Share

The Most Dangerous Game

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist

photo
(Photo-illustration: Everett Bogue / t r u t h o u t)

It seemed to me that I had barely reached the Court when people were trying to get me off.

- Justice William O. Douglas

    Rush Limbaugh announced on his radio show that President Obama nominated a racist by tapping Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) released a statement questioning Sotomayor's ability to "rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences." Newt Gingrich and Karl Rove have been Twittering their questionable brains out over the last couple of days reasserting the "racist" accusation.

    The charges stem from a 2003 case Judge Sotomayor ruled on, Ricci v. DeStefano, a race discrimination case in which Sotomayor decided against white firefighters. But, as Slate's Richard Thompson Ford explained in a recent article, the firefighter's claim was rejected "because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional. Ricci's claim is that the city's effort to comply with Title VII is itself race discrimination (under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and under Title VII itself). This argument would undermine an important part of modern civil rights law."

    So, there's that. Beyond the cries of racism, other voices from the right have contended Obama's high court nominee is a liberal activist, a judicial legislator and someone maybe not quite bright enough to sit on the bench.

    Needless to say, it's on.

    Even the calmest, most deliberate, most awesomely bi-partisan Supreme Court nomination process one can possibly imagine would still be an exercise in bedlam for Washington, DC, politicos and the media. All the oxygen in the city gets sucked into the process, and until the issue is settled, the noise of it has a way of drowning most everything else out. In its worst iteration, the nomination process can level careers, paradigms and whatever else stands in its path. Two such, the failed nomination of Robert Bork and the successful nomination of Clarence Thomas, left behind a residue of resentment and spite that nobody has been able to scrub off the walls to this day.

    Before the nomination of Judge Sotomayor, lots of people were expecting President Obama to replace Justice Souter with someone virtually identical to Justice Souter: moderate, even-tempered, contemplative, and above all else, inoffensive to as much of the galaxy of interested interest groups as could be managed. Instead, Mr. Obama nominated someone moderate, even-tempered, contemplative, profoundly experienced, and above all else, guaranteed to hyperactivate a certain segment of those interested interests while putting the Republican Party in an almost inescapable bind.

    A New York Times editorial from Wednesday nicely captured the essential reality of the Sotomayor nomination. "President Obama seems to have made an inspired choice in picking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court," wrote the Times. "She has an impressive judicial record, a stellar academic background and a compelling life story. Judge Sotomayor would also be a trailblazing figure in the mold of Thurgood Marshall, becoming the first member of the nation's large and growing but still under-represented Hispanic population to serve on the court. Based on what we know now, the Senate should confirm her so she can join the court when it begins its new term in October."

    The Republican right-wing's campaign of resistance settled into a predictable pattern almost immediately after the announcement. While those voicing opposition to Judge Sotomayor claimed to be surprised and disappointed that Obama chose such a "controversial" nominee, the truth is they've been suiting up for weeks to fight whoever finally got the nod. Their attacks were triggered automatically and would have come no matter what; if Mr. Obama had nominated Jesus of Nazareth to replace Justice Souter, the GOP would now be denouncing Him for favoring a socialist welfare state because He gave away loaves and fishes and circumvented the insurance industry when He raised Lazarus from the dead.

    A fair portion of the arguments against Judge Sotomayor, therefore, have been pro forma, along all the old, well-traveled lines. The fact that Mr. Obama nominated a Hispanic woman to the bench, however, has inspired a particularly shrill reaction from the segment of right-wing interested interests that are somehow genetically hard-wired to freak out whenever someone besides a white male gets a gig in government.

    It was a canny political move on Mr. Obama's part to nominate an indisputably qualified minority woman to the high court, because in doing so, he has once again scrambled the GOP's eggs. As the Times editorial noted, Judge Sotomayor brings all the qualifications one would expect and demand of a Supreme Court justice to the table, and her qualifications are further enhanced by her rich personal history. She is an excellent nominee, and Senate Republicans - already weakened by consecutive electoral defeats and lavishly despised by a majority of Americans - stand demonstrably incapable of thwarting Obama's choice, and run the risk of further damaging their prospects if they try. Unless she is found in bed with a dead girl or a live boy, as the old DC saying goes, smart money says Judge Sotomayor is going to be Justice Sotomayor before the foliage is off the trees this fall.

    The problem for the GOP is they may have to fight Sotomayor even if it means political suicide. The raving messiahs of the GOP base like Limbaugh are already up in arms over a cavalcade of anti-Obama issues and fighting a range war against so-called "moderates" within the party. Now, they're demanding that Senate Republicans fight to the knife to defeat Judge Sotomayor's nomination. If Limbaugh and his fellow rabble-rousers whip enough GOP base voters into a froth, the Republican Party will be stuck between a rock and a hard place: fail to fight and incite the base, or decide to fight and wind up giving mortal offense to a large swath of Hispanic voters in America.

    The GOP has been courting Hispanic voters, with varying degrees of success, for many years now; Hispanic voters are the fastest-growing electoral bloc in the country, and the GOP covets their support in no small part because their survival as a viable party depends on it. If Senate Republicans go after Sotomayor, they run a great risk of alienating an entire generation of Hispanic voters, which simply eviscerates GOP hopes for a recovery at the polls going forward. But if Senate Republicans don't fight the Sotomayor nomination, they run a great risk of further alienating and infuriating the leading voices of an already deranged base, an event that could lead to open revolution within the party and be just as damaging in the long run.

    For the moment, GOP strategy regarding the Sotomayor nomination appears to be an attempt to split the difference. Mr. Obama timed his nomination for when Congress was on vacation, so the TV news networks haven't been able to find many GOP congresspeople willing to go on camera to chew on his choice. But there is just enough angry noise over the nomination being broadcast to perhaps soothe the ruffled feathers of guys like Limbaugh and avoid an implosion. The Republicans will fight her, but not enough to win, and promise their base they will fight like crazed badgers if and when the next Supreme Court nomination comes along.

    Nothing is certain, however. Some enterprising young researcher at Fox News or the Federalist Society could dig up something from Sotomayor's past that proves mortally damaging to her nomination. The GOP base could continue to listen to their pet ideologues, wind up looking at any we'll-get-'em-next-time approach as yet another intolerable Republican sellout, and demand the kind of anti-Sotomayor action the party may be unable or unwilling to commit to. There could be something else entirely that comes up, something unexpected and crazy-making that throws the whole thing into a cocked hat.

    It's going to be a hot summer no matter what. Get ready, and enjoy the show.

  

»


William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Yes, the cries of the far

Yes, the cries of the far right are crazy and unjustified but I am not pleased with her nomination. While her life history is compelling and her achievements exemplify the American Dream, she does not deserve the position of Justice simply because she overcame diversity. Her rulings offer no great wisdom or visions. The Ricci v. DeStefano ruling suggests that Sotomayor defends the problems with our laws instead of defending the people. And many accounts from her former staff are troubling: short-sighted, close-minded, rude and conceded. If anyone thinks that Obama chose her for any other reason than to please his Latino voters they need to wake up.

this is the best

this is the best entertainment in town. I've been enjoying the g.o.p. meltdown since it started. I just have one complaint, I can't afford anymore popcorn.

Here's an idea: We let the

Here's an idea: We let the freaks go all crazy over Sonya, they blow their hate-marketing load opposing her, and then when Stephens steps down we hand them: Caroline Kennedy! If she's anything like her grandmother, she will still be handing down liberal decisions 50 years from now. Can you imagine their reaction?

Don't forget Jesus

Don't forget Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers. Talk about the antithesis of laissez faire capitalism!

Why is it that Scalia,

Why is it that Scalia, Alito, & Roberts are never labeled by the left openly for what they are: conservative Roman Catholic, i.e., religious activists. These guys legislate with their biblical convictions and it's pretty transparent. Their internal assumptions are rooted in a Judeo-Christian view of things and in many cases openly declare the religion trumps the law. They completely disregard the law by imposing their own religious beliefs upon their cases. Why does the left not get a hold of this insight and fire it right back at them?

Right. Bush nominates

Right. Bush nominates right-wing idealogues, the dems are all traitors for not liking it. Clinton is indiscreet and we waste millions on impeachment. Bush commits war crimes, it's off the table. Obama nominates a Moderate, Learned, Hispanic; and the gop is all over themselves that it's the end of the world as we know it. IMHO, the world as we knew it ended in 1998.

Relevant Republican -- is

Relevant Republican -- is that a new oxymoron? -- They are just SO WRONG on so many things these days and totally against anything of the Obama Administration. The negativism is shocking. Last gasp of the party, we can hope.

The GOP or the Republican

The GOP or the Republican Party are no longer just the party of NO, it's the party of extreme hypocrisy. There is no other word to describe it. The GOP should be classified as the Party of Evil, pure and simply. Just look as who is running it now, Gingrich, Cheney and Rush Limbaugh! It can't get any lower than that!

"conceited" not

"conceited" not "conceded" wake up? oh give me a break. No one could challenge Justice Thomas for "Lightweight" on the court. Sorry, it was a good pick, even if she helps somehow to overturn Roe v Wade, it would still be a good pick.. The court now has 4 ideologues who rarely alter their pre-conceived notions of ignoring the constitution while claiming not to be activist. What opinions did Alito ever give of profundity before appointment (or after)? None. Roberts? None. Even Scalia, a minority judge on every other court he was ever on. Warren was considere a short-sighted, close-minded governor who only had political aspirations. He had never served ona court before. As to Ricci, big deal. The currently ideological Supreme Court may reverse it? What does that prove? And Supreme Court if it does reverse, it might likely be 5-4, there are Title VII implications there, ruling the other way would be fraught with implications. Their decision will come before any confirmation hearings anyway. Individual decisions like this are complex. If they call Frank Ricci it would be similar to Anita Hill, perhaps, minus Thomas' habit of turning the EEOC into a Playboy Forum. I doubt Sotomayor wastes government funding in such frivolous and sexist manners.

"Some enterprising young

"Some enterprising young researcher at Fox News or the Federalist Society could dig up something from Sotomayor's past that proves mortally damaging to her nomination." Dick Cheney says he dreamed up some good methods for getting that kind of information.

Sotomayor/CJ Roberts Let's

Sotomayor/CJ Roberts Let's see if I understand the comparison: Both are brilliant lawyers, both serve/have served on the Ct of Appeals. One advocated for people who have suffered discrimination and poverty/one advocated for the powerful and prosperous. One has empathy for society's disadvantaged/one has empathy for society's advantaged. One has often ruled against those for whom she has empathy/one keeps ruling against those for whom he lacks empathy So, which is the one fit for office?

Jesus used Magic - not Taxes

Jesus used Magic - not Taxes - to feed the masses. Unfortunately, the rest of us are still stuck with the laws of physics and the laws of simple math to limit us from our Federal Government taking care of everybody all the time, for free. WRT Title VII's "...in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional." - shall we rephrase that to "..preventing discrimination that is indiscriminate..." - this makes title VII the apex of Gobbledygook and pure reverse discrimination at it's core - an ultimately divisive endeavor, and those who resort to it judicially embarrass themselves. But all of this is a side show, and what is at stake is equal protection under the law and upholding the Bill of Rights - especially the top two amendments - read them sometime. My guess is that this pick is not the friend of personal liberty or freedom of the individual from government intrusion - something that is becoming increasingly irritating to all of us who are awake, as we slowly evolve into a society in which free expression and self protection are no longer tolerated.

I believe that any candidate

I believe that any candidate opposed by Cheney Limbough and Rove, etc. is a good candidate. Any candidate approved by these nuts is automatically disqualified. This also applies to Fox news.

As Simon & Garfunkel put it,

As Simon & Garfunkel put it, ". . . a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest." And Farhad Manjoo, in his excellent book TRUE ENOUGH, cites research which confirms that. Those of us who judge Sonia Sotomayor by her actual record see an extraordinarily well qualified nominee, of whose more than 500 deciaions only 3 (less than 1%) have been overturned. Rush Limbaugh on the other hand, sees those 3 out of more than 500 decisions as more than 80% of the total. Is he severely arithmetically challenged, or is his reality testing entirely internal, or both? Or is Rush just in too much of a hurry?

Unless, as Mr. William

Unless, as Mr. William Rivers Pitt puts it, "Some enterprising young researcher at Fox News or the Federalist Society could dig up something from Sotomayor's past that proves mortally damaging to her nomination," Senate Republicans won't really care that Judge Sonia Sotomayor becomes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, not ideologically anyway. They'll view Sotomayor as an expected relacement for Souter. They'll say what they can to try to please both Hispanics and the Republican right wing base. They're politicians after all. Of course they will try to weaken the Obama admin. in the eyes of voters, but they won't try to hard; it's a kind of early for them to try to have an impact on the 2010 elections. The only game changer would be that 'researcher at Fox News.'

After the Supreme Court

After the Supreme Court divided along party lines in deciding Gore v. Bush in 2000 - four men & one woman prevailing over three men and one woman - it is clear that "personal experiences" and "philosophical backgrounds" weigh in heavily on controversial cases. Chief justice Roberts, for instance, has yet to cast a single vote that does not square with corporate, religious or governmental interests and philosophy. On ther other hand, Justice Sandra Day O'connor, bless her conservative GOP soul, proved to be the swing vote that preserved Roe v, Wade throughtout her tenure as a Supreme. Who says personal life-experiences have no place on The Court?

To even mention Judge

To even mention Judge Sotomayor in the same sentence with Clarence Thomas is an insult. She is intelligent, courageous, NOT a sexual pervert, NOT a suckup and NOT a liar. The idea that HE has anything in common with her is nuts. His nomination and appointment were stupid. Hers will be brilliant, and she might even do some of the work that is expected of members of the Supreme Court.

It appears that no matter

It appears that no matter where it is practised, democracy allows for plenty of drama and noise. Sotomayor seems to have been noticed for her best qualities by Obama, and the GOP wants to see her as some sort of villain? No matter what his specific reason for choosing her, Mr. Obama hasn't made a "bad" choice. I wonder how many decisions Bush and Co. can really make that sort of claim on. Enough already with the noise, Rush.

Thanks for still another

Thanks for still another "right on" one, Will. At the root of all these distortions [of Sotomayer,etc.] is a '"free" press that is able to say anything it likes. It's legal in this country for media to actually lie. New and reporting distortion is not considered a problem in Congress. News media companies actually have become utterly transparent in what their company believes and endorses politically. It can misquote, underquote,cut and patch quotations, misread emphases in quotations, and still there is not one law on the books to stop Mr. Murdoch and his pathetic club of nasty Republican pseudo-journalists from chopping the truth up in so many pieces. Now: contemplate this: when the Obama administration put one of its first bills on the table for fair and balanced news reporting in the media, the Democrats and Republicans united to kill it: dead. It was a landslide vote to not restore the fairness doctrine to U.S. media. This is the land of Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck media. Whatever you want to be heard, just say it, it's no skin off your back.

Agent Scully needs to

Agent Scully needs to concede her conceit and ignorance. The role of an appellate court judge is to interpret the law as it exists. As long as it is not in conflict with other statutes or in violation of the Constitution it must be upheld. It is up to the Legislative branch to change the law according to the demands of their constituents. Here's a judge who does not legislate from the bench. Oh my! Whatever will the rabid right base gnaw upon now!!! (Hopefully they will be left with only their own fetid flesh to feast upon.)