Obama found his ideal "empathetic" candidate in Judge Sotomayor. She's notorious for not letting the Constitution guide her decisions.

Since the White House is already cautioning Republicans on their objections to Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor, it might be a good time to reach back into the archives and show the “caution” showed by Democrats during the nomination process of Miguel Estrada to the DC Court. While Sotomayor’s nomination results in Republicans being cautioned about how they protest her nomination or else they will offend the Latin American vote, it seems that Democrats weren’t so keen on their own advice back in November of 2001 as they began filibustering judicial appointments.

The Wall Street Journal republished some of the Democrats’ “finer” quotes regarding their partisan attacks on judicial nominations. Illinois Senator, Dick Durbin explained on November 7, 2001 when discussing the interest groups’ protest over certain Bush judicial nominees for political reasons:

“They also identified Migual Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.” (Emphasis added.)

One can only wonder what Democrat Senator and former KKK member Robert Byrd was thinking while shaking hands with Miguel Estrada before Democrats denied his appointment because "he's latino." They're certainly a tolerant bunch.

This is just one example of Democrats’ “cautionary” approach to protesting Bush judicial nominations. Anyone recalling these battles remembers that Senate Democrats did not buy into the idea that the presidential election victory meant that the president has carte blanche authority on who he appoints to the courts. Now, Democrats seem to be falling all over themselves to shout “elections have consequences.”

Republicans will not oppose Sotomayor merely on the basis that she’s Latina. Instead, they are concerned about her statements about the appellate courts making policy, her feelings that as a Latina woman she feels her legal rulings are superior to “white males,” and her record of having 60% of her appellate court decisions eventually overturned in cases heard by the Supreme Court. It doesn’t appear she is applying the law too well and has no business in the federal court system, much less receiving a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

Republicans need to oppose this appointment at all costs, regardless of their critics’ advice. The party does not need to play identity politics. The GOP will never beat Democrats at that game and it goes against the universal equality message at the heart of the Republican Party. Obama’s idea of judging through “empathy” will make the nation take two steps back away from Republican Martin Luther King, Jr.’s vision of a “colorblind society.” Instead Republicans should apply their fundamental principles consistently no matter what the subject is. That’s how they will once again start winning elections. Sotomayor has given plenty of material to her opponents and, unlike Democrat opposition to Miguel Estrada, none of the Republican concerns are based on her Latina heritage.

Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court believes that policies are made in the apellate courts? This is the type of activism that threatens the sovereignty of the Constitution. Judge Sonia Stotomayor represents the first step to B. Hussein Obama’s goal of shaping the courts to create laws for his agenda when he can’t obtain approval through the legislative process. Stotomayor is an awful pick that will have disastrous consequences for the American political system.