The whining of the Democrats and their sycophantic press concerning the Republicans' questioning the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice has a delicious, hypocritical irony about it. If they didn't have such a majority in the Senate, they should be worried. Consider what they did to judicial nominees of Republican administrations.
That pillar of integrity and survivor of Chappaquiddick, Ted Kennedy, in 1987 said about the well-qualified Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork that "Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, children could not be taught evolution." That's quite a mouthful.
In 2002, Charles Schumer, the New York senator who is guiding Sotomayor's nomination, ambushed Bush's Hispanic nominee to the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals, Miguel Estrada (who was an immigrant from Honduras). His learned comment was, " ... he is like a stealth missile - with a nose cone - coming right out of the right wing's deepest silo."
If a white male nominee had made a racial comment like Sotomayor's, whether taken out of context or not, he would be toast. But among some today, the "right" kind of racism is not only tolerated, it is encouraged. Judicial activism, which makes a mockery of the Constitution, is OK as long as it is activated for their perceived correct end.
Questions about Sotomayor's decision in a case like Ricci, concerning prejudice against white and Hispanic firefighters, are ignored. Lady Justice can remove her blindfold because the rule of law is to be supplanted by the rule of politically correct empathy.
Michael Lubin, Durango