The games have begun.  It’s not about whether Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed.  At Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said, she’s got it locked provided she doesn’t have a “meltdown”.  You can make book on that.

But as much as Senate confirmation hearings have turned into Kabuki theater, the political equivalent of Dancing with the Stars as Dahlia Litwick called it, it’s not without its interesting moments.  Most will recall when John Roberts explained the role of a Supreme Court justice as an “umpire”. merely calling balls and strikes.  That certainly caught the attention of many, and subjected Roberts to some criticism that still haunts him.

After hours of listening to sounds come out of the mouths of Senators, Judge Sotomayor finally took her turn at the microphone, as if this hearing had something to do with her.  She explained :

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy.

It’s simple: fidelity to the law.

How many hours of thought went into these few words?  And that’s the best they could come up with?  Fidelity to the law?  What the heck does that mean?

Well, this is disturbing.  I’ve suggested before that the conservative attack on Sonia Sotomayor is about as misguided as it gets.  I suspect Sen. Graham gets it; that they’ve got as much of a friend in Sotomayor as the Republicans are going to get from a Democratic president.  No reason to piss her off, as she’s assuredly going to be a vote they need going forward, and there’s a better than middling chance that Judge Sotomayor, at least when it comes to criminal law issues, is no William O. Douglas.  She may not even be William Rehnquist.

But fidelity to the law?  Has anyone ever urged the philosophy of being unfaithful to the law?

Some will try to explain what this means.  They’re wrong.  It means nothing.  It means that a bunch of wonks came up with a phrase that is utterly meaningless to counter the rhetoric that would be used against her.  Its only purpose is to sound as if she said something when she really didn’t.  It’s bulletproof, because it’s meaningless.

The point of preparing for Senate confirmation hearings is to escape unscathed.  Let nothing be said that can used against her and it’s a good day.  But what does this tell us about one of nine who have more to say about what the government can do to its citizens than anyone else in government, save the big man himself?  Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

Appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States of Americans a big thing.  It’s a lifetime appointment, and a bundle of power.  Some judges have found it to bring a freedom that few can experience or appreciate.  No longer need they be slavishly concerned with precedent or fear of reversal.  They are freed from the constraints of criticism, since they will be criticized by one side or the other no matter where they come out.  Yet they will still wear the robe for as long as they wish, no matter how harsh their critics may be.

This empowers a person to do the job of Supreme Court justice.  What that job may be, in their eyes, is the real question.  That confirmation is subject to political scrutiny is old news.  But the outliers have all imposed their own views on the shell of Sonia Sotomayor, leaving the nation to pretend that they know her and have some clue who is being handed this vast power.  Conservative voices take for granted that President Obama wouldn’t appoint her if she wasn’t an evil liberal.  Worse still, liberal voices assume the same thing, proving the fools don’t respect ideological lines.

The Supreme Court wouldn’t be needed if deciding cases was easy or simple.  Lex fidelis isn’t a philosophy, but a cop out.  When the show closes, we’re going to have a new justice on our Supreme Court.  Who is this Sonia Sotomayor person, and what will she do with our Constitution?  Inquiring minds want to know, and “fidelity to the law” tells us nothing.