Political parties often speak of the need for having a "big tent" as a metaphor for outreach to people of varied philosophies and beliefs. As a registered Republican, Joseph Trainor's letter of July 8 makes me wish the tent were just a mite smaller. I don't know Mr. Trainor, but the words he put on the page spoke to me of someone coming to the right conclusions for all the wrong reasons.

The Supreme Court got it right in their decision on Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven firefighters case. The case eventually reached the Court because New Haven faced a ridiculous choice based purely on trying to meet federal legal requirements on employment equity. They tied themselves in knots trying not to harm one group or another; their legal advisors told them that they were required to discriminate!

Rather than getting wrapped up in the rhetoric of victimization of whites, I wish Trainor had focused on the notion that, in designing the test used to determine promotions for firefighters, New Haven engaged a professional examinations firm to ensure that the questions were wholly job-relevant and race- and gender-neutral. The process was true to the original meaning of affirmative action - to take positive action prior to hiring which ensures that the candidate pool fairly contains any and all persons who may be qualified and has a hiring process conducted without bias. As one kind of Republican, I think that definition of affirmative action upholds what is best in our country.

Returning to Ricci, the Court correctly found that New Haven erred when, having administered a fair test and getting a predominantly white group of men earning the top scores on the test, they threw out the results and gave promotions based on race. The lead plaintiff, Frank Ricci, is a fellow with dyslexia who quit a second job in order to study his proverbial buns off to ace the exam, which he then did. To be told, after the fact, that he and others would be denied a promotion purely because he is white was abhorrent.

The situation gets surreal when you realize that one of the plaintiffs, the Hispanic Lt. Ben Vargas, was also denied promotion because not enough black candidates earned high enough scores. New Haven believed their hands were so tied by federal anti-discrimination laws that they felt they had to discriminate against one minority member in order to promote a member of another minority! We really have to be more thoughtful about who we send to Washington. I again part ways with Mr. Trainor when he invites Sonia Sotomayor to leave the country. I would certainly prefer that she leave the judicial bench, but I can't see how the graceless wish to send an American-born citizen "back to Puerto Rico" does anything but provoke a well-justified backlash.

Judge Sotomayor is proud of her long, extensively documented history of thoughtful leadership on and off the bench. It is clear she deeply believes that it is appropriate for judges to create the outcomes they feel to be most just, irrespective of the underlying law. President Obama nominated her for exactly that reason.

These created outcome rulings become a part of our corpus of law. Republicans generally believe that the creation of law should be exclusively the province of elected officials, not the unelected and unanswerable judiciary. If we, as a people don't like the outcomes we're getting under the law, it is our job to elect representatives who will take the appropriate legislative action.

I quite like the metaphor of Lady Justice. Recall that she holds the scales of justice in one hand and a sword in the other. Recall, too, that she is wearing a blindfold to symbolize justice without regard to the race, gender or status of the persons before the court. Judge Sotomayor, in effect, proudly proclaims that she will not wear that blindfold. I fear going before a court where I cannot trust that my strict observance of the law will be sufficient. While I believe Sotomayor's intentions are good, her confirmation would, nonetheless, be a huge step down the wrong road.

We get to influence these outcomes. We get to vote every two years. At the moment, primarily out of frustration about wars and the economy, the country has put the legislative and executive branches in the hands of Democrats. They're doing exactly what they promised.

For my part, I hope the Republican party can field some candidates with thoughtfully nuanced, conservative beliefs, rock-ribbed integrity and genuine humility. They might look very appealing when we see the results of the hubris now on display in Washington.

CHRISTOPHER CHALOUX lives in Attleboro.