Supreme reading

I've had a closet fascination with the Supreme Court ever since I took that American Politics 101 at WashU--I say "closet," because (as with many other things that "fascinate me") I'm still never as motivated to actually read up on it to do it justice)-- and the hubbub over the latest SCOTUS nominee has re-piqued my interests.

My own thoughts at the moment: Judge Sotomayor's out-of-context comment, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," is one that I meet with mixed feelings. A large part of me smirks and thinks, "well duh," while another part of me would hope that a Supreme Court nominee (non-prescient, notwithstanding) would know better than to actually say something like that in public.

In the end, I think politics is all a game, which is unfortunate since so many real-life consequences hang in the balance of something so elaborately self-serving and self-perpetuating. It's funny to me to watch codgerish white guys hyperventilate calling someone of another race "racist", whether they're right or not... the sheer irony of it all is both amusing and a little old and tiresome; because in the end, it's just part of the game. Whether any of the rest of us "win" remains to be seen. Here's hoping Judge Sotomayor makes a wise Justice, regardless of her past comments. Isn't that the best you could hope of anyone, anyway?

Here's a little superficial reading on this current event:

1. On one side, the "identity politics" argument: Ilya Shapiro argues that Judge Sotomayor's nomination is no more than a nod to her ethnicity than her qualifications. I agree that there are some questions about her judgment, and Shapiro sums it up the philosophical dilemma succinctly: "A jurisprudence of empathy is the antithesis of the rule of law." He makes an intriguing point.

2. On the other side, the soaring celebration of a cracking glass ceiling: I don't always agree with what Ruben Navarrette says, but I think he makes a point I tend to agree with: "The difference between judicial activism and reasonable adjudication often depends on whether you agree with the verdict in a given case."

3. Sports Illustrated was quick to point out the connections Judge Sotomayor has to the sports world: she played a major role in ending the baseball strike of '94-'95 (I wasn't really a knowledgeable fan at the time... latebloomer as I am, I have nothing substantive to say about that) and also in ending another national nightmare: the Maurice Clarett episode in 2004. What a scrub. All that brouhaha and the guy turned out to be a total bust anyway.

4. Time Magazine has a neat piece called Four Enduring Myths About Supreme Court Nominees. Great scratching-the-surface reading.

5. Time Magazine's Mark Halperin seems to be one of many who think Judge Sotomayor will see smooth sailing ("more like a lovefest than a legal firing squad"), barring some tax problems or whatever other dirt is in vogue to be discovered nowadays. Those crazy kids.