Chicago Republicans

There are plenty of reasons to oppose Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, but there are more reasons to let the nomination hearings pass without a showdown.

Many Republicans would like revenge for the treatment of Bush nominees by Congressional Democrats, but there are several key differences. First and foremost, the Democrats had the votes to threaten  filibuster. Today, Republicans do not have the votes to do anything. That is to say (barring some unforeseen scandal), no matter how well they grill Sotomayor, they have exactly zero ability to actually keep her from getting nominated.

 Still, I know what your thinking, "That doesn't mean we should sacrifice our principles!"

 Look at it this way, Americans are growing weary of this unsuccessful big spending. They are beginning to see Cap & Trade for the tax increase that it is, and national health care just looks like a giant price tag now. This is progress for Republicans on debates that are happening right now. We cannot afford to take our focus off of the issues we can win.  As soon as Congressional Republicans challenge the Sotomayor nomination, they will be called racist and sexist, and the media will eat it up. Bad press for Republicans  will hurt and prevent us from making realistic strides on more pressing issues. We cannot afford to waste any political capital on a fight that we cannot win.

 Republicans should be particularly weary of using Frank Ricci in this process.  Mr. Ricci is a litigant against whom judge Sotomayor ruled in a case involving the promotion of fire fighters. Mr. Ricci offers no relevant expertise, but may be called by Republicans to testify against Sotomayor simply because he is a sympathetic figure. This is a huge mistake. Not only will it intensify claims of racism and sexism, it will open the floodgates to this sort of theatrics in the future. And one thing is for sure, when the Democrats parade litigants against Republicans nominees, they will be much better at it. They always are. 

Dear Advice Guru,

I live in Chicago, where "hope" comes from yet I feel left out of the "riches" promised. Just this past week we had: another alderman indicted, the mayor's nephew brought before a grand jury, Springfield trying to impose a tax increase while failing to adopt true political reform, parking meters ripping us off, our impeached governor's trial delayed for a year, and his wife appearing relatively sweet among whining celebrities on an inane reality show. If I look at the nation, GM filed for bankruptcy only after the President secured the unions' and the administration's interest in controlling it, the Chinese are buying Hummer, Obama is on another apology tour, now in the Middle East, Democrats are fighting to keep an activist Supreme Court nominee from being questioned about her record, oh and let's not forget the largest expansion of government EVER including a rush to nationalize health care. What are Republicans and moderates to do? How can we make our votes matter? How did this all happen so fast?

Signed,

Hopeless in Chicago

Dear Hopeless,

Not long ago we had Republicans in power, with Edger and Thompson as governors, Peter Fitzgerald as a U.S. Senator, but somehow their legacies have slipped away. At a Republican gathering last week, I heard some depressing talk that maybe Mayor Daley controls the Republican party and the perception is that Republicans are not much of an alternative to the Democrats. It doesn't help that the media, be it the Tribune or NBC News, help perpetuate the cult of personality and refuse to question and demand answers from our leaders. The Tribune's "Corruption Watch", although a step in the right direction, has yet to go further by demanding answers and accountability. Brian Williams of NBC has his fawning, teenage crush special about a day in the life of the President. Obama and his team seem so hip and cool. This is hard to overcome.

But there is some hope. Is this for real or is it just a temporary stop-gap that merely slows Democrats? Governor Quinn did not get the tax increase he had hoped for. Poll after poll shows that Americans and Illinoisans are right of center on virtually every issue including judges, health care, spending, marriage, abortion and national security. We should be encouraged that with Supreme Court nominees, Democrats are "mis-adopting" our language in trying to sell Sotomayor to the public (even if it is meant to mislead). We need people to respond to policies on their face not their consequences. Anytime you have a politician that believes it is government's role to provide you with something, you will have to pay more in taxes. We need a message that is clear and consistent and a messenger that is incorruptible, convincing, and above all passionate. We need to convince these voices that they belong in government and stand behind them. Not doing that is why we have lost Springfield, Fitzgerald resigned paving the way for a Senator Obama, and now we have machine tactics in our White House. With the right strategy, we could easily regain our momentum, maybe without being as ruthless as the Democrats. So we should have hope. Now go and seek help!

What does it really mean to be a Republican? The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is a perfect opportunity for Republicans to explain the core principles we are supposed to believe in. Rather than being contrary for contrary's sake, it is a time to educate the nation, the state and wavering Republicans that it is our adherence to the Constitution and the rule of law that provides for the real intellectual freedom and diversity that defines our party. This nomination can help define one of the first components of the Republican "sniff test" as we legitimately examine Judge Sotomayor's record. Unless there is some ghastly misstep, Obama will probably get his nominee through but that does not mean we can't use this opportunity to express what we stand for. Obama campaigned on the idea that judges should be persons of "empathy" who should know what it feels like to grow up poor, be a mother, be a minority, etc. and who would "actively" interpret the law to achieve "just" results. We now have a chance to confront him on what our Constitution stands for and what the separation of powers truly means. We now have a chance to act like Republicans.

"Being Republican" is an important question, not only facing the future of the party nationally but in defining our existence in Illinois. We see the debate emerging about the contrasting roles of Colin Powell and Dick Cheney. The local reaction to Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame has brought up the roles of conservatives and moderates on the issue of life and their places in the party. Cook County Democratic candidates (I have heard through the grapevine) are considering running as Republicans, not because of republican principles, but to have a better shot at winning against an incumbent Democrat (kind of a reverse-Specter). Are there certain minimum principles that one must hold to be able to be called a Republican? In Illinois, we run a real risk of abandoning our core principles when we allow Democrats to put on our hat. What are those principles that we should expect from each of our candidates? Limited exercise of government power, the rule of and equal application of the law, adherence to the Constitution, equality of opportunity (not results), protection of innocent life and a fundamental commitment to individual self-realization. When applied, we expect lower taxes, abolishing punitive measures for success, fair and honest judges and lawmakers, security both locally and nationally and the freedom to express our opinions and views. Just running on a platform on lowering taxes is not enough, otherwise our party just becomes "Democrat-lite" or worse, the Democrat alternative for those who can't run with "D" by their name.

There are many out there clamoring for Republicans to become more "moderate" and in doing so abandon some of our core principles. We see this most often in the areas of life, abortion, the environment and education. Let me tackle the elephant in the room, life, since it is the best example of how we might let perception blur our principles. There are some that accuse "pro-lifers" of marginalizing the party. This is a huge mistake and it plays right into the Democrat strategy of dividing the party. What is at the core of Republican principles is not just the protection of innocent life, but the means and process by which we do so. Putting aside the question of when does life begin and when does it acquire rights and warrant protection, Republicans believe that the means for addressing this lie in science, religion and the hands of the people not government. This is essential for Republicans on both sides to agree on. Under Democrat principles, these questions are decided in the courts, by unelected, and in some sense, undereducated judges - single individuals making decisions that effect whole communities. Or they are decided by the executive branch, either by order or through an agency or commission such as the HHS, HUD, FCC, EPA, entrusted with administering a policy or overseeing regulations. This should trouble all Republicans, even those who are "pro-choice", that those who do not represent the will of the people, who are not experts nor accountable through election are making those decisions. On this Republicans can and should be united. The anger should not be directed at those who disagree on when life begins and how it should be protected, but against those who seek to control the issue in the courts, the media, through regulation and policy, but not law. This applies not only to life, but to other "social" issues that given a diverse society will always be "debatable". Recently, our courts and the EPA, not science, have defined carbon emissions generally as pollutants. In California, it took a federal appeals court to uphold the voters' support of Proposition 8, which bans gay marriage, by overturning a lower activist court. This is why the review of Sotomayor's record and the questioning of her judicial philosophy is so critical to reinforcing Republican political values. We have before us a judge who has openly described her role has looking out for the consequences of her decision. Rather than applying the law, as depicted by our lady Justice who holds the Scales while blindfolded, she sees the role of a judge to use the law to manipulate a desirable result. This is in contradiction to our Constitution and violates the separation of powers defined by it. We owe it to ourselves and our nation to stand up for our principles no matter how ineffectual that task may seem.