Thread: The liberal version of Harriet Miers

The liberal version of Harriet Miers

Posted: June 02, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009

Here we go again with the hubbub over race, sex and ethnicity. Call me a lot of things, but don't call me a race zealot or a hyper-ethnicist. I care no more about the sex and ethnicity of President Obama's nominee to replace Justice David Souter than I do whether she is fat, chews gum or has three toes. I care about Sonia Sotomayor's judicial demeanor/temperament and her grasp of constitutional law.

Before I am filleted as being a right-wing ideologue, I point out that I am joined in my position by those on the left as well. Jeffrey Rosen, the legal affairs editor for The New Republic (by no means a conservative enterprise), shares my viewpoint:

Despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her 2nd Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about [her] … the most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench … she has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue. … Her opinions although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not being especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. ("The Case Against Sotomayor-Indictments of Obama's front-runner to replace Souter"; Jeffrey Rosen; The New Republic; May 4, 2009)

Judge Roy Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom"

Rosen also makes mention that while the full "extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the [Ricci v. DeStefano] opinion is not publicly known," Judge Carbranes, a Clinton appointee, objected that the panel's opinion contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of the case."

To be fair, Rosen also said, "I haven't read enough of Sotomayor's opinions to have confident sense of them, nor have I talked to enough of [her] detractors and supporters, to get a fully balanced picture of her strengths. It's possible that the former clerks and former prosecutors I talked to have an incomplete picture of her abilities. But they're not motivated by sour grapes or by ideological disagreement – they'd like the most intellectually powerful and politically effective liberal justice possible. And [even] they think that Sotomayor, although personally and professionally impressive, may not meet that demanding standard."

Which brings me back to my point. The Supreme Court is the very last point of address in our system of justice. It is constitutionally imperative that those seeking audience before same have confidence that they are before a competent and impartial court. It is imperative that those who sit on this court do so based solely on their legal acumen, not their gender, race, or their ability to empathize – tangentially or otherwise.

Focusing on Sotomayor's ethnicity, background, gender and upbringing serves only to obfuscate and detract from what matters most. Being a Puerto Rican woman who grew up disadvantaged makes her no more qualified than Harriet Miers was simply because the president said so. Being the first Puerto Rican woman shouldn't enter into it. The novelty and value of "firsts" and "limited numbers" is of consideration only in collectibles and memorabilia.

She should be thoroughly vetted based on her ability and temperament. The fact that she has been overturned on appeal in 60 percent of her cases should be of grave concern to liberals and conservatives alike. Her position on the Second Amendment is important to many voters regardless of their party affiliation. Although it is argued that she is taken out of context, I have read and reread her 2002 comments at Berkeley, and there is no way rational, fair-minded person cannot be troubled, party affiliation notwithstanding. Her association with La Raza should be of extreme concern.

America is a nation of "firsts." For the most part, everything about our nation is that of setting new standards and breaking new ground. We cannot continue to allow irreversible decisions, such as a Sotomayor confirmation would be, to be based in any way on race and/or gender.

We cannot have it both ways. We cannot complain race and gender hold people back, while at the same time arguing for advancement based on race and gender. Neither viewpoint is fair to the fabric of America.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=99833

I love Mychal Massie. Keep race/ethnicity/gender out of it.