Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Borking Sotomayor?

In just a little over a day we're starting to see the perils in Barack Obama's selection of Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Sotomayor practices an extremely race-conscious jurisprudence. And there's
some debate today over allegations that she's in fact racist. Newt Gingrich has even called on the nominee to withdraw her name from consideration.

George Will pins down a key issue here, with respect to the politics of judicial confirmation. Prior to the 1980s - and especially before Ronald Reagan's appointment of Robert Bork to the High Court - nominees were rarely grilled over questions of ideology and judicial philosophy. The major criteria had been competence and ethics. And as Bork was an unimpeachable nominee in that respect, the Democratic-left launched the most ideologically unprincipled attack on a Supreme Court appointment in history. Here's Will's key line:

The 1987 fight over President Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork interred the tradition that the Senate, in evaluating judicial nominees, would not delve deeply into the nominee's jurisprudential thinking. Bork's defeat was unjust, but the new approach to confirmations was overdue, given the court's increasingly central role in American governance.
Yes, the attack on Bork was "unjust," but that's the way it goes now, thanks to the smear-merchants of the Democratic Party. As Will indicates, Sotomayor is a hardline affirmative action activist (the 2nd Circuit's New Haven reverse discrimination case is currently on the docket at the John Roberts Supreme Court). As one of the New Haven judges, Sotomayer has shown a willingness to set aside merit-based criteria for bureaucratic hiring and promotion. She's frankly a quota queen in the classic sense of the term.

But it's not just her record on the appellate bench that's devastating. Her own statements are a virtual treasure trove for Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee. The best piece I've seen on this is Alexander Bolton's, "
Critics focus on Sotomayor speech in La Raza journal." This passage is key:

Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001 at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal published the lecture the following year.

Conservative critics have latched onto the speech as evidence that Sotomayor is an “activist judge,” who will rule on the basis of her personal beliefs instead of facts and law ....

In her 2001 speech, after citing legal thinkers who called on jurists to transcend personal biases, Sotomayor questioned whether judges could in fact escape such prejudices.

“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,” Sotomayor said.

“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.”

Some Republican critics say these statements raise concerns about whether Sotomayor, who was raised under modest circumstances in the Bronx, would serve as a neutral arbiter in a case pitting a wealthy white male against a less wealthy man or woman of color.
Read Bolton's piece in full. Sotomayor is also quoted as saying, "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see ... My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Confirming Sonia Sotomayor at the Supreme Court will provide the Democratic-left a smashing blow against color-blind justice and equality under the law. Racial identity politics will emerge as the guiding focus of Obama-era jurisprudence, and future retirements at the Court will give this administration an opportunity to seal a long-term reverse discrimination program in the American judicial system.

Yet, Sotomayor will not in fact be "borked." There's nothing scurrilous in lifting up the carpet on this race-monger's ideological program. Unlike in Robert Bork's time, ideological opposition to a nomineed is fair game. The Democrats brought it on. And now the American people deserve a full accounting of this woman's radical views.

Sotomayor has asked if a better judicial ruling might be found if a person of color makes that determination rather than "a white male who hasn’t lived that life."

If a conservative judge had made an equivalent statement a GOP president's nomination would have already been withdrawn.

Sotomayor is a poor choice for the nation's highest court. She deserves a level of ideological scrutiny as close as Judge Bork received in 1987. The difference now is that Sotomayor won't in fact be "borked."


Colonel Neville said...

Dear AP: Came here via a visit to my shabby blog by punditand pundette. Great piece. An appalling truth on gee, [left] liberal fascism! You know it's good for the country!

One thing's for sure: Judge Sotomayor really WILL take up the WHOLE bench! Hey hey. All the best from Colonel Robert Neville blogspot com. Melbourne Australia.

Dana said...

And if we successfully "Bork" Judge Sotomayor, do you believe that President Obama would appoint someone we'd like better?

PrivatePigg said...

No chance of being borked... The good news is that it takes a 5-person majority, so as long as we get a conservative in the White House in 4 or 8 years, we don't have to worry about too much. She can spend her days on the losing end of 8-1 and 7-2 decisions. Loser.

Rusty Walker said...

Good point, Dana, but, that shouldn’t stop the proper digging. None of this should be about winning votes. The GOP could let this one go, and we still won’t get the majority of Latino votes. If we don’t stop playing politics we are never going to be the solid party to take over when Obama falls on his handsome face. We must stay true to our principles or what is the point? We need to question Sotomayer as a person and if it gets to be Bork-time, so be it! This nominee is not the intellectually powerful and honest Supreme Court material we need. Let them find another landmark Latino woman, or, a black woman, but, we need someone on the bench that does not purport, as she has stated to, “make policy!”

Tom the Redhunter said...

Even if we can't stop Sotomayor we can expose her for the radical leftist she is.

This, in turn, will raise questions about Obama. People will ask themselves "how can he appoint someone so radical?"

And so even if she is confirmed Obama will be weakened.

And if Obama is weakened he is less likely to get the rest of his agenda in place, and less likely to be relected.

See how it works?

Dave said...

Sotomayer is exactly the kind of SCOTUS nominee I would expect Barack Hussein Obama to come up with.

She is almost as far to the left as is the extreme radical Obama, and like Obama, she is incompetent, has no use for the Constitution of the United States, and doesn't think too much of white people, particularly the males of that persuasion.

What is more, the RINOs, who appear to be more interested in "going along to get along" with those who are currently rapidly destroying our nation than troubling themselves to try and save it, appear to fear the transparrent threat from Robert Gibbs and are singing her praises.

They will usher her right on through, just like they did for Ginsburg.

I realize her appointment will not change the balance of the court, but it doesn't bode well for the future.

This transnational Marxist woman shouldn't be a Justice of the Peace in this country, much less have a seat on the SCOTUS.

BTW-If you want to know which senate republicans need to be thrown out the hell out, just look and see which ones vote to confirm this woman.


The Vegas Art Guy said...

We knew this was coming, just the details were missing. I hope she gets a thorough going over in committee to show America who they voted into office.

Jordan said...

I bet some black woman in her office will complain about being sexual assaulted and the Dems will investigate.



JSF said...


Just did a post on HOW we can Bork:

Since SENATOR Obama could not vote YES for any Bush nominee, why should we?

JBW said...

Love this shit. LOVE IT!!! You guys are everything I look for when I want to be entertained by right-wing jack-asses complaining about "the liberal encroachment on our conservative values", gah-hick!

Please. please, please keep thinking and writing this kind of dumb-assery for everyone to consume. Me and my godless, nihilist ilk will celebrate much scorn and libel from your incoherent, uneducated ramblings.

Obama! Nihilism! Woo!

Dennis said...

Ah, right on cue comes JBW with his drivel. By any definition that he and the Left has used to brand others who disagree with them then Sotomayor is a "RACIST." She is also a "BIGOT."
I find it humorous that JBW and his ilk on the Left discovers the term "context" when its application has been non existent for years on the Left. It is also funny that one such as JBW talks about whining when almost every screed he writes if a form of whining.
If there is something to be laugh at it is JBW and the left who want to excuse their own behavior now that they actually believe they have power.
JBW, those who seek to deceive only deceive themselves. Brain rage my ASS!
By the way I do not have to be nice to those who would steal from me by using the government or desire to destroy and/or kill me by using that very same government.

Dave said...


JBW can afford to laugh.

After all, he thinks the gulags are going to be for the other guy.


The blogprof said...

Sotomayor is a council member of La Raza. So we now have her judicial record, her public statements and her association that point to out and out racism.

JBW said...

LOL! Dennis, I wrote my "screed" drunk out of my gourd last night and my grammar still kicks your grammar's ass. Might I suggest some of that elite, liberal education you guys hate so much?

And Dave, I can afford to laugh because I have my official Obama decoder ring to keep me 100% gulag-free. Gulags! You're one of my favorite commenters here, guy. Don't you go changing by getting rational on me anytime soon, OK?