Charles Krauthammer on how Republicans should handle the Sotomayor nomination:
When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."
Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.
Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."
Ricci, of course, is the central plaintiff in the case Ricci v. DeStefano; Judge Sotomayor’s decision on appeal has been heavily criticized.
I agree with Krauthammer, albeit with one caveat: Democrats have enough votes to pass Sotomayor through the Senate, and perhaps enough to beat a filibuster. So, Republicans should have their "teaching moment" (as Charles describes it) and pass her through the committee to the full Senate. There they should demand full debate to continue illuminating the judicial philosophy of Judge Sotomayor (and progressive liberalism in general) and then vote against her en bloc. Don’t bother to filibuster; that would serve no purpose. Just grant that the President will have his choice, but also that we will not acquiesce in approving a judge whose beliefs are so at odds with our traditions of jurisprudence.
Not only will it be a teaching moment, but it will make clear the fundamental differences between the two parties.