President Obama announced on Tuesday that he will nominate the federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, choosing a daughter of Puerto Rican parents raised in a Bronx public housing project to become the nation’s first Hispanic justice.

If you recall, back when Souter announced his retirement I said the following:

One thing’s for sure, you will see nothing but ultra-left nominees from Obama. He’ll nominate whoever he pleases, and that’ll be just fine by those who were demanding that Bush seek the “advice” of the Senate.

And you want to know the kicker? Every damn nominee will be pushed by the media as some kind of centrist, despite having a far-left background. Remember, when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated, we were treated to endless articles about how far right they were. When Clinton nominated Ginsburg, we were treated to endless articles and television pieces on how “moderate” she was. You better believe that, once Obama makes his choice known, it’ll be the same dog and pony show all over again by the liberal media.

I — and a lot of my fellow conservatives in the blogosphere — had this pegged, as it has already started. The new twist is, however, that with this nominee the libs will try and say we don’t want her on the Court because a) she’s a woman, b) she’s hispanic, or c) all of the above. In other words, the same old dog and pony show that I mentioned.

We don’t care if she’s a woman and we certainly don’t care what her ethnicity is. If you recall, it was a Republican President (Reagan) who appointed the first female (Sandra Day O’Conner) to the bench, and it was another Republican who appointed the second black (Clarence Thomas) to the Court (Bush 41). So that doesn’t matter, and it’s just smoke and mirrors by the left to get an activist, ultra-left liberal on the Supreme Court.

What we care about is someone who recognizes that their job is to interpret the law, not make it. To explain the Constitution, not amend it. This woman is not of that mindset. She views it as her job — indeed, as her duty — to legislate from the bench and twist the Constitution to mean whatever liberals think it means at any given moment.

To be sure, just about anyone Obama nominates will be hard left. And there’s not a whole lot Republicans can do about it, except filibuster (and that’s kind of pointless, as they don’t really have the numbers to do it, unless some Dems defect). If they do, the press will eat them alive, because the press made it a central issue when Democrats were blocking Bush 43’s nominees. All talk of the “nuclear option” was considered as the worst thing Senate Republicans could possibly do, but are there any takers that the Democrats will not hesitate to trot out their version of said option? Oh, yeah…you can just about count on them doing it if the word “filibuster” is even mentioned by a Republican. And, if/when they do, any takers that the press will report it as necessary and proper to foil those nasty, evil Republicans? Yeah, you can count on that, too. Because mark my words, that’s what will happen if Republicans try and block the vote on this woman.

Does that mean we should just roll over? Of course not. Republicans in the Senate should take their case to the American people and put the pressure on the Dems to reject this nominee. But keep in mind, there are a more than a few “moderate” Republicans in the Senate (i.e., RINOs) whose main purpose is to get along with the Democrats and get good press, so they aren’t likely to go along with it, lest they look bad.

In the end, it won’t matter if she’s confirmed or not, as Obama will simply keep offering up liberal nominees until the Senate just gets tired of it and gives in. It won’t change the current structure of the Court to have a liberal take Souter’s place, but with Ginsburg’s health being a concern and age becoming more and more a factor for some of the other Justices, this more than likely won’t be the only nominee by Obama during his four years in office. Any further new appointees put on the bench by Obama will come down solidly on the liberal side of every issue, and that would change the composition of the Court from somewhat balanced to considerably far-left.

Update: And here we go. She’s a “moderate”, according to the Washington Post. Puh-lease.

Others commenting:

Don Surber
The Other McCain
Hot Air
American Power
Hugh Hewitt
Power Line
Outside The Beltway
Pajamas Media
Right Wing News
Sister Toldjah
Wizbang
Michelle Malkin
Ace of Spades
Private Pigg

As he put it, the nominee has to be straight, otherwise the would-be justice “would be a bridge too far right now.” Honestly, what the hell does that mean? Thune, as a practical matter, is establishing a litmus test — qualifications and merit are important, but homosexuality, regardless of any other factor, is more important. Why? Because Thune says so.

Indeed, the president, Thune says, should “play it a little more down the middle.” What if the nominee is both gay and well within the judicial mainstream? Why would any thinking person assume that a gay nominee is necessarily someone on the ideological fringe?

I know that’s not a rhetorical question, even though it sure as heck sounds like one to conservatives, so I’ll answer it. As I’ve said already, many times, there is no way Obama nominates a mainstream candidate. Any person he puts up there is going to be just slightly — but just barely — to the right of Lenin and Marx. You put that political ideology together with a gay candidate, you’ll get judicial activism on gay marriage and all other sorts of so-called gay rights. It’s no different than if Obama nominated, say, a hard-core animal rights activist or an abortion-on-demand activist up there. We’re talking about the left, here. When it comes to legislating from the bench, this is what they do, so of course we’re concerned as much with what kind of person he puts up there as we are about what they believe and what their judicial record is.

Put it another way. Say George W. Bush nominated the most pro-life justice he could have thought of to the court. Do you think the left would have gone ape-s##t over that? Of course they would. Is it bigotry? Of course not, and neither is this.

Conservatives genuinely don’t give a rat’s a$$ if someone is gay or not, that’s their decision and their private lives. But what we do care about is how “in your face” gay activists have become over the last twenty years. This is not a lifestyle that should be promoted (and, granted, it’s not a lifestyle that should be vilified, either), but that’s exactly what is on the agenda with these kooks. It’s not enough that they’re gay, they have to make sure everyone knows it and they have to push for more and more rights, to the point where they have more rights than the average American has. I mean, look at what the left did with affirmative action. Do you honestly think they’re not going to try the same thing with the gays? Of course they will.

The job of a judge — whether it’s on the federal Supreme Court, a state Supreme Court, or on some appeals court somewhere — is to interpret the law, not write it. They’re not supposed to set policy, they’re supposed to decide whether said policy is legal or unconstitutional. But liberals know they can’t get their agenda passed by an honest vote, so they send these judges up to do their dirty work for them, reading things into constitutions that the writers never intended. That’s why we are where we are today.

You want to talk about the damage the left has done to this country, just look at the history of every one of our current problems. You can lay it all right in their laps. High divorce rates, broken families, single mothers, high crime, high poverty, high illiteracy, illegitimate kids, etc. These are all things that came from 1960s liberalism, the belief that “if it feels good, do it” and that there is and should be no consequences to ones actions. A person is never to blame for their own failings, it’s always someone else, never them. Modern-day liberals still believe the same things and still blame everyone and everything else for these problems except the real culprits: themselves.

And now they want to place a far-left, gay activist judge on the Supreme Court? With their record? Seriously, they expect us to believe this person will be honest, fair, and impartial? Puh-lease. We’ve had enough activism over the last thirty-odd years to last us a lifetime, just put someone up there that will interpret — honestly interpret — what the Constitution says and means.

Update: Legal Insurrection points out the following:

In that very same post, however, Yglesias referred to a possible heterosexual nominee as a “breeder,” which is a derogatory term for heterosexuals. Using that term is the equivalent of calling a homosexual a “fag.” Sounds like new-fashioned, un-subtle bigotry. I can’t wait to see the Media Matters’ press release.

Who are the bigots again?

Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic smear of Sonia Sotomayor’s intellect and character — based almost exclusively on anonymous, gossiping “sources” — is such a model of shoddy, irresponsible, and (ironically enough) intellectually shallow “journalism” that it ought to be studied carefully. Standing alone, it reveals quite a bit about anonymity-dependent “reporting” generally, The New Republic specifically, and how much of our political discourse is conducted.

(snip)

Based on those experiences, I’m genuinely amazed at how — overnight — she’s been transformed in conventional wisdom, largely as a result of Rosen’s piece, into a stupid, shrill, out-of-her-depth Puerto Rican woman who is being considered for the Supreme Court solely due to anti-merit, affirmative action reasons. The New Republic thus fulfills its principal function in life: to allow the Right to spout any sort of invective and bile and justify it by reciting the “even-the-liberal-New-Republic-agrees” defense.

Ah, those crafty liberals, blaming Republicans for something they might say (but never do).

Glenn, TNR is a liberal magazine. They’re not shilling for the right the way, say, YOU are shilling for the left. And yes, it does speak volumes when a liberal magazine considers a potential SCOTUS choice as being TOO liberal. I mean, who ever thought that would ever be the case, when someone could be too liberal to another liberal?

It doesn’t matter who Obama nominates, they’re going to be a liberal, no question about it. The only question is, how liberal will they be? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the most liberal, Obama is going to pick a 15. You can count on it.

Why now? Because there’s a liberal Democrat to make the new appointment. Liberal Justices who wanted to retire didn’t dare with Bush as President, so they have waited until they had a new, liberal President.

Souter was a huge mistake by George H.W. Bush, in that he thought he was nominating a conservative, but ended up getting a left-leaning moderate. He’s not the first President to be make such a mistake, and he surely won’t be the last.

One thing’s for sure, you will see nothing but ultra-left nominees from Obama. He’ll nominate whoever he pleases, and that’ll be just fine by those who were demanding that Bush seek the “advice” of the Senate.

And you want to know the kicker? Every damn nominee will be pushed by the media as some kind of centrist, despite having a far-left background. Remember, when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were nominated, we were treated to endless articles about how far right they were. When Clinton nominated Ginsburg, we were treated to endless articles and television pieces on how “moderate” she was. You better believe that, once Obama makes his choice known, it’ll be the same dog and pony show all over again by the liberal media.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Friday that John Roberts misled the Senate during his confirmation hearings by pretending to be a moderate — and that the United States is now “stuck” with him as chief justice.

“Roberts didn’t tell us the truth. At least Alito told us who he was,” Reid said, referring to Samuel Alito, the second Supreme Court justice nominated by President George W. Bush. “But we’re stuck with those two young men, and we’ll try to change by having some moderates in the federal courts system as time goes on — I think that will happen.”

I say this is rich (i.e., funny AND hypocritical at the same time) because the man these guys supported for President of the United States never told us who HE was, either. Oh, he gave us clues — in his speeches, who he was friends with, where he went to church, etc. — but we had to dig for the rest. And we STILL don’t know who he is and what he’s all about, other than the fact that he’s a big-government, power-grabbing ultra liberal.

As for the claim that they’re going to try and put moderates on the Court, puh-LEASE! Senator, don’t make me laugh! If Obama nominates an actual, honest-to-God moderate, I’ll eat my hat. Remember, these people on the left are the same people who confirmed Ruth Bader Ginsburg with barely any relevant questions asked and only one witness against her, whereas when it’s one of our guys, they pull out all the stops (see the Anita Hill/Clarence Thomas confirmation fiasco, for example). These people fully intend on appointing more of these so-called “moderates” to the court when, in reality, they are fellow liberals with an agenda and who can be fully counted on to legislate pet issues from the bench (gay marriage, abortion, you name it).

Also, if anyone out there believes the libs wouldn’t try to pass the nuclear option, I have a bridge to sell you. Liberals and Democrats will use whatever options that are at their disposal to get what they want, and that includes the nuclear option. The ONLY reason they were against it before is because 1) Republicans wanted it, and 2) it would have effectively ended their obstruction of judicial, and other, nominees. Now that they’re in charge, they will most certainly change their tune should Republicans try and obstruct any of Obama’s nominees (which, for the record, I don’t think they’d do…not after carping for so long about an “up or down vote”).

P.S.: For the record, I supported the nuclear option, and I still do. If the Dems want to do it, that’s their right, since they now control the Senate, just as it was the Republican’s right to do it before they lost the majority, and just as it’ll be their right when they take it back (given the way the Dems are screwing us over, that’ll be in 2010).