A new justice is nominated...

In looking at President Obama's Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor, let's get a few facts out of the way so we can really get to the heart of the matter. First, I think that the vast majority of people can agree that her education at Princeton and Yale, along with her experience as a prosecutor, US District Court Judge, and federal appellate judge give her the background and experience needed to take her nomination seriously (as opposed to, say, Harriet Meyers). Second, no Democrat will ever nominate a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, pro-gun judge to the land's highest court, so let's keep the debate away from those issues. Besides, her record (as far as I can tell) is paper-thin on these hot topic issues and nothing has sprouted up (yet) to infer that she is a bleeding-heart liberal.

So, if it is pointless to debate about hot topic issues and qualifications, what is left on which to oppose her appointment to the Supreme Court? Judicial philosophy. What exactly does that mean? It means, simply put, what is her view the role of the Court and its powers? President Obama claimed that he wanted "empathy" in his nominee, “somebody who has common sense and somebody who has a sense of how American society works and how the American people live.” These criterion show Obama's, and presumably Sotomayor's, judicial philosophy. According to them, the Constitution should not be the sole source of reasoning in decisions, but also life experience and empathy. Is this the type of outlook Supreme Court Justices ought to have? Is the Constitution important, or just a document that can be strayed from if "common sense" or "empathy" can be invoked?

Second, Sotomayor's judicial philosophy came to the light of day in a conference in 2005. Sotomayor stated to a group of students that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." (Click here to see it on YouTube). Notice that she says it with a laugh, sarcastically adding that she shouldn't say it on tape because "we don't make law," as if those that believe that judges should not be legislating from the bench are ridiculous. Is there any room to doubt that she has no qualms about ruling as she sees fit, not necessarily as the law and/or Constitution mandate?

How does the Constitution erode? Slowly, piece by piece. One decision at a time. One justice at a time. Sotomayor's confirmation would be one more step towards abandoning the Constitution for the sake of "empathy," "life experience," and "common sense," and put us on the course towards a Supreme Court where policy is made, not interpreted.

In my book, nine unelected policy-makers serving life terms with little adherence to a constitution is not a democracy.