Sotomayor for the Supreme Court

I’ve been holding off a bit with regards to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. As noted in a previous entry I favored Ken Salazar for the position. Nevertheless, I feel that a few things need to be addressed with her selection.

Certainly everything that noted barrister David Kopel in his short assessment, found HERE should be looked over closely. As should the many concerns and comments there as well as over at my good friend TexasFreds.

In various places around the Internet I saw references to “reverse racism.” That, in and of itself is “bass ackwards” to quote an old Marine that I knew when I was growing up. Racism is racism. End of discussion. Same thing with sexism. Ms Sotomayor appears, at least from her history as reported too widely to cite, to have more than a bit of racist and sexist in her. I’d hoped that we as a nation had grown beyond all that sort of thing. Yet, in the last election cycle we were inundated with being told that it was not about race at all, but “change.” Then no sooner than the ballots were counted all that could be heard was how the United States had elected it’s first “Black President.” So much for a nation outgrowing it’s past like an adolescent outgrowing poor social skills. Not to mention that the man is half white, and half Arab… I suppose some things never do really change.

Also, having read the quotations from the Kopel piece I have to seriously wonder about the woman’s grasp of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Yes, I read her bio, and what came immediately into my mind were the words of a Professor Emeritus said to me many years ago. I shall repeat them here; “Never, young man, confuse education with intelligence.”

I shall leave me readers with that tiny bit of wisdom that I was blessed to be able to learn in years gone by.

Tags: , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Sotomayor for the Supreme Court”

  1. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Related from NRA/ILA

    Troubling is Sotomayor’s record on the Second Amendment. This past January, the Second Circuit issued its opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo, which Sotomayor joined, ruling that the Second Amendment does not apply against state and local governments.

    Read About It: Reason

    Pamela delivers a comprehensive vetting Here

  2. Neo Khan Says:

    Let’s see…

    Sotomayor decisions were 60% overturned at higher courts

    Sotomayor is flat out WRONG on the 2nd amendment of the Constitution

    Sotomayor was dead WRONG in using skin-color to decide employment cases

    Sotomayor undoubtedly legislates from the bench in the worst possible way.

    You’d have to be willfully ignorant hack to overlook her repulsive judicial traits.

    By the way… neither John Roberts nor Samuel Alito participated in such brazen dereliction of duty while they served on lower courts.

    Face facts:
    Sotomayor is just another liberal hack and EXACTLY the sort of judicial activist recruit that we knew we could expect from Mr. “rookie-mistake” Obama.

    I wonder if she is a TAX-CHEAT like the vast majority of Obama’s other “top picks”?

    Phffttt!!! The country is spiraling the drain and the far-left liberals kooks are far too entrenched in their socialist agenda to even look up and take notice.

  3. Patrick Sperry Says:

    Now Neo, stop holding back! I don’t edit here!

  4. Patrick Sperry Says:


    Thomas Sowell

    Justice David Souter’s retirement from the Supreme Court presents President Barack Obama with his first opportunity to appoint someone to the High Court. People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point.
    That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.
    That President Obama has made “empathy” with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process.

    Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.
    Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans.
    We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.
    Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.
    Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.
    He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people.”
    When you buy words, you had better know what you are buying.
    In the American system of government, presidential term limits restrict how long any given resident of the White House can damage this country directly. But that does not limit how long, or how much, the people he appoints to the Supreme Court can continue to damage this country, for decades after the president who appointed them is long gone.
    Justice John Paul Stevens virtually destroyed the Constitution’s restrictions on government officials’ ability to confiscate private property in his 2005 decision in the case of “Kelo v. New London”- 30 years after President Ford appointed him.
    The biggest danger in appointing the wrong people to the Supreme Court is not just in how they might vote on some particular issues- whether private property, abortion or whatever. The biggest danger is that they will undermine or destroy the very concept of the rule of law- what has been called “a government of laws and not of men.”
    Under the American system of government, this cannot be done overnight or perhaps even during the terms in office of one president- but it can be done. And it can be done over time by the appointees of just one president, if he gets enough appointees.
    Some people say that who Barack Obama appoints to replace Justice Souter doesn’t really matter, because Souter is a liberal who will probably be replaced by another liberal. But, if no one sounds the alarm now, we can end up with a series of appointees with “empathy”- which is to say, with justices who think their job is to “relieve the distress” of particular groups, rather than to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

  5. tonydowning Says:

    Judicial activism and ‘social justice’ are the ruses they use to hide their self-seeking agenda. The mistaken interpretation of the Constitution they employ is being used to legislate the Constitution out of existence.

  6. Patrick Sperry Says:

    “Judicial Activism” is code for treason to ones oath Tony…

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: