Sunday, 19 July 2009
Obama Threatens, Congress Brown-noses and Sotomayor brings on more Wisdom
Six months into office and already the Dear Leader Obama is using threats to get his way. The White House issued a threat to the critics of Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor when asked by the press about a blog entry by Newt Gingrich in which he pointed out that if you change the word "latina" (or black, or asian, etc.) to "white" in some of her statements such a white nominee would be deemed a racist and certainly dismissed as a nominee.
Then the New York Times attempted to explain Sotomayor's racist views. She has even shown in past court cases that mentally she divides cases down racial lines thus showing this is an inherent part of her pyschological make-up. For instance, Hispanic-on-Hispanic crime was of particular concern to her: "The saddest crimes for me were the ones that my own people committed against each other." So where did that leave the folks that were not your "own people"? Did you give their plight less shrift if the perpetrator was Puerto Rican? Where you prone to harsher punishment if the perpetrator was a white person offending a hispanic?
I find it unsettling and even amazing that she is allowed to express such racist opinions and judgements, and remain a viable nominee for SCOTUS. If I as a white man did the same my nomination would be over within minutes. And yet is as typical of liberals, what is good for the goose ain't good for the gander.
More telling is Sotomayor's activism in college. She was instrumental in getting Princeton to hire hispanic faculty and even add courses in Puerto Rican culture and history, going so far as to file complaints with the Department of Education to force the issue. So, i guess we can expect the wisened latina to force feed 3rd world legal opinion down our throats. I mean really, this is the United States of America, not the United States of PR, so there is no good reason that an American school should be teaching us anything about PR culture/history.
In all of this fiasco, we must not forget that during his campaign, the Dear Leader said, "he has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves." For many on the left, Obama being the chief leftinista in this case, the courts are only being 'fair' when they are pursuing "social justice". A result that favors a big corporation at the expense of a poor individual is wrong even if it is consistent with the law because the result doesn't fit with what seems "right" from a moral or emotional perspective.
This legal perspective is seen in many 3rd world countries today, all of which are currently undergoing intense internal strife and division because their governments and courts are based on rule of popularity instead of rule of law. What kind of social anarchy will the United States have in 10 years if we are telling Willy T-bone, Sugar Bear and Juan it's ok to be a gang-banging murderer or crack dealer/pimp because your family were born with a different skin pigment or brought over to America on ships as slaves.
I guess it's too much to ask that the courts should stand for blind justice anymore. Now courts have to have an agenda too, just like the politicians. By nominating Sotomayor, Obama has all but reiterated the point I've been making: he wants liberal justices with their thumb on the scales giving the downtrodden poor and minorities a better deal simply because they are at a social or economic disadvantage. Even if they are guilty or wrong.
How can ANYONE possibly defend this? Are there no liberals anymore who think the Courts should be fair? One might argue in Obama's favor that, "his argument is that in cases in which the law is indeterminate and unclear, as a fair number of Supreme Court cases are, that the justices might favor the disadvantaged party." You certainly won't find fair (rule of law) in any of Sotomayor's judicial founts of wisdom. She has affirmed on many an occasion that rather than merely interpret laws written by Congress, as she argued four years ago in a panel discussion at Duke University Law School, it is the US Court of Appeals that makes the rules of the land.
In addition to mangling the most basic lesson about the three branches of government, Sotomayor’s claim raises the hackles of conservatives who accuse liberal judges of trying to legislate from the bench.
"Court of Appeals is where policy is made," Sotomayor says on the tape…
"I know — I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law," she continued, to nervous laughter from the crowd. "I know, OK, I know." Then she sought to distance herself a little by adding, "I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it." Is it me or does she really know? I doubt she does, it probably got lost in all that latina wisdom. And we should take this at face value? I'm not willing to risk my countries stability on your words or decisions Ms. Sotomayor.
If the Democrats keep moving in this direction, the Courts are bound to become hopelessly politicized, even down to the trial court level. That is a situation waiting for disaster. I don't think I want to imagine what an America would look like where a man can't get a fair hearing in court if he's up against a woman, or if an individual can't get a fair hearing when he's fighting against the government's seizure of his property. Or if I watch the rapist of my child or murderer of my wife walk free because he was born in the ghetto.
This is a nightmare scenario. Its name is Sotomayor.
Technorati Tags: Obama Threatens Congress Brown-noses Sotomayor who brings on more Wisdom
