‘Blah, blah, blah' and more important dialogue from the White House

 Way back in 2000 the U.S. Supreme Court took a hand in presidential politics when it ruled against the Florida Supreme Court's decision to elect Al Gore. The subsequent folklore for the feeble has it that the U.S. Supremes "picked a president" which is demonstrably false.

Members of the Democrat-majority Florida Supreme Court voted with their hearts, usurped the state law it was their task to enforce and embraced an opprobrium that required the higher court to slap them down.

The claims by the willfully ignorant that the election was "stolen" continue to redound with all the intellectual firepower of a Jesse Jackson rhyme. Judicial activism is a way for thugs to hide behind black robes.

We are told by a slavish Associated Press that the president's pick is a "Historic nomination: Hispanic Sotomayor as justice."

In 1932, Benjamin Cardozo was nominated by President Hoover to the Supreme Court. Justice Cardozo's folks were Jewish and had come to America by way of England and Holland whence they had previously immigrated to escape the mercies of the Spanish Inquisition.

I was confused by the AP, figuring that an Iberian descendant might have some "street cred" in the media barrio, but I suppose not.

Sotomayor is not breaking any gender barrier, unless Sandra Day O'Connor is not a woman the way Justice Thomas has been derided for not really being black (although somehow Thurgood Marshall was).

No, the only real history made with the Sotomayor nomination is of the repeated sort, in ongoing fight against philosophical barbarians eager to seize power by any means necessary.

What exactly would happen to the nomination of anyone who stated that his "experiences as a man and Caucasian" should guide his decisions? What sort of outrage would the media whip up if a nominee stated that being a "wise white guy" would help him "reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female"?

Swap the ethnic adjectives around and you have the quotes and very real racism of Judge Sotomayor. This combination of judicial activism and ethnic prejudice allowed her to opine in favor of a New Haven, Conn., racial spoils system against firefighters denied promotion for being too egregiously non-diverse. Of course none of that will matter, anymore than the utter irrelevancy of being the first Hispanic female on the Court.

The pageant over Supreme Court nominations has become a depressing cliché. The Right argues that judges are to be appointed to interpret, not legislate. The bleeding hearts of the Left cover the green baize tables with their tears and furor, egged on by an amen media, until the Right caves and pledges to work with the new justice.

Cowed by the usual accusations of racism, the opposition to a judge hostile to what is quaintly referred to as "constitution principle" will wither quickly.

Over the past weeks, the president and representatives have sparred sharply over the definitions of torture and the actions taken by the previous administration to combat terrorists. The president's position is that "we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values."

From the carcass of Detroit, to health care, to taxes, to the nomination of a blatant ideologue masquerading as an impartial judge, the president continues to assault these same values and pit his countrymen against each other.

As U.S. citizens, we schizophrenically demand the right to multiple abortions and subsidized fertility treatments, lavish private profits and government bailouts to negate risk, and a constitution with shifting boundaries and fungible standards. What exactly are we trying to defend?

Patrick Conrad is a physician in Niceville, Fla., and considers himself a libertarian secessionist. You can write him at wickedgrin@cox.net or through his Web site, www.doctorsforfreedom.com.