Democrats should own race-based injustice label after Supreme Court nomination hearing
[For Update/Second DeVine Law report on Sotomayor hearing, see
Sotomayor as Toto-deny-or]
The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution demands equal protection for all persons. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. dreamed of a society based on character content judgments and supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits discrimination against individuals based on race or sex in a wide variety of areas in public life, including employment.
Monday’s start of the Senate hearing for President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace the retiring Justice David Souter presents the Republican Party and DeVine Gamecock Law (pictured) with a rare opportunity to expose the Democratic Party’s long-practiced opposition to a blindfolded Lady Justice in favor of race and gender based injustice, that they call “social justice”.
Blind Justice vs. Race/Sex-based Injustice
Given the starkly racist statements of Judge Sonia Sotomayor coupled with the replacement of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) as ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, there is every reason to believe that the political landscape in 2010 and 2012 will finally include a more informed American electorate on the perils to their Liberty from Democratic party judicial nominees.
Homey don’t play dat
This is a hard issue to crystallize for voters, but it appears the sheer toxicity of the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark has already taken a dramatic toll on her reputation as the most recent Rassmussen poll recounts:
In a poll conducted May 26–27 Rasmussen found that likely voters wanted to confirm Sotomayor by the margin of 45% to 29%. This was an underwhelming margin, to be sure, given all the laudatory media coverage, and may have been an early warning sign that Sotomayor could be vulnerable.
A month later that 16-point advantage has disappeared. Rasmussen’s June 29–30 survey found that support for her confirmation has fallen 8 points, to 37%, while opposition has risen 10 points to 39%.
The cross tabs tell an interesting story. The biggest movement against Sotomayor comes from the following voter groups:
Women: In the May poll women supported Sotomayor’s confirmation 45% to 24%. Now they oppose it 31% for to 40% against. Feminists take note. That’s a dramatic, and unexpected, 30-point turnaround.
Age 30-39: In May this age group supported her confirmation by a two to one margin (49% to 24%). Now these 30-somethings oppose her promotion to the High Court – only 29% support her now while 47% oppose her – a decisive 43-point negative shift.
Independents: (Note: Rasmussen refers to unaffiliated voters as “other.” I’ll refer to them here as Independents.) In May, Independents gave Sotomayor about the same level of support as the country as a whole (41% to 29%); now they oppose her by more than a two-to-one margin, 23% to 49%, a 38-point turnaround for the worse.
By race: Though blacks still support her by a solid margin, 57% to 13%, that margin is down from 71% to 4% in May, a 23-point drop. Similarly, the racial group Rasmussen calls “other” (which presumably includes Hispanics and Asians) supported her 48% to 25% in May but now opposes her confirmation 32% to 43%, a negative swing of 34 points.
Rasmussen also picked up a negative movement in her favorability ratings. In May, a few more voters checked the “very favorable” box (20%) than the “very unfavorable” one (17%). By late June, she was upside-down on this important measure, with only 14% very favorably disposed toward her and 24% very unfavorably disposed.
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusiwhite male who hasn’t lived that life.
The vast majority of Americans are repelled by such bigoted ideas anathema to what America stands for, especially given what we have achieved to overcome our segregated past. The disgust is multiplied exponentially when such ideas are brought to bear against one’s ability to earn a living by working hard and playing by the rules.
Obama’s hubris and Over-Ricci
So it should come as no surprise that the Sotomayor is so unpopular given the revelation of her Second Circuit Court of Appeals vote to deny promotions to non-black firefighters earned via testing because no black firefighters passed the test.
Thankfully, the court to which Judge Sotomayor aspires reversed the Ricci case. Now the only question is whether the white dyslexic fireman will be “Borked” or subjected to another Democratic Party “high-tech lynching” ala Clarence Thomas, when he testifies.
The President surely knew the nominee’s record and racist statements but nominated her anyway. No doubt he was counting on a beleaguered GOP to resort to the old “Hatch” strategy that treats life-time appointees to the Third Branch of government like deputy Agricultural secretaries since “elections have consequences.”
But Jeff Sessions’ election to lead the opposition will also have a consequence as the junior senator from Alabama reveres the Constitution he and Supreme Court nominees swear an Oath to uphold more than ABA ratings and co-starring guest spots on Sunday Shows.
There will be no Hatch-like boasting years from now about near unanimous GOP votes for judicial activists like Sotomayor’s soulmates, Breyer and Ginsburg. Sessions has been eloquent in recent floor debate concerning the solemnity of the Oath and disqualifying judicial philosophies that treat the Constitution as no more binding than the European public opinion that the nominee has cited as proper authority for making policy from the bench.
The experienced trial lawyer that spend most weekends in Alabama instead of the Georgetown cocktail circuit knows how make witnesses own their own words in a very pleasant, Southern gentlemanly sort of way, and has the courage to do so.
Judicial activism defined
The Democratic chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) when asked recently about the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark, expressed his hope that Republicans judge Sotomayor on what is said in the hearings.
This comment is quite revealing of the general modus operandi of Democrats as well as their “living Constitution” judicial philosophy that allow them to re-invent the world each day to suit their agenda.
In other words, they lie. In fact, most times when you hear them speak of how “smart” or “intelligent” is one of their own (Bill Clinton comes to mind), it is usually a euphemism for their ability to obfuscate their true positions, i.e. lie.
It takes a barrage of words to pass off oligarchical usurpations of power as constitutional, that is, when they even bother to mention the world’s oldest governing document. For just as they want Sotomayor judge solely by her hearing script explanations of her past rather than the plain meaning of her past utterances, so do they also exalt their modern, enlightened social preferences over the plain meaning of words ratified two centuries ago. Hence their denial and projection even over the meaning of the term “judicial activism”:
Anyone who believes that only “liberal” judges are “activists” should read Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent in last week’s Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder.
If an activist is a judge who wants to use the power of the courts to substitute his preference for the will of the people’s elected representatives, then Thomas fits the definition.
Astounding the new found liberal exaltation of the preferences for majorities given that their resort to judicial re-writings of the law was necessitated by their inability to persuade majorities to endorse their loony views, but I digress…or do I. Maybe the ObamaDem hubris and overreach is informed by their belief that the mainstream America that elected Obama has come around to their view. As we pointed out above, Rassmussen indicates another reality.
But we shouldn’t be surprised when a liberal defines judicial philosophies without any reference to the Nation’s Governing Document. For them, it is merely a obstacle they must navigate in imposing their policy preferences no matter is they subvert the will of super-majorities ratifying Constitutions and their amendments; referenda by We the People or statutes passed by legislators.
Judicial activism has one meaning and one meaning only: intentional subversion of the written law thru misinterpretations. It is the re-writing or amending of the Constitution from the bench, rather than via the required amendment process.
Finally we have a stark example of what liberals and Democrats have been doing to subvert the Rule of Law on an issue and in a forum in the fullness of time that promises to change the political landscape.
Even most liberals resent being denied the fruits of their hard earned labor. Most Americans are not racist and eschew race-based decisions. They can read the English language and had thought that Democrats and judges were as literate. They also revere the courts. But now, they catch a glimpse of what liberal judges mean by “interpret the law” as applied to a law they know well, i.e. the Constitution’s blood-drenched demand that the law be color blind.
ObamaDems are playing with fire and should soon learn the wisdom of their past stealth nominees as they get burned with an un-wise Latina.
And getting burned does not require that Sotomayor’s nomination be defeated. In fact, they would probably get charred less if she were defeated because then they could re-habilitate themselves a bit with a stealth nominee as a replacement that could denounce Sotomayor’s record.
No, the GOP understands that no matter who Obama nominates, they will rule the same from the bench. The burning, which appears to have already begun, is from the publicity of Sonia’s racist views and actions. The Democrats will finally reap the racial seeds of poison they have sown for the past 40 years.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed