The lunatic fringe is at it again

by David Grand
June 3, 2009

That was my first thought when I heard of the personal attacks being lodged against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, and going so far as to accuse her of fostering reverse racism. And you can bet the worst is yet to come.

You'd think they'd be reluctant to go after a woman who personifies the American dream: a Puerto Rican daughter of the Bronx, a child of the projects, and the product of a single-parent household, who clawed her way to the top of her profession.

Now, there's no doubt in my mind, that whoever Obama nominated would be just as unacceptable to those trying to submarine her nomination, even if he or she was a WASP (white Anglo-Saxon Protestant), with the same impeccable credentials.

Why so many Republicans are already bent on voting against her is beyond me, when it's a foregone conclusion she'll end up being confirmed. I can only surmise, that it's for much the same reason that they voted unanimously against the stimulus bill: to let all Americans know that, contrary to what the polls indicate, the Republican Party is not on the brink of becoming an endangered species. (Perhaps a threatened one, however.)

And surely they're aware of the fact, that by voting against her nomination, they'd be cutting off their nose to spite their face, by alienating even more Latino voters from their party than it already has. And their so-called "big tent," that they say is open to everyone, could shrink to the size of a pup tent. .

Now, we never really know what makes a Supreme Court justice tick, until their decisions reveal that their either to the right, to the left or somewhere in between.

And however infrequently it happens, they sometimes go through a chameleon-like transformation once they're on the court. Two cases in point:

When Justice Hugo Black from Alabama--a one-time member of the Klu Klux Klan--took a seat on the bench in 1937, many white Southerners believed they had a friend on the court, who would help uphold their traditional way of life.

However, when he turned out to be the strongest advocate on the court for equal justice and an ardent opponent of racial injustice, they then condemned him to high heaven for his having betrayed his own people, by forcing the South to dismantle its social customs, and in destroying "the very foundation of Southern civilization."

But when it comes to surprises, Chief Justice Earl Warren wins the cake. For much to the consternation of President Eisenhower who appointed him to the court in 1953, he became best known for leading the court in making sweeping changes in civil rights laws and in criminal procedures.

And the court he led for 16 years is remembered--by critics and admirers alike--for its empathy, drawing as Warren did from his life experience, and the varied backgrounds of the justices, in crafting a remarkable body of work.

However, just hearing the word empathy used in conjunction with the appointment of judges gives conservative Republicans the willies, who are apparently of the mind, that any judge who shows empathy for a defendant is nothing more than a Lilly-livered, liberal slob who doesn't deserve to be on the bench.

Personally, I wouldn't want to live in a country without empathy being showed for the less fortunate among us (often characterized as the ability to "put oneself in another person's shoes").