Following “three days of grueling questioning” (including such hard-hitting gems as “what was the publisher of  the encyclopedias your working-class mother bought you because she so strongly believed in the value of education” and “Perry Mason won all but one of his cases - what was the one case that he lost?“), Sonia Sotomayor is set to be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice - the most rapid (rushed?) confirmation of any Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (beating out current justice and Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a few days, depending on when the vote is actually held).

It was apparent even before the hearings began that the fix was in (Feinstein: Sotomayor a sure thing). Given the overwhelming numerical advantage of Democrats in the Senate, and hard behind-the-scenes arm-twisting to ensure party discipline, there was little that either “blue-dog” Democrats or Republicans could do to block confirmation.  However, our Senators missed a golden opportunity to stand on principle and make the case for the rule of law, and the importance of confirming (or retaining) justices on that basis.

Instead, the discussion revolved around racial politics (”underlying politics are dicey for Republicans“), personality (She is an amazing, warm and intelligent woman“) and her “inspirational life story:”

Now, I’m as much a fan of “inspirational life stories” as the next guy; and when I have a daughter, I hope she’s just like Gracie (the cute, wide-eyed, precocious kid in the ”Baldo” comic strip, above) - especially since if I have a son, he’s MUCH more likely to resemble Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) at that age.  But an inspirational life story is NO BASIS for confirming or retaining a Supreme Court justice! 

A judge’s appearance, gender, ethnicity, “inspirational life story,” etc. are irrelevant.  Our system of justice requires a judiciary committed to upholding the rule of law and equal administration of justice.  Although “we the people” don’t (directly) have a vote at the Federal level, we CAN vote to uphold the rule of law here in Colorado.  Vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Court in 2010 - let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!

The recent nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to succeed retiring justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court has generated increased scrutiny on the power of the judiciary to endorse and validate government seizures of private property.  Joining the notorious 2005 Kelo vs. New London case at the Federal level, and the outrageous Telluride Land Grab case decided a year ago yesterday (2 June 2008) here in Colorado, is a lesser-known ruling by Judge Sotomayor in 2006 (Didden v. Village of Port Chester).

A recent article by distinguished law professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago characterized Sotomayor’s ruling in this case as an even worse attack on property rights (and individual protections) than Kelo:

The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The “or else” was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow.

So Sotomayor and the Second Circuit essentially endorsed a thuggish extortion racket “pay-to-play” move by a small-time tinpot dictator controlling a local redevelopment district.  Having spent some time overseas, this sounds more like the kind of 3rd World corruption you’d find in some of the worst-governed corners of the globe, not the United States of America.  Or is that the new standard on the East Coast?  “Back to the Future” of Boss Tweed and machine-style politics?

As Epstein notes, “American business should shudder in its boots” - to say nothing of individuals owning homes (Kelo) or other property (Telluride) over which government casts a covetous eye.  When outright theft is justified in the name of law - who can respect the law?  We MUST restore accountability to our judiciary - and restore the rule of law - before it’s too late.

In Colorado, we have that opportunity - vote “NO” on retaining the unjust justices who perpetrated the Telluride Land Grab when they must face the voters in 2010.