More on the Supreme Court

There are two ways of thinking about this.

Obviously, Sonia Sotomayor has no business being a member of the Supreme Court. She's a blatant racist and covets the notion of appellate court judges setting all national policies. Her personal character and view of herself as dictator ought to disqualify her candidacy.

But since we're living in the Changed Land, where truth and reason are irrelevant, Sotomayor has been appointed to the Supreme Court.

With her lack of respect for the Second Amendment) among others), and her long, thorough record of voting against freedom, her opponents should include conservatives, libertarians, free-speechers, (real) liberals, judicial restraintists and more. Basically everyone but the fascists claiming to be "progressive." Sotomayor's views on the Constitution, on democracy and on America are far beyond anything most Americans would feel comfortable with.

That's the problem, so what's the solution?

I've previously written that I hoped President Obama would appoint an incompetent leftist to the Court: it's better for us if someone stupid is trying to take our rights than if someone clever is. The stupid person is less likely to succeed. And Sotomayor is, indeed, stupid. Appeals to her judicial decisions have been taken up by the Supreme Court six times in her career; five of those, she was overturned. Even the Detroit Lions were wise enough to fire Coach Rod Marinelli after his team went 0-16 last year.

So Sotomayor opponents could strategically agree to her nomination, knowing we are likely to like Obama's second choice little better than his first. Remember: Leftists helped block President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the court, citing a lack of qualifications. Conservatives also were unhappy with the choice for that reason and for an unproven record of conservatism. Bush's second choice for that seat was Justice Samuel Alito, a sharp conservative who might influence judicial philosophy for decades.

The other choice is to fight like hell. In a straight-up vote, Sotomayor will win confirmation in a runaway because Republicans just don't have the votes to stop one. But Democrats were in a quite similar position when Bush nominated Miers. Intense public review of Sotomayor's qualifications, competence and opinions on the judiciary's role in America -- perhaps compared to those of competent alternatives, even liberals -- could turn embarrassing in a hurry.

Democrats' tone in discussing the upcoming confirmation process suggests that it might be just possible to derail her.

New York's Sen. Chuck Schumer made the preposterous claim that it is 40 Republicans in the Senate (not even enough to properly filibuster) who should be under the microscope in the next few months, not the judge who wishes to become one ninth of the highest court in the land. "I think the confirmation process will be more of a test of the Republican Party than it is of Judge Sotomayor," he said.

And White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has insisted that critics must be "exceedingly careful" about what they say in this debate.

These guys are quite desperate to avoid a confrontation here. That means we ought to give them one.

Our devious side might consider it a small victory to see Sotomayor on the court, instead of Alito's brilliant-but-leftist counterpart. But our best judgment is that Sonia Sotomayor does not belong there. We have to fight like hell.