Senator Pat Roberts(R-Kansas) has already announced that he intends to vote against President Obama's nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court even though she hasn't even had her fair chance for a hearing yet and little is known about her views on many topics that will face the Supreme Court such as how she views the constitution and how she would apply law. Sotomayer has been a judge longer than either Justices Roberts or Alito have been judges, yet the types of issues she faced in that role didn't really give a clue as to her views on the type of issues she might face on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet Republican Pat Roberts intends to vote against her anyway, even before she was even allowed the courtesy of presenting herself to the Senate for possible confirmation.
Pat Roberts is representing the worst form of prejudice here. He's prejudging the nominee for something not based off of her experience as a judge or some other professional standard, and instead intends to vote against her confirmation based on some other factors such as because she was nominated by President Obama, or her ethnic background, or for partisan political reasons or something. That is plain outrageous.
Every member of the Senate owes it to court nominees to give them a fair hearing before they announce how they'll vote. What Pat Roberts is doing is completely unethical here.
Pat Roberts' view that he doesn't need any stinkin' facts to make up his mind how to judge a Supreme Court nominee is a pretty pathetic standard indeed. It sets a new low for Washington partisanship.
Note: Wizbang Blue is now closed and our authors have moved on. Paul Hooson can now be found at Wizbang Pop!. Please come see him there!