Peeling off the Sotomayor layers

Phyllis Chesler wrote a nice column today reminding conservatives (a) not to Bork Sotomayor (because two wrongs definitely don’t make a right); and (b) to make sure to develop Sotomayor’s understanding of the Constitution and her role as a judge — because, after all, that is what this whole job interview is about.

Because of the good news/bad news that keeps flowing from Sotomayor’s sudden presence in the popular consciousness (which shows her as a potentially racist, potential protector of the First Amendment; potential identity politics ideologue, potential Catholic voter on abortion, etc.), Chesler is absolutely right about approaching Sotomayor with both diligence and respect.  The same good news/bad news cycle also reminded me of the Simpson’s episode “Hungry are the Damned.”  Pay close attention to the cookbook scene:

Be Sociable, Share!
  • Zhombre

    I wholly agree. The debate should not be about Sotomayor’s judicial experience, academic credentials, personality or temperament on the bench, the debate ought to be about ideas, about basic principles; does “empathy” now supersede traditional ideas of impartiality and fairness in administration and application of law? Should the blindfolded Justice be jettison for, say, a panel of wide-eyed and subjective auditors who will calculate justice based on ethnic and social origins, gender, and the demands of some Five Year Plan of the progressive vision?