Minority Rule*

*Image courtesy of AP Images.

It seems that Sonia Sotomayor has mustered enough colonic fortitude to muddle through the Judiciary Committee hearing on her Supreme Court nomination and confirmation without actually betraying how her racially-driven philosophy of the law and even the world will affect her judgments.

But as Louis Michael Seidman has carefully pointed out in the third installment of a recent debate over her future role on the Supreme Court, Sotomayor "very substantially misrepresented her own views" during the hearing. Clearly. And so it is that many continue to wonder just how she will perform once installed on America's highest judiciary body--as a Justice cautiously and yet firmly applying the fundamental principles of our Constitution, or simply as a predictable liberal ideologue dabbling in the legislation of divisive race politics.

Given these lingering doubts, Sotomayor will undoubtedly find her seat as Associate Justice. But even with those crucial 60 votes in pocket, it is absolutely appropriate that nominees thrust forward to potentially fill what is ostensibly a life-long position safeguarding our fundamental law be given a thorough and challenging test concerning their past decisions and writings, their current attitudes towards the law and their role in administering it, and their outlooks on the future of our nation's legal system.

To this end, reasonable observers might understandably conclude that Sotomayor got off easy given her previous statements showing obvious racial preferences and the "disheartening" campaign of late to smear firefighter Frank Ricci. And for the most part, these same bystanders would be correct, though a caution against the temptation of character assassination also bears some consideration here--after all, destroying a candidate for lofty office is much different than simply rejecting the same.

And for this very reason, the role of party politics should not be overlooked in this critical vetting process. Notably, Patrick Leahy's shameless exercise in keepsake photography does little to help Democrats seem impartial. In fact, the undiluted lovefest pursued by the majority party should give even casual observers pangs of embarrassment not easily dispelled in the near future. Conversely, the Republicans thankfully included in this hearing generally asked appropriately pointed questions, though without any regrettable hint of hysteria. To be sure, the ambiguity so many Americans are feeling towards an arguably hypocritical nominee were adequately presented without the questioners coming off as the sniveling minority party--a right not held by any group of elected officials.

Yet only time will tell if our nation and history itself can treat Sotomayor's obvious deficits with the same magnanimity and forbearance, especially as we have yet to see what challenges she will face on the bench. Whatever the case may be, Americans should be deeply grateful for a solid and at times majestic system of law that generously permits so many missteps and downright mistakes.

IN OTHER NEWS: Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf concludes that the Obamacare bills currently on the table would drive both government spending and healthcare costs through the roof. Will this warning be enough to stop the asinine socialization of our healthcare system? Probably not. Or at the very least, it won't be enough to stop the misguided effort. And that should be enough to disturb anyone planning on medical care in the foreseeable future.