Not even Solomon, Cicero, and Daniel Webster all rolled into one could hope to equal the towering edifice, the virtual Mount Everest of discretion, discernment, judicial restraint and acumen, the champion of the law, the sister of stare decisis, the faithful servant of the Constitution that is Sonia Sotomayor.

At least as she describes herself in front of the Judiciary committee. My, my, we couldn’t even get Roberts and Alito to speak so approvingly of the text of the Constitution.

This thing, this odd juxtaposition happens for obvious reasons, of course. An actual originalist judge nominated by a Republican president must appear as moderate as possible — i.e., NOT faithful to the Constitution — in order to get past leftist Democrats who know they are misrepresenting themselves. They generally do it by rope-a-dope, dodging questions and delivering carefully worded answers that present as small a target area as possible.

An actual left-wing activist judge nominated by a Democrat president, on the other hand, will hug and kiss the Constitution like it was Suzy Kolber, loudly proclaiming that it is their life’s mission to protect the letter and meaning, executing justice without regard to race or creed. Guns? Got 7 myself! Creating laws out of whole cloth? Bad! Bad! Not me, brother!

You see, they don’t tap-dance to avoid admitting their activist ways. They just lie. They deny what they know is true. They tell big, fat, honking lies. All in order to secure the grudging indulgence of Republicans who know the nominee is lying like Joe Biden. It’s a curious sport, but there it is.

Sonia Sotomayor’s lies are particularly amusing because she has a lengthy and public history of indiscreetly and happily blathering about her activist viewpoints to anybody that would listen. And they are most particularly shameful because her self-portrait could only be that grand if she actually knew what her actual duty to the Constitution was. She clearly knows.

All the more damning.

Sotomayor has virtually no fear of having her nomination defeated. Honestly, she could kiss Pat Leahy on the lips and grab John Cornyn’s rear while singing “Look for the Union Label” and not fail to get voted out of the Judiciary Committee. So why would she choose to describe herself in a way that must be repugnant to her? Why would she say things she clearly, obviously does not mean?

It is pride.

This is a woman who, like so many leftists, knows that what she does is wrong, but doesn’t want to be called on it. She won’t admit that she judges racial issues with her sentiment and not the law, because doing so exposes her fraud. She won’t admit that she considers her position a free ticket to write government policy, because she does not want to be told that it’s wrong. Judicial activism is indefensible, and she knows it.

It is the lie that reveals that she knows what the truth is.