"Make Your Point...And Move On."

A potential firestorm is brewing in the Senate. President Obama has tendered for Senate confirmation his first candidate to serve as a life time appointee to the United States Supreme Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Controversial in many of her past publicized public statements and possessing a record of having a number of her rulings reversed, Justice Sotomayor provides ample fodder for oppositional candor. The handwriting, however, is clearly illuminated on the wall. Under the presently controlled Democrat Senate, with sixty partisan votes assured, Justice Sotomayor will be confirmed, but most likely not without some vitriolic measure of rancor from the Republican side of the isle. The question, which requires a reflective answer, is whether or not engaging in a anticipated heated debate by the Republicans over the eventual affirmation of Justice Sotomayor will be of benefit to either the Republican party or the country as a whole. My answer, for what it's worth, is "yes," to a limiting degree.

There should be no disagreement among fair minded individuals that any proposed candidate for such a prestigious and powerful position of judicial authority should be fully vetted as to his or her views on judicial process, especially as it applies to the interpretation of our nation's constitution. It cannot be denied that President Obama's selection of Justice Sotomayor has raised some discerning eyebrows by his often stated propensity to equate judicial decision making with the insertion of empathy as an underlying criteria on which to base jurisprudence, and, as documented statements orated by Justice Sotomayor bare out, a view she apparently shares equally.

To quote Washington Post syndicated columnist, Charles Krauthammer, "Empathy is a vital virtue to be exercised in private life and in the legislative life of a society, where consequences of any law matter greatly..." However, when unresolved disputes evolve beyond rational discourse and must be litigated at the judicial level, empathic notions for determining a fair and impartial resolution must be barred at the courthouse door and certainly must hold no personal sway in how a judge interprets the facts of a given case. To do otherwise is to lift perceptively the blindfold on Lady Justice and tip her balanced scales imprudently. Empathic sympathy as justice is not justice. It is blatant favoritism. True justice is no respecter of persons. Each and all who would come before the court must approach with the unwavering expectation that each shall be judged equally under the law, with no partiality requested or received regardless of ethnicity or social standing.

That having been said, Republican members on the Judiciary Committee must determinedly shy away from any vindictive innuendos that would suggest a deliberate despairing challenge to the Democrat's portrayal of Justice Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story as being equivalent to her walking on water. Her story of overcoming difficult odds as a member of a historically depressed minority to her present position of accomplishment is to be, by all means, applauded. A repeat of a vengeful tit-for-tat attack upon her person, as was so distastefully displayed by Massachusetts' Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy when he publicly disparaged the then Supreme Court nominee, Clarance Thomas, should be avoided at all cost. With the 2010 mid-tern Congressional elections looming, the Republican Party must do all within its power to avoid alienating potential adherents to their banner if they have any realistic hope of winning back control of the halls of Congress. To be labeled in the media and, therefore, most likely perceived in the public's eye as being deliberately vindictive toward a recognized minority would certainly be counterproductive to their desired end goal.

It is certainly within the Republican's purview, if not obligatory responsibility, to require Sotomayor to explain in unvarnished detail under what judicial precedent she holds fast in her assertion that a Latino female would be able to render an impartial ruling better than would a white male. Diversity of any legislative and/or judicial body is, in my opinion, a beneficial consequence. However, to hold to the premise that one ethnic group garners a higher level of mental acumen hearkens back to a time when the black man was considered inferior to his Caucasian counterpart. That ideology is not only prejudicially antiquated, it is a scientific absurdity. Indeed, Justice Sotomayor should be given every reasonable latitude to fully vet her personal reasoning for this proclamation and let the public judge the reasonableness and feasibility of her clarifying arguments.

In the final analysis, the Republicans should come to the realization, if they haven't done so already, that President Obama's replacement pick for the U.S. Supreme Court is going to be confirmed. They should, nevertheless, go carefully forward with the confirmation process, doing so with gentlemanly decorum, to succinctly frame the flaws in Sotomayor's judicial philosophy and letting the country-at-large discern and dissect the factual outcome. To spend time doing otherwise is to joust at tilting windmills and to continue to stalemate the more pressing national concerns for which the majority of Americans have a vital stake in their resolution.

Make your point...and move on. The people's work is languishing.