So…Judge and Supreme Court Sonia Sotomayor has a “compelling life story.” I know this because I have been told this ad nauseum by the groveling mainstream media as they fawn over President Obama’s new pick to replace retiring Justice David Souter. As usual, the parrots who pose as “journalists” have received their talking points from the Democrat Party and are dutifully reciting their assigned talking points.
So then if having a “compelling life story” is reason enough to sit on the Supreme Court, then Justice Clarence Thomas should be beatified by these same chattering parrots. Far from praising him though, these same parrots who so loudly adore Sonia Sotomayor’s “compelling story, made every effort to destroy Clarence Thomas. What was Justice Thomas’ sin? He is a Conservative jurist who believes in making judgments based on the original meaning of the Constitution rather than placing his personal imprimatur on the law. Rather than serving as one of the Left wing’s “kept boys,” Clarence Thomas, who also graduated from Yale School of Law chose to serve his conscience and obligation as a jurist, blind to the individual appearing in the court.
For this crime, the crime of not being a Liberal, Thomas was the victim of one of the most vicious witch hunts and lynchings in the history of Congressional hearings. Rather than coming to his defense, the mainstream media chose to join in this witch hunt. Rather than endlessly repeating what a compelling life story Thomas had, they indulged in a hateful campaign which invoked every classic stereo-type of a black man which they had historically decried.
Beyond the point of Liberal hypocrisy-which is so common as to be almost not worth mentioning, what becomes apparent is that a “compelling life story” is not sufficient grounds for Republicans and Conservatives to acquiesce to Judge Sotomayor’s appointment.
The difficulty for Republicans and Conservatives who oppose Judge Sotomayor for very legitimate reasons is that Liberals and Democrats in general control the media. Any criticism of Sotomayor instantly becomes an anti-Latino attack in the press. When Alberto Gonzales was mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee by the Bush Administration, he received none of the support which has been thrown to Sonia Sotomayor. Attacks on him were considered fair game by these same Liberal parrots.
Calling Sonia Sotomayor a racist, based on her very racist comment:
“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."
is enough to make you the target of attack by the Leftist press and the Democrat attack machine for whom they speak. The fact remains that the above comment is as racist as any comment made by any white man in the height of the civil rights campaigns of the 1950’s. If you fail to perceive the racism in this statement, simply reverse it:
I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latina woman.
Any white male jurist who made that statement would be drawn and quartered by the national press rather than lauded by them. He would face public ridicule and be forced to withdraw his name from consideration in abject humiliation.
So here we see the Liberal double standard. A liberal can say pretty much anything he or she wishes and get away with it; possibly even be praised for it, as long as the target isn’t one of the Left’s protected special interest groups.
Still, my concern isn’t that Judge Sotomayor is a racist, since all Liberals are racists at heart I would have assumed that, my concern is that she would use that “richness of experience” to color her decisions. As I stated in my previous commentary “Obama Picks Sotomayor For Supreme Court: Worst Possible Choice” the primary obligation of a Supreme Court Justice-as it is for a Circuit Court Judge-is to be an impartial jurist. Lady Justice is blind, not sympathetic, not empathetic, but an objective evaluator of law.
Even the oath of office for a Supreme Court Justice as laid out by Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code states that principle in unambiguous terms:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."[Emphasis added]
“…without respect to persons…” dictates that the judge is charged to do precisely the opposite of what Judge Sotomayor has said she would do and precisely the opposite of what President Obama said he was looking for in a Supreme Court nominee.
In his speech before Planned Parenthood in July of 2007, Barack Obama made the following statement:
“…we need somebody who's got the heart — the empathy — to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old -- and that's the criteria by which I'll be selecting my judges.”
In what way does that description comport with the Oath of Office requirement that justice be administered without regard to person and impartially?
It becomes readily apparent that all of those Supreme Court Justices who use their own personal agenda, empathy and feelings to render their judgment do so not only to the detriment of all Americans and our system of government, but they also violate their oaths of office.
It is highly probable given the current make up of the Senate and the general cowardice of the Republican minority, who seem more concerned with not alienating Hispanic voters than with adhering to their principles and the Constitution, Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed as the next Supreme Court Justice regardless of her lack of qualifications.
There are many who argue that he presence on the court will carry little impact as she is a Liberal replacing a Liberal, but her approval in spite of her admitted belief in creating law by judicial fiat and her arrogant and cynical rejection of the principles of “originalism” sets up a bad paradigm for a Supreme Court Justice. Apparently a good justice in the eyes of the Left is someone who creates law based on their own wishes and has little to do with interpreting the Constitution. Perhaps those justices on the Right who adhere so slavishly to the letter of the law as laid out by our Constitution should take that to heart and begin creating Conservative law based on their personal beliefs.
I can only imagine the reaction from the press and from the Democrats in Congress if Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy suddenly began creating law. Liberals heads would be exploding all across America. Unfortunately (well actually fortunately) this will never happen because men like Scalia and Thomas are true adherents to the law of our nation.
If only our Liberal brethren were as dedicated to the rule of law.
Long Live Our American Republic!!!!