Brigette RussellShort of cursing out Jeff Sessions on the U.S. Senate floor, there’s probably nothing Judge Sonia Sotomayor could do or say to derail her confirmation to the high court.

The Democrats have a comfortable majority, and they will confirm her. I said as much on my blog immediately after she was nominated. Actually, I said as much even before she was nominated. Apart from those two posts, I’ve written nothing about her.  What was the point, after all?  Her confirmation was inevitable.

Then I read what Jude at Hugh Hewitt’s blog wrote:

A friend asked me why Republicans would bother to oppose the Sotomayor nomination, since her confirmation seems assured. My feeling is that we only get to have this important conversation on the occasions of Supreme Court nominations, so we should always have it. That is, a real discussion about what the role of government is and should be, what rule of law means, and whether we should embrace a “living constitution” or if doing so endangers all our freedoms by undermining the Constitution itself.

For me, for every other conservative I know personally, and for almost every conservative whose blogs, writes editorials or books I read, or hosts the radio and TV shows I enjoy, that is precisely the issue:  what the role of government is and should be, what rule of law means, and whether we should embrace a “living constitution” or if doing so endangers all our freedoms by undermining the Constitution itself.

And yet, to hear what liberals say, you would think that the issue was keeping non-white, non-males out of positions of power — or even worse. Much, much worse, according to my fellow NMI columnist, V.B. Price, who wrote last month:

Negative stereotyping is the ugly common denominator connecting the race baiting of U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor and the recent hate-crime killings around the country.

Some say the murder of a physician who performed therapeutic abortions; the killing of Stephen Tyrone Johns, an African American security officer at the National Holocaust Museum; and the random murders of two members of the congregation of a Unitarian church in Tennessee last year by a man who hates liberals, were catalyzed by the endless caterwauling of right wing hate radio and propaganda TV.

So anyone who thinks Sotomayor’s repeated statement that she would “hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion” than a white male judge smacks of racism, is race-baiting?   And is, by some incomprehensible leap of logic, somehow responsible for racist murders? My head spins as I try to connect the dots. Is it really those of us on the right who are hate-mongering and caterwauling?

Price continues:

Stereotyping is the same tactic white supremacists used against African American slaves, misogynists use against women, and the Nazi Party used against Jewish people. Did Hitler’s endless speeches denouncing Jews as non-human “others” catalyze the Holocaust?… Is there any doubt?

And what about trying to ruin the character of a Supreme Court nominee by accusing her of racism because she refers positively to her background and personal history?… If you attack Judge Sotomayor for being a “Latina,” accusing her of being helplessly prone to some kind of ethnic bias, couldn’t you also accuse the Supreme Court itself, with seven of its members being white males, as a sexist and racist institution on the face of it?

Of course, Hitler’s characterization of Jews as subhuman catalyzed the Holocaust.  But has any Republican characterized Judge Sotomayor in particular or Hispanics in general as subhuman?  For that matter, has any Republican attacked Sotomayor for being a Latina?

Of course they haven’t. They have merely pointed out that her statement that she would hope that a wise Latina would make better decisions than a white male smacks of racism and sexism. To imply — nay, to come right out and say — that pointing this out is attacking her as a Latina is the basest of misrepresentations. That accusation smears those of us who are concerned with protecting the integrity of the Constitution as Nazis.

Sadly, this has become a common tactic on the left. If you disagree with someone, call him or her a racist, and you win automatically. That’s exactly what some have done to me in the past.

The fact that Judge Sotomayor believes that policy is made in the courts troubles strict constructionists.  All too many on the left dismiss this legitimate concern as nothing more than thinly disguised racism. Any opposition to Sotomayor is racist by definition.  Case closed.

Never mind that we would not even be having this discussion if it weren’t for Ted Kennedy and the other Senate Democrats who turned Supreme Court nominations into political bloodsport. Before the unsuccessful nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, confirmation hearings were concerned with judicial qualifications. Leftist ideologues turned the Bork hearings into a political witch hunt that made his very name a synonym for a politicized attack.

Democrats started this game. Now some of them are calling us Nazis for playing it.