Those silly white males have no idea what a joy a freshly picked fruit helmet is.....
Posted on 05/30/2009 1:42:16 PM PDT by kellynla
The Sotomayor Supreme Court nomination got a quick start out of the gate, focusing debate about something very important: How are judges supposed to decide cases? Are they, as Judge Sotomayor says, supposed to rule based upon identity politics, using their own personal views and biases in making decisions? Or is it to put aside all personal experiences and policy desires and apply the Constitution and laws as written?
Somehow, this important debate is turning into an argument about race and identity politics.
Many of us in the conservative movement believe that Judge Sotomayor is intelligent, and that, at least on paper, she has professional qualifications that are certainly sufficient for occupying a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court.
But what needs deeper examination, because it is very troubling, is her overarching judicial philosophy – one that, judging from her public remarks and law review articles, she has thought about seriously and embraced only after much reflection. It’s the judicial philosophy shared by President Obama – a philosophy with which most Americans, who support judicial restraint, vehemently disagree.
It is only this – President Obama’s and Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy – that drives us to raise serious concerns about Judge Sotomayor’s fitness to serve on the nation’s highest court.
At its core, the thrust of most conservatives’ concerns from the past several days centered around three items—all of which, by the way, the White House press operation has tried mightily to brush aside: First, a video clip of Judge Sotomayor from a 2005 appearance at Duke Law School, where she stated that appellate courts make policy.
Second, a 2002 law review article in which Judge Sotomayor says that race, gender, and ethnicity necessarily affect the way judges decide cases – and that’s a good thing.
Third, a 1996 law review article challenging the belief that law needs to be knowable and predictable, in which she borrowed from the philosophy of early 20th century Legal Realists who rejected the idea that judging involves the impartial application of neutral principles. This body of work is not the product of stupidity, or reverse racism, or a bad temper. Rather, it appears to be a view of the courts as engines of social and political change—in short, wrought out of a devotion to judicial activism.
We need to move forward with a confirmation process that focuses on what really matters: Does Judge Sotomayor embrace a view of judging that is constrained by the text, history, and principles of the Constitution and our laws? Or does she favor an interpretive enterprise in which a judge’s personal feelings, views, background, and politics drive the outcome of cases?
And a card-carrying-member of LA RAZA!
Profile
Sonia Sotomayor
“She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.”
American Bar Association
http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html
No.
But she will.
Wendy Long already knows the answer to the question she posed at the end of her article.
As I just posted in another thread:
Steele should inform every Republican member of Congress that if they desire continued support from the Party they will vote no on Sotomayor.
If a member whimpers he or she is afraid of losing Mexican-American votes, he should tell the member the voters they have will not vote for weak politicians, the rest were not theirs to lose.
Further, each and every Republican member interviewed by the MSM, or otherwise making public statements regarding the issue, should convey in their comments essentially:
“I didn’t vote for Ms. Sotomayor because of the evidence she is not a reasonably strong lawyer and the fact that her behavior as a judge and her defective legal decisions indicate she does not have the requisite qualifications to serve on the highest court in the nation.
“Can I be criticized for that? I don’t think so for several very important reasons.
The leadership of the Democratic Party stated they blocked Miquel Estrada simply because they didn’t want him to serve on the USSC.
As we look now, the record is clear Mr. Estrada was far more qualified than Ms. Sotomayor.
Finally, I have a duty to defend the Constitution.”
The pubs are afraid that they will lose the hispanic vote. I don’t know if they checked the stats of the last election, BUT THEY ALREADY LOST THEIR VOTE.
They need to go after her opinions and beliefs, not her race. But they should consider asking her if she believes that her wisdom is better than a african american or asian women’s wisdom of which there are a number of them serving as judges.
The problem is that with “empathy” everything is subjective; jurisprudence is supposed to be OBJECTIVE.
Mercy is good, and lovable... but it cannot exist without Justice, for that would only be the perpetuation of injustice.
It really is as simple as that.
What hispanic vote?
More to the point!
If judges can decide which laws will be obeyed or not, citizens should have the same option. Then we will deteriorate into anarchy, and the law will be decided by who can draw their weapon the quickest and shoot the most accurately.
Law of the jungle, here we come. And judges will not be protected when Tarzan and the apes are at war.
That would be the very small percentage NOT wanting to feel the chains of Aztlan.
Just an observation- Palin caught hell for being associated with a seccessionist group. Sotomayer gets lauded for being a member of a group dedicated to establishing a foreign country on US soil. Typical liberal playing field.
That would be the very small percentage NOT wanting to feel the chains of Aztlan.
Just an observation- Palin caught hell for being associated with a seccessionist group. Sotomayer gets lauded for being a member of a group dedicated to establishing a foreign country on US soil. Typical liberal playing field.
Easy on that button Dude!
Headline?
Sotomayor to agitate, harass Justice Thomas?
Sotomayor's Assigned Mission On SCOTUS
"Gotta get that Oreo cookie, house-N***** off our court," say liberals.
(We are dealing with 1960s Marxist/Alinsky street rabble and their ideological issue. I will not be surprised, if Ms Sotomayor joins SCOTUS, to hear rumors of Sotomayor untoward and raucous behavior.)
Speaking of OJ, what if he brings his case to the Supreme court and say he was a victim of discrimination how much do you want to bet that Sonia would agree to OJ’s argument and vote to exonerate him.
Those silly white males have no idea what a joy a freshly picked fruit helmet is.....
Man, if she just had a position with ACORN, the fix would REALLY be in. LOL
lol
The National Council of La Raza (NCLR) – “the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States – works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations (CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas – assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.”
Check out their institutionsl values: http://www.nclr.org/section/about/values
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.