No, I’m not referring to lyrics of one of the greatest Hymns of all time, I’m referring to Lady Justice. Justice is supposed to be blind for a reason. Justice should not be allowed to “see” anything other than the law. You present the facts, interpret the law in view of those facts, and you make your judgment. Never should personal opinion come in to play and never should you determine your judgment based on what the effects of the outcome could be. There is no room for empathy, no room for opinion, no room for judicial activism. Personally, I prefer judicial restraint. When a debate of policy rears its head, step out of the way and let the democratic process do its job. The supreme court is not a place where policy is made. I do not believe the Constitution to be a living document. I firmly believe the Constitution is to be interpreted as written. Exegetically for you Bible scholars out there. The direction Obama is leading this country is in polar opposition to this and is evident with his recent decision in nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals to the Supreme Court, a position left vacant by the retiring of Justice David Souter. In Obama’s America, justice has liberal vision.
Sonia Sotomayor is touted by the media to be a “moderate liberal” with a “certain bipartisan aura” and, regarding the nomination, “President Obama has picked someone who more or less reflects his own political views.” This is bad news for any red-blooded American. I’ll explain why, but first, a quote to start it off. In discussing the belief that there will be no problems with her confirmation, Jeffrey Toobin said, “Certainly based on what’s known about Judge Sotomayor currently, I can’t imagine any problems with confirmation. She has been a very distinguished judge for now pushing 20 years. Certainly there may be decisions that people disagree with, but there have been no ethical controversies involving her, no scandals.” Really? Let’s put that statement to the test.
Sonia Sotomayor is a member of La Raza (the race), which has connections to groups with very radical agendas such as the radical racist group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). Read here for a comprehensive article on La Raza and MEChA. The motto of MECha states “Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.” (For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing). Disturbing to say the least. This does not imply that Sonia Sotomayor sides with their racist philosophy, merely that La Raza has connections, whether inadvertently or not, to MEChA, and said connection needs to be addressed. Personally, I’d like to know where she stands regarding this.
There have also been statements from Sonia herself that shed light on her character and how her race impacts her decisions. Here are a few quotes from a 2002 speech she made at Berkeley Law.
- I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.
- Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.
- America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud.
- … there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.
- Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law.
- While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.
- I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.
- As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.
- our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.
- I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
- I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
These eleven quotes are undeniable evidence that Sonia Sotomayor’s character needs to be deeply evaluated, and her confirmation not hastily accepted. It’s clear that her decisions as supreme court justice will be influenced by her race and sex. She’s said so herself. She will show empathy for women and people of color. She’s said so herself. She will show judicial activism. She’s said so herself.
Just today the media and Obama are already addressing the statement she made that ” a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male” and claiming, with no confirmation from Sotomayor herself, that if she could she would change what she said. Newsflash liberals, if there was nothing wrong with what she said when she said it, why are you making apologies now? ” I’m sure she would have restated it,” said Obama without telling anyone how he’s so sure. Why would she restate it? She believes it, she said it, she meant it. Obama also said, “If you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through, that will make her a good judge.” I have read the entire sweep of the essay, and it’s clear the she was simply saying that her life experiences will influence her decisions as a judge, which they have. Nice try Obama, but we all know she’s cut from the same liberal mold you are.
One clear example of her showing racial preference was in the well known case, Ricci v. DeStefano. To make a long story short, firefighters applied for an open promotion and to do so they needed to take an exam. The top three highest scores would be picked, none of the three highest were black, so the results were thrown out and the promotions denied due to the exam being “unfair.” What does this have to do with Sonia Sotomayor? Not only did she side with the city’s blatant racially discriminating decision, but her and the other two judges on the panel disposed of the case in a very nonchalant way. They offered just a one-paragraph, unpublished, summary order with no mention of what one jurist called the “questions of exceptional importance” raised. It was only after chastisement from Jose A. Cabranes (another 2nd circuit judge) that they decided to take up the Ricci case.
Now, judges are supposed interpret law as written, not create policy, that’s for the legislative branch and not the judiciary. But, according to Sonia Sotomayor, the courts are where policy is made. This is not the view we want in a person seated in the highest court in the land.
Just recently Ann Coulter made a very good point in noting that the media wasn’t anywhere near as excited about a minority’s ” impressive academic and diverse background” when Clarence Thomas or Miguel Estrada where in the picture. Liberals do not care about minorities, they care about liberals. They do not care about unity, they care about diversity, and diversity is nothing more than segregated empowerment. Unity is about “us”, there is no “them.” In Obama’s America diversity is celebrated, discrimination is one sided and underplayed, and Justice is no longer just.