Now why didn't we think of that? Having the losers in a controversial if hardly brainbending case hauled in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee to whine about losing a case in appellate court that they later won in the Supreme Court.
Frank Ricci, the white firefighter who recently won his reverse discrimination case at the Supreme Court, said Thursday that an unfavorable ruling by Sonia Sotomayor and other judges "divides people who don't wish to be divided along racial lines." Ricci and his firefighting colleague from New Haven, Conn., Lt. Ben Vargas, denounced the appeals court ruling by Sotomayor and two other judges on the federal appeals court in New York. But in testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, neither man voiced opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
We could have done that with Alito, Roberts, any of Bush's nominees for the Federal bench or any judicial nominee for anything. After all, practically everybody who's ever lost in court thinks the judgment was bogus. We just don't think dirty enough, that's all. In fact, according to Dahlia Lithwick in Slate, there's no evidence that we were thinking, period.
So consider this: Republicans came into these hearings with nothing to lose. They were never going to block this nomination, but they could have used these days to make it clear they are not the party of Rush Limbaugh and Joe the Plumber. They could have questioned Sotomayor about her record, her views, even asked a tough question or two about wise Latina women. They opted not to.
Democrats also came into these hearings with nothing to lose. They were going to seat this nominee, tee up the next two, and school the American people on why the Supreme Court matters and how it's letting them down and explain why balls and strikes are half the equation. They opted not to. When you think of it that way, beyond just being a waste of time, these hearings were also a waste of a thousand opportunities.
Everything is Kabuki now, which as Lithwick points out, wouldn't be so bad if we were using it as a teaching tool, but it's empty Kabuki, meaningless political theater without content or purpose. Which is what happens when Democrats start copying Frank Luntz' "framing" strategies. The key to Luntz isn't what you say but how you say it. Nothing of substance should be addressed. No meaning should be allowed to intrude on the message.
So we dance a Kabuki: gestures, repetitious dialogue, the same movements over and over again. Repetition makes people comfortable. It becomes homely, familiar, nothing to worry our pretty little heads over. It goes on, it comes off, nothing has changed.
But life isn't a dance. Neither is politics. The whole stinking mess needs a monkey wrench thrown deep into its moving parts.
Comments