Who's Most Likely To Hide From The Press During The Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings?

My guess that those with the most to lose from a bitter battle over the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor are Republican Senate candidates, especially the ones in states that have a lot of women voters, moderate voters and Hispanic voters. That would be... all of them. Of the dozen states with the biggest Hispanic populations, only two-- New Jersey and New Mexico-- don't have Senate contests coming up next year. The others, along with their Hispanic populations:

California-- 12,146,508
Texas-- 8,269,407
Florida-- 3,300,333
New York-- 2,881,409
Arizona-- 1,711,429
Illinois-- 1,533,767
Colorado-- 918,899
North Carolina-- 571,307
Georgia-- 563,450
Pennsylvania-- 514,386

As Manu Raju mentioned in Politico today, "voting-age Hispanics represent about 29 percent of Texas’ population." Kay Bailey Hutchison is trying to transition from the Senate to the governor's chair-- and she's out ahead of the secessionist incumbent, Rick Perry, in the polling. But first she'll have to vote on the confirmation. Does she try to out-pander the secessionist or does she hope there are enough mainstream voters left willing to vote in the Texas Republican primary that it's worth voting to confirm? The Burnt Orange Report went over her dilemma earlier today. Are Republican primary voters of the same mind as Tom Tancredo who is, clearly out of his mind? Along with Hate Talk radio, Fox-News, Rove, and a tiny handful of deranged extremists, Tancredo is the face of the opposition to President Obama's nomination. This is what he told Rick Sanchez on CNN this afternoon: "If you belong to an organization called La Raza, in this case, which is, from my point of view anyway, nothing more than a Latino-- it’s a counterpart-- a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." Jesus... this is what the Republican Party has come to!

Florida's Governor Charlie Crist doesn't have to vote for or against but he's being asked what he'd do by every reporter he comes in contact with. His far right opponent, Marco Rubio, isn't going to be accused of being anti-Hispanic for taking a Limbaughesque obstructionist position. Crist is between a rock and a hard right place though if he wants to persuade moderate voters and women voters that he's not going to go to DC and turn into another GOP zombie.

In Missouri Claire McCaskill has been forthright in her praise for the nominee: "She has accomplished great things in her life through the all-American values of discipline, hard work, and integrity. I'm especially glad she has experience as a courtroom prosecutor and a trial judge. There hasn't been a person with more experience nominated in decades. She will be a terrific Supreme Court justice." But it's the other Missouri seat that's open and it pits right-wing extremist congressman and tax-cheat Roy Blunt against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan-- who's way out ahead in the polls. Carnahan is likely to echo McCaskill on this while Blunt is more in tune with Limbaugh. His statement to the press, as he prepares for a tough primary battle against former state treasurer Sarah Steelman who is even further from the mainstream than Blunt. Basically, he's just a corrupt douchebag. She's a fringe maniac, who bills herself as a "Sarah Palin with a brain," and her campaign website looks like it was written by Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter. She's pointing her followers to this post from the Ayn Rand Center regarding the Sotomayor nomination.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, recently nominated for the Supreme Court seat being vacated by the retiring Justice David Souter, is unqualified to become a member of the Court. Why? Because her judicial philosophy explicitly rejects objectivity and impartiality.

In a 2001 speech titled “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” she declared that “the aspiration to impartiality is just that-- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact” that “our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.” Elsewhere in the speech, she noted that judges are typically unable to “transcend … personal sympathies and prejudices” and that “gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” “There is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives,” Sotomayor said.

Referring repeatedly to her “Latina soul” and “Latina identity,” Sotomayor rejected the view often expressed by the Court’s first female Justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, that “a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” On the contrary, Sotomayor said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

This is a blatant endorsement of subjective emotional decision-making, which has no place on the Court and will swiftly corrupt what’s left of its integrity. The Supreme Court has a solemn duty to interpret and apply the Constitution. That is an intellectual task requiring ruthless objectivity-- which, contrary to Judge Sotomayor, is not an illusory “aspiration” but a requirement of justice. A conscientious judge strives to banish all emotional influences from the decision-making process. But here is Judge Sotomayor declaring herself helpless to resist-- indeed, even welcoming-- the influence of personal intuitions that cannot be grasped or shared by persons of another gender or ethnicity.

She makes Blunt look almost mainstream in comparison: "The most important issue when considering a Supreme Court nominee is their judicial philosophy and whether they are an activist who would attempt to legislate from the bench, or a jurist who respects the authority of the Constitution. This nominee offers proper professional credentials and a compelling life story.  However, her view that judges should make policy raises a huge red flag. The U.S. Senate should neither pre-judge or pre-confirm, but thoughtfully, thoroughly and rigorously examine the record of this nominee to our nation's highest court." Remember, I said almost.

And then there's Blanche. Back to Politico. They point out that she's a top target for the NRSC, although the party doesn't have a serious candidate to run against her. They don't mention that working people and unions are starting to coalesce around the Green Party. What they do say is that "she is certain to hear the argument that Sotomayor’s positions fall outside of the mainstream of voters in her state. She could be given cover if Republicans join in support of Sotomayor; if not, she will certainly face enormous pressure from Republicans in Washington and back home to join in the opposition." And given the fact that she is easily the least courageous member of the Senate, a corrupt hack with no convictions about anything other than re-election, she'll go whichever way the pressure pushes her. What an embarrassment for Arkansas-- and they have two like this!

Rush To The Gutter: