Come on now fellow Americans, give the woman a break. After all, as pointed out here, Obama never questioned Sonia Sotomayor as to her stand on such issues as abortion, gun rights, etc.
Yeah, that's what I said-bullshit. Sure he never questioned her, because he obviously never had to. This woman's past record on the Appellate Court is a damn good indication of where she is going to stand during her tenure on the Supreme Court. Now she has a chance to vote her beliefs, and know that she can set established precedent that is unlikely to be overturned at least in her lifetime.
But let's be clear, this woman is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice, so why waste any more time on it? Sure, I understand why the Senate Judiciary Committee has to go through the motions, and let Americans know as much about her as they can pull out of her, so they can hold her supporters in the Congress accountable for the decisions she makes, but everybody else might as well acclimate themselves to the reality that, barring a miracle-and probably even despite one of those-she is going to be confirmed. The Republicans know this as well, and some of them will vote for her, for a variety of reasons, not the least is that they know all too well that, if by some unforeseen circumstances she should not be confirmed, it would probably go downhill from there.
Translation-If Sonia Sotomayor is not confirmed, Obama's next appointment will not be Robert Bork.
You can thank the Pro-Life activists in large part for this reality. In any given election, the closer it is, the more likely they are to swing the election one way or another. When the electorate is trending Democratic for whatever reason, that is not a good thing. Now, thanks to them, every bit as much as to the harpies that run the Pro-Choice movement riling up the majority of women, who legitimately fear that if they are raped they'll be forced to just squat down and spit out some bastard that was forced on them, we are where we are-and it ain't lookin' good, amigos.
Both sides of the debate have hi-jacked the electoral process for thirty six years and going, and what do we have to show for it? A Democratic Congressional majority in both houses just chomping at the bits to tax, spend, and regulate us into "prosperity", a Democratic President who is somewhere just barely to the right of Saul Alinsky (we hope), and very possibly coming soon to a Supreme Court near you, a majority clique of liberal hacks known as Democratic apparatchiks operating under the guise of judicial independence.
In the meantime, we have to listen to yet more bullshit about how a judge is like an umpire, and you know (if you are paying attention) just how a typical politician thinks. If we are going to go with a sports analogy, let's do football.
You have the owners, who are the captains of industry and the property owners. The investor class all sit in the front seats and own the season tickets, and they share more and more of their seats with the lobbyists and special interests. The lower classes are all relegated to the cheap seats. The working classes, the skilled and unskilled laborers, are all assigned specific duties inside the stadium during, before and after game time.
The team is made up of the members of society who keep everything running and are considered the pillars of society. The linesmen are made up of your first responders, those who are consigned the task of keeping society safe. The most creative members of society rise to the top. They become your quarterbacks, your wide-receivers, your cornerbacks and tight ends, and of course your running backs.
Your politicians, by all rights, can come from any level previously mentioned, though they tend to come from one group more than the other. They tend to rise to the coaches positions, or to offensive coach or defensive coordinators. Anymore, however, more and more of them make up what we will refer to as the player's unions, and as such they tend to look more and more out for their own interests than they do the actual players, or anybody else who actually makes the game work (that is, the citizens they allegedly "serve").
This bring us round full circle to the referees, who of course are the judges. But the on-field referees are your lower court judges and your appellate court judges, and in some cases, if they do good enough and gain enough seniority, your state Supreme Court judges. So where does that leave the Supreme Court? What level do they rise to in the great game of football?
Those would be the motherfuckers who sit up in the booths, away and safe from the judgment and displeasure of the crowds, while they conduct the final playback reviews. Their word is the final say, and it is irreversible.
Now, does anybody believe that how a judge conducts himself on the field is not a good indication as to how they will conduct themselves up in the booths, where their decisions are irreversible, and where they are unanswerable to the opinions of not only the crowds and players, but of those who appointed them? I hardly think so.
The bad thing is, life and politics are nowhere near as concrete and written in stone as football, and in fact, there are two different rulebooks being adhered to in the game of political pigskin. That's the real problem. You have two entirely differing views of the constitution, and which side is predominant in that view is wholly dependent on which side makes the appointments.
Thus, the next time the right objects to the prospect of the left committing group suicide by killing off their progeny in the womb-for whatever reason-I might suggest that they stop, take a deep breath and ask themselves, "what the fuck am I thinking?"
Otherwise, we can look forward to perhaps decades of a country run as though the states are little more than overgrown counties, much like a French Department, and going more and more down the road to adherence to international law, all in the meantime following a playbook that is straight out of Rules For Radicals.