Supreme Court nominee flees from President Obama’s “empathy” standard and her own record
Update – Part three is here
What if John Roberts had declared in his nomination hearing for Chief Justice of the United States that rather than being an umpire-like judge calling balls and strikes, he intended pitch? Does anyone believe that President George W. Bush wouldn’t have immediately withdrawn the apostate before the Senate consented to appoint him the starter on opening day?
Obama’s Gold Standard for Judging: Empathy
Long time constitutional law professor, Barack Obama declared, on the occasion of his announcement of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, and many times over a long period of time that the most important qualification for a judge is that they have sufficient “empathy” for the poor and minorities and that a judge must follow what is “in their heart” when the law and the facts don’t lead them to a just result.
Judge Sotomayor herself has, variously and over the past 20 years, expressed similar views:
“I am willing to accept that we who judge must not deny differences resulting from experiences and heritage, but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
Yet, in response to questioning from Senator Jon Kyle (R-AZ), she denied believing her own words:
No, sir. That’s — I don’t — I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging.
Sotomayor was standing less than three feet away from the President (pictured above) when he declared she was most qualified to be his chief empathizer on the nation’s highest court. She appears not to be hearing-challenged. She had expressed similar views on empathy in the past.
Why the denial at the nomination hearing of her previously expressed views? And why not a peep from the Nominator-in-Chief?
I would hope that the Steelers would beat the Gators
On at least seven occasions, Judge Sotomayor stated the following or words of a similar construction:
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.
I am unaware of any non-castrated former white males that have lived the life of a woman. Not sure what form of Michael Jackson-like skin treatment could also infuse Latino ethnicity. But I do know a lot of wise Caucasians, Blacks, Asians and male Latinos with rich experiences.
The Democratic chairman of the committee, Patrick Leahy (D-VT) when asked on Sunday about the nominee’s “wise Latina” remark, expressed his hope that Republicans judge Sotomayor on what is said in the hearings. Now we know why.
Apparently we can only know what the words of liberal Democrats mean when they are under Oath in judicial nomination hearing, as yesterday, under relentless questioning from the Ranking Member of the Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sonia finally succumbed:
It was bad, because it left an impression that I believed that life experiences commanded a result in a case, but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge. It’s clearly not what I intended in the context of my broader speech, which was attempting to inspire young Hispanic, Latino students and lawyers to believe that their life experiences added value to the process.
I suspect that the white supremacists of past centuries also used such views to inspire their youth.
Fund-raising Puerto Rican PAC Board membership as slavery
The resume of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Judge is filled with references to her memberships in numerous womens’ and Hispanic organizations, with none more prominent than the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund (PRLDF). The nominee was extensively questioned about her participation in the political action committee. An excerpt:
GRAHAM: OK. Are you familiar with the position that the fund took regarding taxpayer-funded abortion? The briefs they filed?
SOTOMAYOR: No, I never reviewed those briefs.
GRAHAM: Well, in their briefs, they argued, and I will submit the quotes to you, that if you deny a low-income woman Medicaid funding, taxpayer funds, to have an abortion, if you deny her that, that’s a form of slavery. And I can get the quotes. Do you agree with that?
SOTOMAYOR: I wasn’t aware of what was said in those briefs. Perhaps it might be helpful if I explained what the function of a board member is and what the function of the staff would be in an organization like the fund.
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) repeatedly tried to get Sotomayor to express her opinion on the PRLDF’s expansive definition of slavery, but all we “learned” was that this Wise Latina spent years raising money for an organization she knew next to nothing about?
Senator Leahy, other Democrat Senators and Sotomayor herself, when confronted with such extreme past statements and associations, repeatedly resort to directing sceptics to her record as an Appeals Court judge. But Appeals Court judges are bound by precedents of the Court on which she aspires to serve. That court is bound by no higher power save the Oath they take to uphold the Constitution and service during “good behavior.”
Sadly, Congresses have either approved of bad behavior or considered gross violations of the Oath to be good behavior, as it hasn’t impeached a judge for calling white, black based on a living Constitution judicial philosophy for over 200 years. So, if she can get four other justices to agree on the PRLDF’s definition of slavery, then it will be the law.
Accurate Quotations of Democrats as Defamation
So, what are we to believe, the plain and obvious meaning of Sotomayor’s statements, associations and record of the past twenty years or her characterizations of same over the past twenty hours of testimony?
The Democrats would have us apply the same standard we applied to the 20-year pew-parked butt in Reverend Wright’s Hate G-D America Church friend of unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. They would have us again be hear no evil, see no evil monkeys.
Judge Sotomayor has remained as coldly calm during her cross-examinations as her Empathy for Black Panther voter intimidators President. Earlier we rhetorically asked if a President Bush wedded to judges as umpires only would let a nomination go forward if that nominee renounced umpiring. And of course he would not.
So, why doesn’t President Obama withdraw his supposed un-empathetic apostate? The answer is obvious. The typical liberal game that cries libel and slander when their obvious views are recited back to them.
They wink at each other knowing they have to obfuscate their views to pass muster when in the glare of public examination lest they ignite a firestorm across the Fruited Plain.
Their radical liberal views can’t stand the light of day, so they turn down the lights….and lie, and lie and lie.
Judge Sotomayor aka Toto-deny-or of her past, now plays Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and John Roberts in an effort to wink her way to the bench.
But given her embarrassing deconstructions at the hands of relentless white male Senators I would not be surprised to see them in 2010 and 2012 campaign ads when Democrats, partially as a result of these hearings, are denied the opportunity to appoint more Toto-deny-ors that could define away more of their Liberty by calling it slavery.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.