appointed to the nation's highest court, but it's headed down that same path. The kind of intra-party revolt that greeted the last president's nomination of a good personal buddy with few serious qualifications to a Supreme Court vacancy is a rarity I expect to get rarer over time.
Besides, most of the opinions getting generated over this matter have only a tangential relationship to the nominee in question. Partisan rivals are mostly looking for reasons to expose flaws in one another rather than seriously considering the merits of the nomination.
Democrats are writing articles about how the Republicans better not oppose her. Why? Because she's eminently qualified and carrying impeccable credentials, the integrity of which would shame any critic into silence? No, no. Because she's Hispanic and a woman. And if Republicans try to oppose her their opponents will label them racist and sexist and attempt to destroy their ability to get votes from either of those demographics. So that's one version of responsible vetting for the most powerful unelected position in the land.
Republicans, by careful contrast, are looking for evidence in the nominee's record that she holds liberal political views and allows them to influence her judicial decisions. In other words, they're looking for evidence that the nominee might be someone a liberal president would be inclined to nominate. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out.
Still there are other lines of careful vetting going on... like trying to find any possible angle that would make undecided voters see their opposition as something other than a knee jerk partisan reaction. This will go on with great enthusiasm for some time. But let's try to put it onto a bit of context.
The Democrats don't need a single Republican vote to confirm the nominee. And they need only one - none if Al Franken is seated in the Senate shortly - to overcome a possible Republican filibuster. Also the Democrats, with very, very few exceptions, couldn't care less what any Republican thinks about this nominee. What they care about is how they might be able to use what the Republicans do and say in the course of the confirmation process against them. And the feeling across the aisle is mutual.
So what we are engaged in here is just another exercise in posturing, positioning, and grandstanding. A Supreme Court nomination is involved here to the same extent that a football game is involved with the Tournament of Roses Parade. Neither one really requires the other, but it's become a venerable tradition to hold them together.
Oh, as for Judge Sotomayor herself? I hope she's well qualified for the office; that all her judgey experience looks properly judgey and experienced; and that she isn't caught on tape somewhere engaging in strange and/or illegal personal hobbies. If all that's in order she's going to be seated anyway so I don't see the great need for me to get worked up about it. I'm under no expectations that His Presidential Coolness made this pick with any intention of pleasing me. And should this nomination fail he'll just nominate another with more or less the same kind of views. So forgive me if I don't bother to look too deeply into the matter.
If you're disturbed by this kind of judge getting onto the Supreme Court, ignore all this confirmation kabuki and try to get someone more to your liking elected president to make the nominations next time.
To that end, here is my opinion on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court:
Ever since the Democratic Party broke from precedent and politicized Supreme Court nominations with their infamous "Borking" of President Reagan's nominee in the 80's (by some cosmic coincidence he was actually named Judge Bork!), these things have become ever more naked exercises of pure political muscle. The process isn't yet quite debauched enough to get a barnyard animal appointed to the nation's highest court, but it's headed down that same path. The kind of intra-party revolt that greeted the last president's nomination of a good personal buddy with few serious qualifications to a Supreme Court vacancy is a rarity I expect to get rarer over time.
Besides, most of the opinions getting generated over this matter have only a tangential relationship to the nominee in question. Partisan rivals are mostly looking for reasons to expose flaws in one another rather than seriously considering the merits of the nomination.
Democrats are writing articles about how the Republicans better not oppose her. Why? Because she's eminently qualified and carrying impeccable credentials, the integrity of which would shame any critic into silence? No, no. Because she's Hispanic and a woman. And if Republicans try to oppose her their opponents will label them racist and sexist and attempt to destroy their ability to get votes from either of those demographics. So that's one version of responsible vetting for the most powerful unelected position in the land.
Republicans, by careful contrast, are looking for evidence in the nominee's record that she holds liberal political views and allows them to influence her judicial decisions. In other words, they're looking for evidence that the nominee might be someone a liberal president would be inclined to nominate. Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out.
Still there are other lines of careful vetting going on... like trying to find any possible angle that would make undecided voters see their opposition as something other than a knee jerk partisan reaction. This will go on with great enthusiasm for some time. But let's try to put it onto a bit of context.
The Democrats don't need a single Republican vote to confirm the nominee. And they need only one - none if Al Franken is seated in the Senate shortly - to overcome a possible Republican filibuster. Also the Democrats, with very, very few exceptions, couldn't care less what any Republican thinks about this nominee. What they care about is how they might be able to use what the Republicans do and say in the course of the confirmation process against them. And the feeling across the aisle is mutual.
So what we are engaged in here is just another exercise in posturing, positioning, and grandstanding. A Supreme Court nomination is involved here to the same extent that a football game is involved with the Tournament of Roses Parade. Neither one really requires the other, but it's become a venerable tradition to hold them together.
Oh, as for Judge Sotomayor herself? I hope she's well qualified for the office; that all her judgey experience looks properly judgey and experienced; and that she isn't caught on tape somewhere engaging in strange and/or illegal personal hobbies. If all that's in order she's going to be seated anyway so I don't see the great need for me to get worked up about it. I'm under no expectations that His Presidential Coolness made this pick with any intention of pleasing me. And should this nomination fail he'll just nominate another with more or less the same kind of views. So forgive me if I don't bother to look too deeply into the matter.
If you're disturbed by this kind of judge getting onto the Supreme Court, ignore all this confirmation kabuki and try to get someone more to your liking elected president to make the nominations next time.
Posted by Doug Williams on
Wednesday May 27, 2009 at 2:50pm
Conservatives seem to have the attitude that it doesn't matter who wins the election this time. If "our" candidate isn't to our liking we'll just pass and try again in 4 years. But politics doesn't work that way. You don't get a do over in 4 years. The decisions that Obama makes in the next 4 to 8 years do not end when he leaves the White House, they linger on for sometimes decades upon decades.
LL