Obama’s Idea of Justice
When you think about it, Sonia Sotomayor is the perfect pick for the Supreme Court—in Barack Obama's America.
Like Obama, himself a beneficiary of affirmative action, she thinks "Latina women," because of their life experience, make better judicial decisions than white men, that discrimination against white men to advance people of color is what America is all about, that appellate courts are "where policy is made" in the United States.
To those who believe the depiction of our first Hispanic justice as an anti-white liberal judicial activist, hearken to her own words.
Speaking at Berkeley in 2001, Sonia told her audience, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn't lived that life."
Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.
Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.
Indeed, she sees this as her mission. Speaking at Duke in 2005, Sotomayor declared: "(The) court of appeals is where policy is made. I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law I know." She and the audience joined in the laughter.
Who were they laughing at? Americans who still believe the role of judges is to apply the Constitution as the Framers intended and to interpret the law as written by our elected legislators.
In Barack Obama's America, that is so yesterday.
Sotomayor's support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.
Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam. He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.
A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.
Can't have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests—to produce greater diversity. In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.
Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.
What did Sotomayor's three-judge panel do with Ricci's appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.
Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging "in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both."
Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes—a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster—Sotomayor's misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.
The process by which Sotomayor was selected testifies to what we can expect in Obama's America. Not a single male was in the final four. And she was picked over the three other women because she was a person of color, a "two-fer." Affirmative action start to finish.
Reading 30 of her opinions, GW law professor Jonathan Turley found them "notable" for "lack of depth."
Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.
The lady is a lightweight.
What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?
Abjure the vicious tactics Democrats used on Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Lay out the lady's record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in.
COPYRIGHT 2009 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Entries(RSS)
at the end of the say the 60 votes will be more than enough to reach cloture and carry.
lets face it, since osamabama is closing republican-voting (read: not for osamabama) car dealerships, the next and final chance to do something peaceful about him and his nutjob congress is in november 2010.
Pat Buchanan misses the real problem here. There is an American voting majority, many of whom are white, which is anti-white male. Sonia Sotomayor and Barack Obama are only two of the most noticeable manifestations of this anti-white male voting coalition. The late great San Francis could have told him that.
" Lay out the lady’s record. And let America get a close look at the kind of justice Barack Obama believes in."
When is the last time that any intelligent or able minded critic could simply "lay out the record" and or the facts and let America see .... anything ?? As a former CIA director said to the Republican President about non existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, " This is a slam dump, Mr President." and Pat might as well own up to the fact that she will get a fair hearing by an elected jury of her peers.(and a non elected endorsement from our national media) One bright spot for truth in government with this particular nominee is that old time republicans like Arlen Specter can finally vote for someone they honestly believe will make a fine Supreme Court Justice for America.
Hispanic? My eye! She's half-jewish. That amen corner is already over-represented with the presence of tha ghastly Ginsburg woman.
"What should Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee do?"
Who can say what they should do. What the majority of them will do is vote to approve her nomination, just as 25 of them did for Ruthie Ginsburg.
It would help your case for the GOP if there was a conservative or two among 'em, Mr. Buchanan.
Oh, and by the way, GHW Bush gave Ms.Sotomayor her first federal appointment. Didn't think to mention that, did you?
She's another pro-abort "Catholic" on the court, like "Justice" Kennedy and "Justice" Brennan, who should be excommunicated after she rules against babies, but won't be by our cowardly bishops.
At least her "opinions" should prove amusing reading, like those of the arrogantly vapid "Justice" Blackumn.
What if Sotomayor is defeated and we end up with someone who is just as bad but is even more dangerous because actually intelligent?
At the encouragement of a liberal friend, I once spent an afternoon at the George Mason University law library in order to read the decisions scribbled by the late William Rehnquist. Although deemed conservative by friend and foe alike, his decisions always favored the "right" of the state over the individual. If conservatives are happy with a statist, then I doubt the GOP senators will put much effort into Sotomayor's defeat. Apparently they were clueless enough to put in a real enemy -- Ginsburg -- with only Jesse Helms objecting.
The long march to socialism is afoot and the best weapon conservatives have against it is the Comedy Central cartoon, South Park. Your children are watching it.
I'm disappointed that so many of the comments here blame Pat Buchanan more than they do the anti-white-male injustice that he points out. The looming disaster of have a court made up of people with a bias like Sotomayor's is practically ignored.
In-fighting among conservatives is a serious problem.
We need to be issue-oriented, not vindictive toward people in our ranks who have at some time disagreed with us.
Polemicscat #9
If I said anything offensive about Pat Buchanan I would prefer my post be taken down than to try and defend it. There is something humble about loyalty and Pat has been loyal to his Church, His country, his family, friends and in my estimation his party. He is undoubtedly one of the best politcal analyst living. He stood up when everyone else was headed to the tall grass even when his party deserted him, scorned him and helped assasinate his character publicly. Unless the GOP presents him a medal for valor, I will admire him until hell freezes over and "fight on the ice" against the party he served. I am a younger man than Pat and maybe the GOP is the only alternative for the short run, but I hope not and will never ever support it again. The fight between oligarchs leading the Republicans and the Mob leading the Democrats simply does not interest me any longer.
Sotomayor got her first appointment from Bush. That says it all.
Dr. Wilson @7:
For all the intelligence many Marxist legal thinkers possess, they lack wisdom. Servants of the Constitution, (and I'm sure there are a few out there SOMEWHERE in the courts) by the very definition of that phrase, are intelligent and wise as their intellectual ancestors Jefferson, Henry, Taylor, and Calhoun were also.
The Sotomayor issue is just another chapter in the demise of this nation.
J Meng,
I think it is more akin to a footnote than a chapter -- and even at that it is more of a pedantic footnote of the kind the German's like which demonstrates the author's learning, rather than assisting the reader. In the long run,she may turn out better than the republican appointee she is replacing. You know the one who said a city had a "constitutional right" to take an individual citizen's property and give it to real estate developers?
@14: Robert, well, a chapter can be very short, sometimes, just a paragraph; however, I can accept your metaphor of a footnote. Nevertheless, the point is the same, her nomination is another example of the suicide of the West, particularly, our nation's suicide, with its demand for cultural diversity and equality (affirmative action) at the expense of cultural unity, truth and competence. As has been explained, she is an ostensible racist (the Frank Ricci case and her membership in La Raza, being two examples); her legal opinions lack depth; she is pro abortion; she is a positivist, philosophically speaking ("[The] court of appeals is where policy is made"); and she is intellecually inadequate. This spells the continuation of the demise of our nation. But, Robert, how may she turn out "better than the republican appointee she is replacing"?
Correction to my #15: regarding Sotomayer's abortion stance, I am wrong, at this time, to say she is pro abortion, since part of her curriculum vitae shows her to have made a couple of opinions that went indirectly against the interests of abortionists. However, she is an Obama nominee. Sorry for the accusation.
J Meng,
"she is an ostensible racist (the Frank Ricci case and her membership in La Raza, being two examples); her legal opinions lack depth; she is pro abortion; she is a positivist, philosophically speaking; and she is intellecually inadequate."
Mr. Meng,
This would qualify her to teach only at the most prestigious law schools in the country and perhaps as a guest lecturer in their undergraduate philosophy departments as well. As you say, it is just another chapter.
@17: you are most fair, Robert. Best wishes to you on this great Feast of Pentecost!
And to you too Mr. Meng. We should all ask for more of the following gifts from the Holy Ghost in these troubled times. St. Thomas explains:
Wisdom- With the gift of wisdom, we see God at work in our lives and in the world. For the wise person, the wonders of nature, historical events, and the ups and downs of our lives take on deeper meaning. The matters of judgment about the truth, and being able to see the whole image of God.
Understanding - With the gift of understanding, we comprehend how we need to live as a follower of Jesus Christ. A person with understanding is not confused by all the conflicting messages in our culture about the right way to live. Also called "Common Sense," the gift of understanding perfects a person's speculative reason in the apprehension of truth. It is the gift whereby self-evident principles are known.
Counsel (Right Judgment) - With the gift of right judgment, we know the difference between right and wrong, and we choose to do what is right. A person with right judgment avoids sin and lives out the values taught by Jesus. The gift of truth that allows the person to respond prudently, and happily to believe our Christ the Lord
Fortitude (Courage) - With the gift of courage, we overcome our fear and are willing to take risk as a follower of Jesus. A person with courage is willing to stand up for what is right in the sight of God, even if it means accepting rejection, verbal abuse, or even physical harm and death. The gift of Courage allows people the firmness of mind that is required both in doing good and in enduring evil, especially with regard to goods or evils that are difficult.
Knowledge - With the gift of knowledge, we understand the meaning of God's Revelation, especially as expressed in the life and words of Jesus Christ. A person with knowledge is always learning more about the scriptures and Tradition. The gift of knowledge is more than an accumulation of facts.
Piety (Reverence) - With the gift of reverence, sometimes called piety, we have a deep sense of respect for God and the Church. A person with reverence recognizes our total reliance on God and comes before God with humility, trust, and love. Piety is the gift whereby, at the Holy Spirit's instigation, we pay worship and duty to God as our Father, Aquinas writes.
Fear of the Lord (Awe of God) - With the gift of wonder and awe (fear of the lord), we are aware of the glory and majesty of God. A person with wonder and awe knows that God is the perfection of all we desire: perfect knowledge, perfect goodness, perfect power, and perfect love. This gift is described by Aquinas as a fear of separating oneself from God. He describes the gift as a "filial fear," like a child's fear of offending his father, rather than a "servile fear," that is, a fear of punishment. Also known as knowing God is all powerful.
@19: Robert, such a timeless explanation of the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost by St. Thomas Aquinas. Thank you much for reminding us. These are gifts I know I should be studying, meditating, and practicing upon. I suppose if each of us had the equipoise of these gifts we would all be living in a near perfect society. We can only hope and pray.
"I’m disappointed that so many of the comments here blame Pat Buchanan more than they do the anti-white-male injustice that he points out."
How many? I've only seen Pat Buchanan blamed for being blindly partisan and devoted to the GOP, which isn't by any stretch of the imagination a conservative party.
I hope I've never given the impression that I blame Mr. Buchanan for any of the harm done by his party. If I have, let me state that I don't mean to do any such thing.