Cillizza names Frank Ricci a "loser," but not the Republicans who invited him
July 17, 2009 9:35 am ET by Jamison Foser
Yesterday, I asked what a Republican Senator would have to do to make Chris Cillizza's list of Sotomayor confirmation hearing "losers." Well, today's edition of Cillizza's "Winners and Losers" is out, and we still don't know the answer.
Cillizza went to great lengths to avoid naming a Republican one of the losers of Day 4 of the hearings; his "losers" list included "The Third Round of Questioning," "Analogies," and Michael Bloomberg, for mispronouncing Sotomayor's name. Bloomberg, of course, was a Republican until leaving the Party in 2007. Combined with Cillizza's choice of Arlen Specter among yesterday's losers, it seems the best way for a Republican to make Cillizza's list really is to leave the GOP.
Strangely, Cillizza named New Haven firefighter Frank Ricci one of yesterday's "losers." Why? Because "Ricci's statement was entirely devoid of controversy (or any mention of Sotomayor) and the follow-up questions to him produced no drama either."
See, that seems to me like a failure on the part of the people who decided to make Ricci their star witness and hype his appearance for a week, then failed to elicit anything interesting from him during questioning. You know, the Republicans who serve on the Judiciary Committee.
Ricci isn't a Senator, he isn't a lawyer, he isn't a legal scholar; all he could do was tell his story. He shouldn't be blamed for not being entertaining or illuminating enough for Cillizza; his hosts bear responsibility for putting him in that position, and for wasting the committee's time with a witness who, according to Cillizza, added nothing to the proceedings. Blaming Frank Ricci for that seems like awfully poor form.
The real losers are those who insist on making this confirmation all about race, and not at all about ability to do the job. The people they represent should see about having these professional racists replaced, perhaps in November 2010.
</sarc>
As far as legislating from the bench. Isn't that what the conservative majority did when they made their decision? All the appelate court did was follow what was considered to be the current judicial standards.