In the legal profession, and in one’s legal education, arguing either side of an issue becomes second nature to you, with compensation determining the side you take.  Trust in the process becomes the underlying conviction, and you argue your side vigorously and to the best of your ability.

In politics, the side you argue might be influenced by compensation, but more often is determined by some degree of belief - - an affiliation with a particular party or philosophy.  The tactics, though, are the same.

Obfuscation, liberty with the truth, misdirection - - all tools in the briefcase, and none on display so much as in the last day of wrangling with the Judge Sonia Sotomayor nomination to the United States Supreme Court.  That court’s decision yesterday brought about a new era in the understanding of and comment upon legal rulings, as well as math.

In a 5-4 decision, the Court overturned the decision of the lower courts in the case of a New Haven, CT rule governing results of open exams for firefighters.  The import of the Supreme Court’s ruling is not important to today’s discussion so much as the cries of “racist” renewed by the political right wing and the Republican party.

Since Judge Sotomayor was one of the three-judge panel on the Circuit Court who ruled in favor of New Haven, and against the interests of a white firefighter who had taken a hiring exam, her ruling has been called race-based, and she has been labeled a “racist” by the likes of Limbaugh the Entertainer and others.  Let us emphasize the “three-judge panel” part of this case’s history.

Yes, there were three U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit  judges, not just Judge Sotomayor, who sided with the city of New Haven.  Then, the entire Second Circuit Court of Appeals considered the decision of that three-judge panel, and chose not to review its decision any further.  There are ten (10) active judges and ten (10) senior judges on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Let’s also remember that the City’s rules required a retesting for firefighter positions when no minority applicants successfully passed the test.  The question before the court was the constitutionality of the City of Hartford’s policies.

So, lots of people have touched this matter, fingerprints everywhere:  those in city government who enacted the regulation; the lower courts where the case was first heard and ruled upon; the three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit; the entire U.S. Court of Appeals Second Circuit; and, four members of the U.S. Supreme Court who dissented from the majority opinion.

Yet, the only one who has been labeled a “racist” in all of this is Judge Sotomayor.  She was only one of so many who had a hand in the matter, and it did not reach the Supreme Court necessarily because of her decision.  While she is the only one to have been nominated to fill retiring Justice David Souter’s spot on the bench, she still is the only one to be labeled “racist.”

If you follow politics, and know anything about it, these are the only facts you need to know to understand what’s going on.  It isn’t necessary you  be a lawyer, and you don’t necessarily need to understand the legal issues involved in this case from the lower courts all the way up, either.

It’s enough to know that of the several dozen people who participated in this case at various stages of its process, all of whom took the same position as Judge Sotomayor, only one has been called a “racist.”

But, if you are truly interested in understanding this matter, read the City of New Haven’s municipal regulations governing testing and test results for firefighter positions; read the original pleadings in the case and note who the parties were to the suit; read the full Circuit Court ruling; and, read both the majority and dissenting opinions of the Supreme Court decision.

When you’ve done that, see if you can fit “racist” into the legal equation.  I know I couldn’t.

Why do our heads turn when we drive by an automobile accident?  Why do we try to espy something horrid or morbid or bloody on such occasions?  We’ll crane our necks in those attempts, and for what?

I’ll admit I’ve done that, and I still don’t know why.  Yet, I’ve also had trouble all my life watching movies when they get to the uncomfortable moment when a character I’ve come to like is about to be found out, or in some way harmed.  I don’t mean physically, and I don’t mean the site of blood on those occasions is upsetting to me.

Rather, it is the inner pain, or the knowledge that innocents are about to be harmed, and again I don’t mean physically.  Watching another person suffer emotionally has always been difficult for me, even fictional people on a television or movie screen.

Recent events in American politics, to wit the Ensign and Sanford incidents, are something of a case in point, and I find myself having a mixed bag of reactions to the spectacle represented by each.  Senator John Ensign, Republican of Nevada, was last week’s public confession and mea culpa.  He is of slick appearance, nicely tanned, hair finely coiffed, who read a prepared statement, took no questions, and promptly went back to work.

He’ll be in the news for a while, though.  His indiscretion was with a staffer, on the public’s dime at times, and with other questionable financial aspects to it.  An ethics investigation will ensue, and we’ll hear more about him as time goes on.  The sins were great, innocent people are and shall continue to be suffering as a result.  Yet, I can’t bring myself to “feel” much for him.

It’s not because he chose his arena or fate, brought about notoriety all by himself, and deserves the rewards of his actions such as they may be. We are all responsible for our own actions, and their consequences, no matter who we are.

Rather, it’s that he seemed just a little too slick, a little too comfortable under all the circumstances.  Yes, he’s a politician, one who had presidential aspirations.  He’s no stranger to the lights, cameras and action, to be sure.  Perhaps it was not so much he seemed too comfortable as it is he didn’t seem uncomfortable enough - - no inner demons clawing their way through his skin to take credit for the sins.

Contrast the Ensign incident with Governor Mark Sanford, Republican of South Carolina.  Unscripted, impromptu, at times rambling, as he worked his way up to the events for which he spent the first few minutes apologizing.  Not the least bit slick, hair mussed a bit, took questions, visibly pained as he spoke from the heart.  This was a man quite obviously in pain, and we could feel his sorrow and his hurt.

I had that serious uncomfortableness in the extreme watching that torturous moment in his life, a broken man torn apart by love, anguish and defeat at the hands of life.  He seemed to be speaking from his soul, trying to express what it takes a true poet to craft the right words for, and appearing for all purposes a broken man.

The words he did find were enough for me to discern the serious differences between these two men, even though each finds himself in pretty much the same little pickle.  Politically, they are seriously damaged men, unlikely to recover in any serious way.  But Sanford’s was the spectacle I could not watch.  It was just too painful, and I did not look back or crane my neck.

I’ve been thinking about it ever since, trying to find these few words to offer for someone else’s consideration.  Whether we’re looking at those wrecks with the “but for the grace of God . . . ” moment, or out of a morbid curiosity about someone else’s woes, well, who knows?  What I do know is we shouldn’t look without a spirit of compassion and a true desire to help.

In the curious case of Mark Sanford, I could not watch.  I don’t want to know anything else about him, or about his family, or to hear anything further about his sins.  None of us should.  Some political commentators last night and today seemed to display a measure of glee at his travails and tragedy, and that offended me more than Ensign’s slickness and dispassionate disclosure.  Shame on them.

We need to stop watching these people in public office coming clean about their humanity.  We need to let the John Edwards’s and John Ensigns and Mark Sanfords go off quietly to deal with the car wrecks that are their lives post confession.  Penance is something each of us should deal with privately, and it surely seemed Sanford’s will be painful.

The media should cover the events, certainly, for these are publicly elected officials with substantial public responsibility. But, otherwise, please just drive by the accident the one time.  After that, we need to stop watching.

Although I doubt the coliseum in Rome ever went empty, I know I won’t be watching anymore.