Politics and nominations

Once again we have a nomination for Supreme Court justice. This
means that the fighting and nastiness will begin. There will be
a fight based on ideology over this nomination. However, the
Republicans need to be careful due to the double standard
employed in politics in this country. There are things that the
Democrats, which usually means liberals, can say and not suffer
any consequences. However, if the Republicans, which usually
means conservatives, say the same thing, then all hell breaks
loose. There is one big reason for this and it has to do with
the fact that the "mainstream media" is biased toward the
liberals or Democrats.

Let me illustrate what I mean. When Robert Bork was nominated to
the Supreme Court, Sen. Edward Kenedy set out to destroy him and
succeeded in doing just that without suffering any consequences
for his actions. Then you had the contentious nomination of
Clarence Thomas. Did the Democrats suffer any consequences for
this one? No they didn't but we sure haven't heard from Anita
Hill thank God.

You have the nomination of Miguel Esttrada to the Appellate Court
and there was a major filibuster in the Senate. Finally Estrada
said enough and withdrew. We haven't heard from him since. He
has the same compelling story that Sotamayor does with a big
difference. Estrada is conservative and Sotamayor is liberal.
which made Estrada "the wrong kind of Hispanic". Alberto
Gonzalez for Attorney General under President George W. Bush is
another example of a Hispanic being destroyed because he was "the
wrong kind of Hispanic".

The Democrats, however, have never suffered any consequences for
trashing these fine people. However, if Republicans did the same
thing, there would have been hell to pay, not to mention
consequences for the actions.

I hope that Republicans will use Sotamayor's words against her in
this process. Obama wanted someone with "empathy" which is a
liberal code word for judicial activism or making law from the
bench. Republicans tend to be what are called strict
constructionists which means they tend to interpret the
Constitution rather than make law from the bench; and tend to
nominate judicial candidates who fit this philosophy. The
Democrats feel the need to make law from the bench because they
can't always get their liberal ideas through the legislative
branch which is where laws are properly made.

We don't need judges making law from the bench and this is an
appointment that will affect the country for decades to come as
it is a lifetime appointment. Let's put someone on the Court who
understands the proper role of the judiciary. That will serve
the country much better than having essentially two legislative
branches. Only time will tell how contentious this one will get.