I share the traditional view that elections have consequences and
that the president should get to have his appointments confirmed
as long as the nominees aren't corrupt or blatantly unqualified
for their positions. At the same time, the confirmation process
of a high-profile position such as a Supreme Court justice is an
opportunity to illuminate the consequences of elections. In the
case of the Sotomayor appointment, while she's likely to coast
through the Senate given the Democrats' sheer numbers, the
American public needs to understand why this is such a radical
pick. The Obama/Sotomayor idea that judges, instead of making
impartial rulings based on the law and the Constitution, should
base their decisions (at least in part) on their own experiences
and ethnic background, is outrageous. It is perfectly appropriate
for Republicans and conservatives to make this point, and there's
no reason why they can't do so in a respectful manner. In short,
the upcoming Sotomayor fight isn't really a fight about whether
she should be confirmed -- Republicans pretty much lost that one
last November -- it's a fight about whether Obama gets to define
Sotomayor as a "moderate."