He opposed both Roberts and Alito purely for political reasons and it paid off!
You can already guess the confusion in the back rooms of those nameless "GOP strategists" the "news" media is always citing anonymously as the voice of reason within the GOP. No doubt the same gutless wonders who thought McCain would be the ideal candidate to appeal across party lines are fretting that an aggressive conservative opposition to the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court will hurt the GOP's image with Hispanics, or women or moderates or some other splinter group the "strategists" think we should be pandering to.
As usual, they are WRONG. AGAIN!
The nomination of Sotomayor provides a perfect teaching moment for the GOP to illustrate once more the profound differences we have with Obama's plan to implement socialism with a smiling face in America.
Let Obama's minions scream that it's racist or anti-women to oppose a candidate whose views toward the judiciary are rooted in the soft bigotry of a New York socialist. GOP Senators must question her closely on her view that somehow an Hispanic or a woman from the housing projects in the Bronx of New York City would make a better judge than anyone who does not come from that experience.
But there are even more fundamental differences with Sotomayor which gives great advantage to the GOP. Sotomayor's claim that the courts are where "policy is made" is in direct contradiction to the U.S. Constitution.
Sotomayor's views apparently jive with Obama's judicial philosophy. He believes that judges should correct what he sees as the wrongs in society despite what the laws passed by Congress or the precedents of the courts would have us follow.
To sum up Obama's judicial philosophy in one phrase: he believes in judges that legislate from the bench. Republicans do not. And Americans in general share the GOP view. In at least one opinion poll 64% of Americans surveyed say U.S. Supreme Court decisions should be based on what is written in the Constitution not on some arbitrary, vague and extra-judicial idea of fairness. The idea that one could overlook the Constitution and impose personal opinions is a dangerous precedent to set for the Supreme Court. And it is a precedent that endangers the foundations of our freedom.
It's doubtful that Senate GOP leaders would want to mount a filibuster of this nominee, but if they did, they can cite the precedent set by then Senator Obama when he supported the filibuster against Justice Alito, even though he knew it would fail.
In fact, as a Senator Obama conceded that both Roberts and Alito were well qualified to be on the Supreme Court but he voted against them anyway on the grounds that he disagreed with their judicial philosophy.
This is a debate the GOP should welcome with open arms. And since Obama has proved what a winner it is to go against the political tide of the moment we should make full use of this opportunity to educate the majority of Americans as to what is really at stake.
We only lose if we fail to fight!