Does Sotomayor nomination undermine the basis for a republican system?

George Joyce has a great thought piece over at The American Thinker today, entitled Sonia Sotomayor's Troubled Eyes. In it, Joyce argues that:

What America needs right now is courage and mutual respect -- not empathy and sensitivity. Anyone with an ounce of dignity should be appalled by the patronizing behavior on display since the Senate confirmation hearings began. Showing empathy to a woman with a frightening history of color consciousness on the bench and in many of her personal statements may score political points with voters in some swing states, but this dubious strategy comes with a profound price tag: the degradation of American civic life.

Hannity used to have (perhaps he still does) a regular feature on his radio show called "Man On The Street Thursday." In it, he picked random folks of the street in New York and asked them some basic current events questions such as "who is the Vice President?" or "Who is the Speaker of the House?" He also question people on current pop culture items like who is currently winning on American Idol. Few were able to answer his civics questions, the unspoken subtext of which was "since the know so little about what is going on, how can you respect their opinions or their votes?"

There's the rub. Using democracy as a tool to inform and legitimize a republican form of government depends on everyone respecting others opinions, based on a belief that everyone has some basic level of knowledge. But:

In fact, what the conservative pundits fail to recognize is that progressive intellectuals like Obama and Sotomayor have helped to convince much of America to replace mutual respect with partisan solidarity. In other words, Obama's damaging policies are merely the symptoms of a much deeper revolutionary vision that seeks to undermine the very basis of democratic society: mutual trust and respect among individuals.

Joyce points out that by showing "compassion" and "empathy" for one side, instead of using "impersonal standards impartially applied" Sotomayor shows contempt for both the "victim" and the "oppressor," but not surprisingly, herself as well. Had the Ricci case been allowed to stand, then everyone would always be wondering if the black fire lieutenant who showed up to fight the fire was truly competent, or was he an affirmative action token who couldn't fight a fire in a waste basket? His men would question his orders, and some might take it upon themselves to do something else, possibly further endangering their own lives, or the lives of others. On the other hand, if the test is seen as an impersonal standard, and is applied impartially, these sorts of questions never come up.

Joyce again:

We make demands on each other by subjecting ourselves to "impersonal standards impartially applied." Out of this comes the mutual respect and trust that
forms the basis of good societies.

Indeed.