Sotomayor is on the path to judicial confirmation. And barring any serious red flags, she will be confirmed. Scalia, of course, predicted this. Then again, most political pundits would have guessed the same. Female. Hispanic. Protestant – scratch that – Catholic. With a Democrat in the Oval Office, the addition of one more label trumps them all: liberal.
Her opening statement, I felt, was quite disingenuous. Her judicial philosophy: “fidelity to law.” The goal: “uphold the Constitution as a Justice on the Supreme Court.” Contrast this with her statement at Duke’s law school where the stated that appellate courts are where policy is made. Apparently, the distinction between applying the law and making the law is lost on Sotomayor. The Supreme Court is the final court where the impact – and consequences – of decisions reverberate through numerous generations.
Unfortunately for conservatives, there is little to halt the confirmation. Churchill remarked that “history is written by the victors”; this confirmation elucidates this truism quite well. Republicans failed to find the Achilles heel of a liberal justice. Granted, Sotomayor’s “wise Latina” comment provided fodder for a decent firefight; but without a spark, the fire fails.
Perhaps that spark could have been Ricci v. DeStefano, but outrage at Sotomayor’s decision is also seemingly feigned. I believe Sotomayor is an activist judge (see here), but I wouldn’t use DeStefano as the lightening rod to mount opposition against her. After all, four Supreme Court justices agreed with Sotomayor’s ruling. The case could have very well come out the opposite way had the Court’s composition been reversed.
This is not “que sera, sera”; I am not so disengaged to believe that. I recognize though that while Sotomayor’s confirmation is virtually inevitable, this is not the be-all-and-end-all. Frustrating yes, but remember, the Court’s makeup still has not changed.
Lets all give the New York Times Co. a round of applause for this great idea, charging readers monthly fees to access online content (and in the midst of an economic downturn no less.) That’s sure to help the Times flagging readership numbers…
If you’ll remember, the NYT famously tried this with their opinion columnists a few years back, and they were forced to pull the plug when no one bit. With print newspaper readership cratering, this is exactly the wrong tact for the Times, or any other newspaper, to be taking. What the future of the print media is is anyone’s guess – will it be scaled down dailes? Transformed bi-weeklies? Or will print media be discontinued completely?
What does seem certain is that consumers will be looking more and more to web-based media for their news. How traditionally print mediums can adapt to this format, while competing with already established web-based news sources like Politico and Huffington Post, will determine the fate of the industry.
Jonah Goldberg on Obama and Democracy.
Comment to follow.
…it’s a swan-dive off a cliff.
In the past, Oregon’s “physician-assisted suicide” regime has been upheld by the highest court in the land, in the face of dire warnings that the system would lead to the same horrifying abuses that have followed in other nations.
Oregonians are now faced with a situation where their state is not only actively killing its citizens, in Stroup’s case, it is seemingly soliciting “patients.”
I submit that a system like Oregon’s is not a “step” toward anything, it is as horrific and terrifying in its implications as anything found in science fiction. The scope here is not as broad, the machinations are not as smoth, but the callousness and disregard for the value of human life is every bit as chilling.
Oregon (and by extension, the nation) is not sliding down a slippery slope, it’s gone off the edge and is in free-fall.
The Omnivore’s Dilemma was an interesting read. Michael Pollan is an engaging writer who takes the reader on an interesting journey through the food chain. A friend of mine from high school called the book “transformative.” Informative, for sure, but transformative? No.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness…
And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Here is some welcomed news. Still, the fact they couldn’t write this story the day after Senator Specter’s defection speaks volumes about the current Republican Party.
Lets all take a brief moment to stand in awe of the United States armed forces as we celebrate Iraq’s newest national holiday, Iraqi Sovereignty Day, which is close to over for them now since they started almost 24 hours ago.
And while we’re at it, lets once again marvel at the ignorant, callous, obtuseness that is Harry Reid.
This ought to make for some interesting questioning during Judge Sotomayor’s hearing, if nothing else. The Supreme Court has struck down the 2nd Circuit’s (which included potential Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor) ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano. Although over at SCOTUS Blog they seem to think the majority went out of their way not to lay into Sotomayor’s decision.
Update: Now a plurality of Americans oppose Sotomayor’s confirmation. What effect that will have on the Senate confirmation process, what with newly minted Senator Stuart Smalley now on board, remains to be seen.