John Hinderaker of Powerline concisely summed up the essence of the position argued by Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg (who concurred with her dissent):Posted on 04/24/2014 7:17:40 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Conservatives may, in the long run, owe a thank-you to the “Wise Latina.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor jumped the shark Tuesday with her lengthy dissent from the Schuette decision, read aloud from the bench. Although the liberal media sympathize with her and presented the decision as a setback, the positions she took are at variance with both the clear meaning of the text of the Constitution and with the sentiments of the vast majority of Americans, who consistently vote against racial preferences whenever they get the chance.
John Hinderaker of Powerline concisely summed up the essence of the position argued by Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg (who concurred with her dissent):
The majority held that a state can indeed ban discrimination on the basis of race. Whew! Some of us thought that issue was settled by the 14th Amendment. But two justices, Ginsburg and Sotomayor, dissented: they would have held that states are required to engage in race discrimination, no matter how much a state’s citizens may protest in favor of equal treatment.
Thank God, in his Powerline colleague Scott Johnson’s words, “The Constitution is still constitutional.” Sotomayor, a big believer in the theory of a “living Constitution,” would have it that the “compelling state interest in diversity,” as she put it in her dissent, empowers the Supreme Court to override the actual words of the Constitution and substitute her own preference that some minorities (though not Asians, who suffer discrimination under the racial preference system) deserve a thumb on the scale. And if that causes whites, Asians, and other non-preferred groups (can we please call them “targets”?) to be denied opportunities that their merit has earned them, the Wise Latina is not concerned.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
I’ve seen wiser latinas running taco trucks.
You can see the hate in the eyes of that racist Mexican. She is unfit to have membership in La Raza—haha, you bigoted bit’’.
Because she knows that without preferences that bumped her ahead of those more qualified and performed better than her she never would have been a judge let alone a justice.
Who knows where she would be if we all were treated equally?
Walmarts?
She knows this, that’s why she is upset.
Yep. And I married one. She is pure conservative.
Yes and are more of an asset to society.
If not for Affirmative Action she would asking if you want guacamole in your burrito.
Has she no shame for taking the place of a more qualified student?
RE: You can see the hate in the eyes of that racist Mexican.
Actually, her parents were Puerto Rican... but she’s from the Bronx.
Even the latinos/latinas running taco trucks who clean their hands underneath their armpits are still wiser than this one.
no, she has no shame.
Liberals such as her think that we have to redress the sins of the past into perpetuity.
Maybe affirmative action made sense in 1965, just maybe.
But are liberals saying that 50 years after the civil rights act of 1964, that we can’t revisit the issue???
Interesting that liberal justice Breyer was in the 6-2 majority on this case.
A “living constitution” is the same thing as having no constitution at all.
Sotomayor should retire. It looks like retired Justice John Paul Stevens is having all kinds of fun proposing Constitutional amendments to himself (and hearing the echo from an adoring Media).
Sotomayor’s hysterical harangue was devoid of any pretense of legal scholarship. However the major lesson from this case was a reminder just how political the SCOTUS is.They knew that recent court decisions that overturned legislative laws and popular referendums on abortion and gay marriage on the basis of interpretative “constitutional” analysis was beginning to have some serious negative effects. Americans were beginning to question what was the point of electing representatives to enact laws or vote on issues if in the final analysis a few people in black robes were to decide things in the final analysis. Looks a bit like Iran. The SCOTUS decision in the Michigan referendum case had more to do with timing than affirmative action. The SCOTUS thought that this was just an inopportune time to void another popularly enacted referendum. Affirmative action will be treated favorably by a future liberal court.
A living constitution is the same as no constitution, because that puts us in Alice in Wonderland territory. Liberal judges make things up as they go along. To them, the constitution means whatever liberal theology of the moment says it means.
We’ve seen how they have forced homosexual marriage on us with no legal basis for doing so, based on liberal interpretations of the constitution. Maybe they will find a constitutional right to impose cap and trade so we can fight global warming. That’s the problem with the liberals, that they make it up as they go along.
The thing is if you look at Sotomayers belief system, if we were to apply it this country would go backward 1000 years. Her worldview is grounded in tribalism, she relies completely on instinct and experience, not facts. Her view of societal structure would be oligarchigal, with a high ruling council representing all the little squabbling factions, sitting around in priestly robes making decisions for everyone with zero accountability or law, and based on nothing but pseudo-spiritual morality and divination.
Sorry Sonya, I don’t want to go live in the dark ages under your ‘wise’ little thumb.
Just wondering, when did they change the meaning of wise to be crazy?
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.