Judge Sotamyer Love Fest in Senate

I had hoped that the confirmation hearing of Judge Sotamyer for the United States Supreme Court would address some interesting and important constitutional issues. Unfortunately, if radio talk show host Bill Cunningham is correct, the senate confirmation of Judge Sotamyer is fairly certain to go through smoothly. He says that this is because she is Hispanic, a woman, and a liberal. Her questioning, especially by the Democrats, will be more of a love fest and her confirmation is virtually a fait accompli.
Apparently, he believes that the intimidation campaign by the press and the Democrats will effectively silence the Republicans. The theory, according to some Democrats who offer helpful advice to the Senate Judicial Committee Republicans, is that by opposing the confirmation of a Porto Rican, they will incur the wrath of voters of Spanish descent. In my opinion, the only way that national origin should enter into the debate is via the issue raised by the recently reversed "Fireman's case" ruling of Judge Sotamyer. In her decision she ignored the claims of unlawful discrimination in promoting firemen due to favoritism of African Americans over those of non-African descent.
Actually, the racial thing is all a smoke screen anyway to get an extremely liberal appointment. A radicalized Supreme Court could help with the socialization of the United States in areas that are too extreme for even congressional Democrats. Since the Democrat majority in the Senate could get whomever they want anyway at this point, I conclude it is their own electoral chances they are concerned about. Some Democrats know that their constituency is not as radical as this nominee. They want as little as possible about what she believes and her past writings and associations to see the light of day.
The talking point of the liberals will be: she is a liberal who will replace a liberal so there will be no change in the balance. Of course that is not the way to look at a life-time appointment. Eventually we will need a court that can help can bring government back to sanity.

I would like her views to see the light of day. Especially, I would like to know about her views of the Commerce Clause and what she feels is the legitimate role of government in economic matters. I would question her as to her response to those who believe that the New Deal Legislation overreached the federal authority. She could be questioned about several specific laws that are still in force, Bacon Davis for example. I would also ask her views regarding constitutional challenges to specific recent economic proposals and executive orders, Cap-and-Trade for example.
I would vote against her because of her socialist leanings. Why not? The Democrats raked Alito and Roberts over the coals because of their conservative leanings. Furthermore, under President Bush, conservative nominees to the Federal Courts of Appeals were not acceptable to the Democrats in the senate. They were able to block by Senate filibuster rules attempts to appoint conservatives. [I am a little unclear of the history of this or how it was done. For example, when the Democrats in the Senate blocked the nomination of Judge Michael Estrada, the Republicans wanted to change the filibuster rule. Democratic leader Tom Daschle, noting that the Senate had approved 124 of Bush's 126 judicial nominations that have reached the Senate floor, said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." www.committeeforjustice.org/innews/articles/old/news050903_ap.aspx
I think, because of 70 vacancies in the circuit court at the time, Republicans could not find any conservatives to nominate who would be acceptable to the Democrats; or maybe they were not turned down by the full senate because they could not get them out of committee.]
Incidentally, Mark Levin says that what was really happening with Judge Michael Estrada is that the Democrats were afraid that, because of his qualifications, he would eventually be nominated to the Supreme Court. They did not want the first Hispanic justice to be conservative.
My view is that there is no reason why Judge Sotamyer should not be borked. (Robert Bork was conservative and favored constitutional originalism and economic laissez faire. Therefore, he didn’t stand a chance when he was nominated by Reagan. He was attacked unfairly and dishonestly, especially by then Senator Biden.) “(Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court. She said, "We're going to bork him. We're going to kill him politically. . . . This little creep, where did he come from?" Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation fights in Supreme Court history.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork Of course, opposition to Judge Sotamayor should not sink to the level of Joe Biden. The plain facts about her should be fully and transparently exposed before she is granted a life-time appointment. That would also mean not rushing this through.
In any case, the Democrat racial intimidation is the same chicken shit they used to prevent regulation of Fannie May and Freddie Mac when President Bush and Senator McCain called for it to avoid the mortgage problems that we all know about. If Republicans fall for it again, that’s even more chicken shit .