So be it. In this country we take the bad, the embarrassing, with the necessary.
According to CNN, this from the way too old and barely sentient Mitch McConnell, key senator from one of our most trivial of states, Kentucky: “Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky called for a vigorous confirmation process to ‘thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences. Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a 'rubber stamp,’ McConnell said." [Note: instead of using “their,” he should have said “his or her,” but then again he’s not that smart.]
"Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications."
I’m pretty sure Sonia Sotomayor understands “the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even handedly.” Something — I don’t know what exactly — tells me she gets that.
What I don’t understand is what it is that McConnell does not understand, along with many Democrats who have been in similar positions. Sotomayor has been vetted from the time she was born, and has apparently passed every test. But it’s unlikely the good Senator from Kentucky has had to stand up to the scrutiny of Sotomayor — even though he’s a Senator.
There is no similar test for being a Senator. Which is why I might decide to run one day, and could probably win (and that would not be so great for the republic). I mean, look at the gene pool of our legislators. If you are ever in a masochistic mood, turn on C-Span for about 30 minutes. Note: have a shot of whiskey nearby (now that changes how I fell about Kentucky).
All I’d need are a few ignorant votes, not so hard to get. If McConnell had to run Sotomayor’s hurdles, he might be somewhere in East Jesus, Kentucky turning out another run of his best hemp. And if so, god love him for it. Good hemp is good hemp and we need more of it.
Just don’t allow him to pass judgment on someone who is brighter in a minute than he’ll be in a year.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Indeed, why would any fool dare to question an appointee handed down from the godlike authority of Obama. So what if she wants to take away our rights, shred the Constitution and enshrine political correctness on the bench. It would be wrong to ask her any tough questions.
Dave
2 - Jordan Richardson
It would also be wrong to read and consider the article, apparently, lest it get in the way of our continued one-note ramblings.
Honestly, Dave. Do you play any other songs?
3 - El Bicho
Hmm, I thought conservatives didn't want tough questions asked considering how hard they cried after Alito's wife cried.
4 - Clavos
This article could have been a lot shorter:
"Sonia Sotomayor is Obama’s choice, and if you are a Democrat or an open-minded citizen, you’ll quickly discover that she is enormously gifted; that she is clearly qualified to sit on the Supreme Court bench {and best of all, she's an activist liberal].
It would have said all you said without wasting bandwidth.
5 - Dr Dreadful
"there are so many imbecilic legislators ... that to submit this highly qualified individual for the Court amounts at least to a momentary public demeaning. It amounts to lesser talented, lesser intellectually equipped men and women ... to ask litmus test (read: inane) questions of someone who is infinitely brighter and better informed."
I disagree. Since most senators are or were at one time lawyers, I cannot think of a body better qualified to scrutinize an appointee to the highest legal job in the land.
6 - roger nowosielski
Clavos,
You should have edited this piece.
It's too late saying this after the fact.
7 - roger nowosielski
I don't happen to share your high opinion of lawyers, Doc.
8 - Dave Nalle
But Ckavos' version left out the key sentence:
"And if you don't like Sotomayor or moving the court to the left, just shut up."
Dave
9 - Bliffle
It looks like Obama picked someone who would move the supremes a millimeter to the left. And he'll undoubtedly get his way. Sort of a turnabout after Bush got two chances and moved the supremes two millimeters to the right. And that with a court that was right-leaning enough to rationalize the Bush v. Gore decision.
I don't know if Sotomayer is any good or not, or if she's a flaming bigot or whatever.
She must be a little dumb to step so incautiously into the race/sex issues, even tho those were not court statements but personal statements.
I heard the clip that they've been playing about the 'policy' business, and I thought she was not promoting policy-making but just reporting it.
The fact is that "The Law" is extremely flexible and one can prove anything and disprove everything. There is no doubt in my mind that a judge can reach a decision consistent with his prejudices quite easily. I've been to court a half dozen times and seen it.