Tuesday, Mark spoke with Ed Whelan about Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.
Republicans in Congress had better not buckle on this “empathy” issue. That is crucial!
Here are some articles Ed Whelan has written about Sotomayor:
Sonia Sotomayor’s Selective Empathy
Hannity looks nicer in person
.jpg)
Obama handled the nomination skillfully.
On a day when He should have been addressing the North Korean nuclear testing and missile programs, he chose to change the subject and roll out his SCOTUS nominee.
He further cloaked his nominee’s affinity for judicial activism in a compelling personal story. The lapdogs at CNN and NBC gobbled up the personal story portion and left out most reference to the nominee’s history of using her “personal experience” to justify overruling and overturning prior legal precedent and legislative intent. Man… Obama is good; wrong, but good.
The rest of the DC press corps and political classes fell all over themselves making some very silly arguments and statements in favor of the nominee. (you can see a top ten list of these at:
http://firstconservative.com/blog/political-humor/political-humor-the-sotomayor-season-of-silly-statements )
The GOP needs to oppose this nomination at every turn. Conservatives may lose, but we need to attempt to influence future nominations.
Interesting that as a Latino, female nominee from the Bronx she considers her decisions likely be better than white males. Is she better than white females as well? Tell that to Alito and Roberts. Imagine if Thomas used a similar argument? Democrats would not have had to trump up a fallacious case, using Anita Hill, because his confirmation application would have committed suicide. By her own statement she considers herself a minority in terms of race and when you translate that remark it means that she feels that Constitutional decisions, by white males, treats minorities differentially; possibly (probably) the Constitution needs to be changed, not by the amendment process, but by decisions that she contributes to. The corollary of that concept would suggest that her decisions would treat white males differently. So now we have a judge whose decisions treats minorities differently than majorities and such decisions are further prejudiced with the addition of color and gender, whenever they are also involved.
Conservatives look at a Constitution that is blind to race, color, gender, origin, stature and status and this activist judge suggests that she has better vision afforded by minority origins and may use such a background, not for the benefit of all Americans, or even the majority but preferentially for minorities.
Either you stand for the rule of law or you don’t and if you don’t, independent from your intentions, the residue that is left has the same effect and clout as executive or legislative tyranny, which is indistinguishable from the tyranny afforded by despots, autocrats, monarchs and oligarchs.
From my perspective her own remarks disqualifies her, even from jury duty.
If justice is blind, why does it matter what race/sex this nominee is? Everything is race based and sex based with these libs. When it comes right down to it, every Senator that questions her is going to be considered a racist because of it.
I wonder if she has any open tax liabilities.
Are we to favorably emphasize background, gender and race/nationality, at the expense of everything that is really germane, so as to risk institutionalizing bigotry and racism in the highest court most designed to extinguish it? Unfortunately, in a strange and ironic way, Judge Sotomayor, because of an education often designed to focus on the very issues that the legal process is meant to turn a blind eye towards, is herself a casualty of a system whose criteria failed to create the correct applicant. Perhaps it achieved its intended purpose but in a country founded upon unalienable rights, and where precedent becomes the law of the land, even a hint of impropriety is more than sufficient to eliminate any candidate who expressed a judicial philosophy incompatible with American jurisprudence, the Constitution upon which it is founded and the oath required to uphold it.
As a victim of an educational system that prioritizes affirmative action, diversity, set asides and quotas, especially in a country where surnames, DNA and historical experiences, intermarrying along with wealth and achievement similarities by everyonee have been so throughly homogenized, as to make differences often unidentifiable, let alone appropriate criteria to base justice upon, it is unconscionable that any supreme decision, based upon such unconstitutional criteria, identified or otherwise, be deliberately allowed to become the imbedded law of the land and ultimately make victims of all of us for generations to come.