I think Walter Dellinger, American Professor, Duke University, former United States Solicitor General and currently at O’Melveny & Myers LLP comments on the Republicans’ arguments against Judge Sotomayor during his recent appearance of the July 13th Charlie Rose Show ..www.charlierose.com  are worth savoring.  In response to Charlie Rose’s question, "What about this idea that the law, is the law, is the law?  Dellinger stated, "this notion that law is some mechanical or logical process like proofs of Euclidean Geometry is the great mistake that is behind much of the criticism of Judge Sotomayor. This notion that judging can be done well without drawing upon experience, your sense of the social culture, your sense of history, your understanding how different rules will affect different people…that’s just crazy."

He also said, "The worst kind of judicial lawmaking is one that doesn’t even recognize, acknowledge or admit that those policy considerations are playing a role is to pretend that you can stare at few words like privileges and immunities, or due process,or equal protection or the right to bear arms and decide if you think hard enough or logically enough about what that means without importing any other vice…that is just a misunderstanding how law works…."

"and to pretend that you find some magical logical formula is then not to take responsiblity for candidly explaining and acknowledging the real basis of the wellspring of the decision you are actually making."

He made some other interesting statements about conservatives values.

"We are entering a time when people speak of judicial activism without realizing that the issue more and more  is conservative judicial activism. The great hot button issues that we are talking about, guns, property, reverse discrimination are cases where those who favor conservative viewpoints want judges to set aside decisions made by Congress, state legislatures, local governments; the elected representatives…and more and more that is the issue as to whether judicial power will be used to invalidate what popularly elected governments have done and to do so in the name of certain conservative values"

(these are my transcribed notes from the video, so there may be some tiny inacurracies) Watch the video!

I think  Maureen Dowd said it best: 

A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.

And frankly for all their ranting they haven[t done much to throw her to the wolves.  She has maintained her calm and answered their questions with aplomb and civility even after Sen. Kyl’s 10 min. rant about nothing at all.  As for judicial activism, one only needs to look back to the 2001 election of Georgie by the Supremes to find judicial activism at its worst.

I’ve been watching this the past two afternoons and I have to agree that she is falling short of making her case.   However, that means nothing.   She will be "annointed" no matter what.   It’s a shame we have to waist the taxpayer’s money putting all of this effort and time in vetting someone who undoubtably will be the next Supreme Court Justice. 

This week is just a useless, pointless platform for egos.