How will conservatives attack Sotomayor?

With the partisan composition of the U.S. Senate these days, it is likely that the upper chamber of Congress will go along with President Barack Obama’s selection of Sonia Sotomayor of New York to sit on the Supreme Court.

And I find it somewhat encouraging that the Republican minority that would be expected to lead the charge in opposition against Sotomayor getting what amounts to a lifetime job (she’s only in her early 50s) is keeping their trash talk rhetoric muted – thus far.

TO ME, THE only question I have about the confirmation process is to wonder what kind of trivial tidbit or pseudo-issue they will try to dredge up against Sotomayor to hammer her with during confirmation hearings.

My guess is that the most conservative elements of the Republican caucus and their supporters are having dreams of turning Sotomayor into the 21st Century version of Clarence Thomas.

The brutal accusations he put up with (which he referred to as a “high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves”) during his confirmation hearing didn’t stop him from getting the post on the Supreme Court.

But some 18 years later, there are still many people who think of Anita Hill and Coca-Cola cans whenever Thomas’ name gets mentioned. The sexual harassment allegations he was confronted with left him smeared for life.

I’M TRYNG TO figure out what kind of crazed story partisan critics will come up with in order to smear Sotomayor.

Thus far, we have had videotapes shown to us where she makes comments that the far-right likes to interpret as evidence that she will impose her personal agenda on the American public. In short, she is an irresponsible judge, they would say.

The problem is that such attitudes are so ideological that few normal people will take them seriously, or even understand them.

There’s also the “problem” (as far as conservatives are concerned) that the actual comments Sotomayor made on that video that now bops about the Internet in various places are so vague and obscure, it really is difficult to say that anything specific is being said.

IT COMES OFF as people who have a hang-up about anyone picked for the Supreme Court by a non-conservative president trying to take some obscure rhetoric and interpret it in ways that back their ideological beliefs.

The kind of people who want to think that Obama’s talk of “empathy” is some sort of code word for “un-American.”

That is what this opposition truly is about.

There will be those people who don’t want anyone who would be sympathetic or understanding of Latinos, or New Yorkers, or anyone who might not automatically demonize everyone who falls into either of those two groups.

IT IS PART of why Democratic officials in support of Sotomayor are bringing up the fact that she got her original federal judicial post in New York due to an appointment from George Bush the elder. How can Republicans have a problem with someone originally nominated to the federal judiciary by a GOP-type president – ignoring the fact that her appointment was part of a deal that allowed Bush to pick a more conservative judge for another post.

Now I don’t know specifically what kind of dirt can be found on Sotomayor. I’m not saying that there’s some Thomas-type sexual harassment allegation in her background. Whatever they wind up using might not be a legitimate claim.

It likely will be something that is wildly exaggerated. But wild exaggeration is a part of what partisan politics is all about.

So when confirmation hearings finally do take place (Obama aides would like to think she could be confirmed by the Senate sometime in August before Congress takes its break), there is the potential for a wild show over Sotomayor.

OR WILL THE Senate Republicans try to push back the confirmation to give them more time to do opposition research on Sotomayor’s record (which I’m sure is filled with ties to New York political types whom rural types will want to demonize) to try to taint her further.

But I suspect there would have been an equally ridiculous spectacle over anyone Obama would have selected.

The muted rhetoric of Tuesday will give way to wild claims that our society as we know it is doomed, if we allow this particular person to serve on the Supreme Court.

I’d like to think the bulk of our society will see it for the partisan political tactic that it will be, rather than any kind of allegation that ought to be taken as legitimate.

-30-

EDITOR’S NOTES: Republican leaders in the Senate said Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings would be (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052601313.html?hpid=topnews) fair. Yet I’m sure they think harsh criticism is simply part of the process of a fair hearing.

Could there be clues in this commentary published earlier this month as to what line of attack (http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085) Republican critics ultimately will use to try to smudge up Sotomayor’s professional reputation?

Will we get (http://www.mahalo.com/answers/question-of-the-day/ive-heard-rumors-to-the-effect-that-judge-sonia-sotomayor-is-openly-gay-is-this-true-if-so-she-does-not-deserve-to-be-a-justice) smears like this in coming months?