Now that President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, many will assert that she, generally considered to be Left or far Left, should be confirmed because Bush was able to get his Right or far Right selections, Roberts and Alito, approved.  Is that a legitimate argument?  It is often said that elections have consequences.  Isn't one of those consequences the opportunity to put forward nominees who share the president's ideological bent?

But what does it mean to be a Left- or Right-leaning Justice?  And, is it reasonable to expect a quid pro quo approval? 

Simplistically stated, a Right-leaning (or conservative) judge is typically thought to be a strict constitutional constructionist—someone who interprets the constitution and existing law, rather than looking for (or inventing) meaning that isn't there.  He/she feels bound by precedent, and tends to protect or uphold existing rights, rather than expand them.  Critics, of course, would contend that conservative judges often suppress rights.

On the other hand, a Left-leaning (or liberal) judge is characteristically thought to be someone who has an activist point of view—a predisposition to craft arguments that support a particular perspective.  A liberal judge is thought to be more likely to navigate around precedent and find rights where none were previously enumerated.

Historically speaking, there is no doubt that Justices from both ends of the conservative/liberal continuum have ruled in improper fashion.  A conservative court in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation and ushered in the 58-year doctrine of "separate but equal," ignoring the unequivocal unconstitutionality of Jim Crow laws that had been on the books for generations.  On the flip side, liberal courts have frequently bastardized the various amendments, with Roe v. Wade and its creative interpretation of the 14th amendment being a prominent example.

Given the choice, though, isn't judicial conservatism the preferential, and less dangerous alternative?  Don't we run the risk of losing control of our sovereignty when judges run amok and transcend their traditional and constitutionally defined role as interpreters of the law?  Isn't it better to err on the side of deference to the law and legislative process?  Is it proper for courts to champion various causes because lawmakers don't have the political will or persuasive power to push forward controversial policies?  The lifetime appointment of federal judges certainly makes it quite difficult to right any wrongs.

So, when the Left disparages Roberts and Alito as far Right, is that really a bad thing?  Aren't we better off when our fate lies in the hands of elected representatives, rather than those with little accountability?  Shouldn't we use the legislative and amendment processes to craft social and economic policy, rather than activist judges appointed and/or approved as proxies by politicians too timid to take a stand and fight for what they believe to be right?

None of the aforementioned should be interpreted as an indictment against Sotomayor.  It's much too early in the process to understand with any reasonable certitude where she falls on the continuum.

The Senate needs to vet her thoroughly, and the Republicans should vote for her if she meets the standard of an intelligent and impartial arbiter of the law, not as a quid pro quo for Roberts and Alito. 

Our sovereignty is much too precious a thing to risk should she, or any nominee, prove to have activist proclivities, whether they be conservative or liberal.