« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

So, which disqualifies her the most: racial bigotry, stunning incompetence, or disrespect for the Constitution?

Obama's pick is just as competent, trustworthy, and good for the nation as his AG and Treasury picks

So, Obama decided to just throw another one in the face of Constitution-loving, freedom-loving Americans, just to remind us that he won. Big surprise, that. He picked a tax cheat of dubious skill to run Treasury. He picked a crook and Clintonista bagman for Attorney General. And so on – a cabinet and administration full of stooges, yes-men, crooks, and thugs.

So since nothing else about the office of the President of the United States is sacred, why would he not use his constitutionally mandated power to nominate to the Supreme Court of the United States a person so desperately lacking in judicial timbre that people of reason stand amazed, mouths open in awe.

Wow. Just wow.

Let’s take a quick look at the person Obama, the man who swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, has selected to a lifetime appointment in the highest court of the land, as the final arbiter of what is just and Constitutional.

She’s an incompetent student of the Constitution.

In 5 years as a District Judge and 11 years as a judge on the Second Circuit, she’s had 7 decisions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court. 6 were overturned. The 7th was affirmed, but the court specifically rejected (unanimously) her reasoning.

Think about that for a second. Ruth Bader “former ACLU general counsel” Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, Stephen Breyer, and David “eminent domain” Souter — a motley crew that can find emanations, vapors, penumbras, and whole-cloth invented rights with the best of them — rejected her reasoning. In a court system fouled by leftists, she can’t seem to even meet their standards for fair application of the law.

According to The New Republic (a left-wing rag), her colleagues and the clerks on the Second Circuit summed her up this way (h/t Pundit & Pundette):

…nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.
.
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.”
*snip*
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details.

This from her political kindred spirits.

She sees the bench as a vehicle to legislate and impose policy, regardless of what the Constitution and duly enacted laws say.


Courtesy of verumserum. ‘Nuf said.

She’s a garden-variety race-hustling bigot.

You should read the transcript of this lecture she gave at the Cal-Berkeley Law School in 2001. You should read every word of this thoroughly bigoted piece of rotting carp that probably went over well, considering where it was delivered. From top to bottom it advocated the notion that the judiciary was only fair insomuch as the racial and gender makeup of the judiciary approached that of the population. It said, in so many words, that only women and minorities were truly capable of rendering justice. This whopper has already been made famous:

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.

.
To quote one of my RedState colleagues:

So she explicitly rejects, more than once, the idea that there is an objective standard in judging that should be aspired to by judges. She says that judgment springs primarily from experience, and secondarily from one’s inborn cultural and racial tendencies. She accepts with complete comfort that a white male judge and a black or Latina judge will reach different decisions when judging the same facts and the same law. Ergo, judging definitionally is of a higher quality when there are more female and colored judges.

Sum : FAIL

America deserves better. This is a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land. She’s demonstrated no qualifications other than being incompetent, activist, and bigoted.
.
.
[UPDATE] And the fun is just beginning. There’s a Soros connection, kids. Stay tuned!

COMMENTS

  • Lammo
  • Rich Tandler

    If nothing else, we have to make sure that everyone knows exactly the kind of racist, legislating, incompetent jurists that Obama will continue to nominate.

  • molybdanthan

    She said ‘wise Latina woman.’ She’s got the second two covered.

    What bothers me is they think she’ll be confirmed by diktat. I hope the GOP Senators on the judiciary committee aren’t the roll-over republican variety. We don’t want her up there for even a fruit fly’s lifetime.

    • pharos

      “I hope the GOP Senators on the judiciary committee aren?t the roll-over republican variety.”

      I do too, but don’t forget the saying about “hope in one hand, **** in the other, which fills quicker?” I think this may turn out to be more of a test of how the Senate Republicans react and operate than Obama’s appointment of an unqualified radical activist under a smokescreen of politically correct “history making.”

      After all, that tactic itself plays a HUGE part in his own career.

  • mriggio

    the Judiciary Committee hearings play out. This will tell us much more about our own folks than about the nominee, or the nominator, which we’ve already decided. It could become a teachable moment if the Republicans can summon up some spine in the face of what seems an inevitable confirmation. Already some juicy baggage has been brought to light, and if our Senators can be shrewd in their questioning, she won’t be allowed to wiggle out of her past declarations and decisions. This can be accomplished in a dignified manner on our part, even though the MSM will throw everything including the kitchen sink out of the race-card kitchen at us. It will truly be a spine-testing episode, and if the Republicans do indeed ‘roll over’, well, at least we’ll have it all on tape, for future reference.

  • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

    After all, he doesn’t care much for the Constitution, either. He had no executive experience and very, very little legislative experience. He has associatons with shady characters like Ayers and Wright. Yet despite all this, he was STILL elected president.

    Because he made people FEEL GOOD.
    Because he was HISTORIC.
    It worked for him and it will work for her, too.

    Fears of being called “RACIST!” kept our Republican lawmakers from doing anything about Freddit and Fannie a few years back and look where that got us. They’ve gotten very good at cowering at the very warning of the race card being played so I’m sure she’ll sail right through confirmation.

    • McKinley

      Despite eight years of incumbency

      Despite an unpopular president

      Despite a war unpopular with many segments of the population

      Despite a tanking economy

      Despite all the media support in the world

      Despite one of the worst campaigns a Republican has ever ran

      47% of voters voted against Barack Obama. He’ll never have the deck so stacked in his favor again.

  • thatsthetruth

    to Obama in the last election. Continue this line of thinking about at our own peril.

    • IJB

      Take this mother out!!

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        Seriously.

        Anyway, upon review, I’m not buying this poster, either. Too many tells: throwaway email, fascinating belief that the Republican Party worships last names, and, of course, the inability to mention the Governor of Alaska without a certain ugly contempt.

        • IJB
          • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

            Pinky extension optional. :)

          • IJB

            (I only save the Dr. Evil stuff for when Seth Green is around… ;) )

    • http://www.scottbomb.com scottbomb

      Was the same one that pushed for amnesty. A lot of good that did him, huh?

      So with your line of thinking, we should never, ever oppose anyone who happens to be hispanic just because they’re… hispanic. Such panderiong is just as racist as affirmative action.

      • zarathustra57

        …even McCain and Kyl voted against this woman being elevated to the 2nd Circuit. Not exactly two “evil, obstructionist, blah blah blah” Republicans. In the years since her placement on the 2nd Circuit, she’s become less temperate, and racked up the alarming quotes seen above. While her appointment wouldn’t affect the composition of the High Court, it would be highly disturbing to have her as a Supreme Court Justice.

      • jeffreywturner

        But your line about McCain is not really fair. I don’t think the Hispanic vote totals were a repudiation of McCain as much as they were a repudiation of the GOP, since according to the media coverage of the immigration debate (as well as the spanish language TV ads Obama ran, which McCain couldn’t afford to refute) the GOP is “racist” and “xenophobic”.

        Support for amnesty seems to actually garner support for GOP candidates. This is evidenced by the trajectory of the GOP share of that vote during Bush’s tenure. Recall Bush’s talk in campaign 2000 & 2004 that “family values don’t stop at the Rio Grande”, etc. The GOP share of the Hispanic vote increased significantly in both of his elections until in 2004 we had reached near parity (mid-40′s) of that demographic. He was always seen as pro-amnesty. You can certainly think it was wrong for Bush to be pro-amnesty, just as it may have been wrong for Reagan to be so, but you can’t deny that he was making significant inroads with Hispanics before the train wreck on immigration in 2006.

        That said, I think we need to find a way around this issue so we can get back to reminding Hispanics that we are the party that espouses their values of hard-work, family & faith, and the Democrats are the party that despises those same values.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      but alas, no.

      • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

        nt

      • Mike gamecock DeVine

        I suspect that what is more troubling are all the cases not reversed where she was affirmed for following liberal precedents that she agrees with!

        • E Pluribus Unum

          One of my links shows the seven cases overturned/rejected conclusions. A review of some of her other work would be very fruitful I bet. Too much detail to put into this particular essay though.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and the US Sup Ct is doing the final bit on Ricci as we speak!

          • E Pluribus Unum

            I’d bet DeMarcus Ware on it.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that O’Connor was part of the majority on.

  • $peciallist

    and we’re suppose to ‘tread lightly’?…I can feel my morale getting Sucked out of my body….

    First sentence of first headline when I woke up..”The Republican Party risks further alienation from Hispanics by challenging the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer”….Bull hockey!

    Republican leadership has rolled over already……they are toothless eunuchs….. F them

    All Obama has to do is throw out a ‘Hispanic’ and our leaders fold like lawn Chairs?

    I’m getting burned out from all this Stupidity…

    • Maggie_in_Indiana

      n/t

    • Lammo

      Miguel Estrada, by all accounts highly qualified, and Alberto Gonzales, maybe less so. “They” can trash “our” Hispanics, “we” just can’t say boo about “theirs.” The hypocrisy would be stunning if it weren’t so obvious.

  • wesmorgan1

    You wrote:

    “In 5 years as a District Judge and 11 years as a judge on the Second Circuit, she?s had 7 decisions that were reviewed by the Supreme Court. 6 were overturned. The 7th was affirmed, but the court specifically rejected (unanimously) her reasoning.”

    From what I’ve been able to discover in the media, she’s written the opinions for roughly 380 cases. Of those, only 7 were accepted for review by the SCOTUS. The other 98% of her opinions were either not appealed to SCOTUS at all (in our litigious society, I’m thinking that an opinion would have to be pretty solid for the losing side to just give up on appeal) or denied a hearing by the SCOTUS (thus summarily upholding the opinion in question).

    Even the current case before the SCOTUS, Ricci v. DiStefano, is there because different circuits have ruled differently. Sotomayor’s opinion in that case hewed to existing Circuit-level precedent, which is exactly what they’re supposed to do. It’s before SCOTUS because of the conflicting interpretations in different Circuits; that’s how it’s supposed to work.

    When you toss in the fact that (in an average term) the SCOTUS reverses roughly 75% of the decisions of which they hear an appeal, I don’t think that this is a convincing line of argument. I don’t think it can be argued that a 98% upheld/unappealed rate is a bad thing.

    • Aaron Gardner
      • JadedByPolitics
      • eburke
      • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

        Now THAT is a Dismissal ;-) lol How can I not step up and applaud that!?!?!

    • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

      that can be chosen from…. but this is all about the “Historic” (read: hysterical Identity Politics) Style Over Substance that got us the current Obama Disaster and setting up a PERMANENT disaster on the SCOTUS in the form of SoSo….

      It is NOTHING to do with “Her” and all to do with Liberal-Activism…..
      SCOTUS Empathy – SCOTUS Empathy
      2001 Redistributive Justice video Obama’s 2001 Redistributive Justice video
      Identity Politics – Identity Politics
      Hispanic SCOTUS nominee – first Hispanic on SCOTUS?
      SoSo NOT the first (Benjamin Cardozo) – Yahoo: Is Sotomayor the First (or Second) Hispanic Pick for the Supreme Court? A:second (First was a Republican appointment)
      Obama Legislation list – the 14 Legislative agenda items (and other things) Obama wants to distract from
      O failure – How Obama’s FAILURES are the country’s SUCCESSES – since we have to spell it out

    • E Pluribus Unum

      So which part of what I said was incorrect? And by leaving out mention of the 380 cases or so, if you find that misleading, so be it. The left media does that 50,000 times per day.

      But since you brought up this topic, let me ask you this, since according to you, 75% of cases reviewed by scotus get overturned. Since Sotomayor is 0-for-7, in essence, there simply MUST be some Appeals Court Judges who batted at least .500, wouldn’t you think?

      Might one of THOSE be a better pick than Miss 0-for-7?

    • Achance

      A Democrat nominated her, therefore any conscious Republican should oppose her. No person who could affiliate themselves with the conservative movement or with the Republican Party could in good conscience support ANYONE that Comrade Obama would nominate. Any part of that unclear, troll?

  • wesmorgan1

    “Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”

    That sounds entirely reasonable to me, and puts her previous statements (in the same lecture) in quite the different context.

    Seriously, give the entire lecture a serious read.

    • Streiff

      when it isn’t frightening

      Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.

    • E Pluribus Unum

      If you are able to find a paragraph that is not revolting for you, then good for you. I didn’t, including this one.

      Everything she says or does is obviously colored by her self-identification as a Latina. I have a problem with that in a Supreme Court justice. I want a justice for whom the Constitution and the law are her overriding, all-consuming concerns.

  • http://www.thepoliticalclass.com The Political Class

    Thomas Jefferson quote. it was great.

  • Mike gamecock DeVine

    Many bigots are good judges as they repress it in their legal evaluations. “Incompetence” and “intelligence” are nebulous concepts that we shouldn’t touch. Yes, it appears that she often is incompetent in couching her raw unconstitutional opinions in cover language, but what matters most is her decisions, and who wins before her is driven by politics, not law. That is what matters and is what we should emphasize.

    Her bigoted statements will speak volumes for themselves and very well could sink her.

  • Vegas_Rick

    according to Bagdad Bob Gibbs,

    “White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Thursday that Obama was “very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to that of his.”

    We’ve gotten a pretty good look at his interpretation. Scary.

  • DONTREADONME

    did I just put out some bait or what, how many here actually clicked on the comment just to see where I was going with this. Anytime you need to bring up your heritage tells me you never fully have come to grips with your status as an American. You do not hear me every having to bring up the fact that I am a redheaded-American, and the whole discrimination I have experienced in my life. I am being serious, people treat red heads with utter contempt and what is worse my fellow Americans think I am being paranoid. Oh really, I thought racism only depends on the person who is subjected to it and not proof that the other person was in fact being racist.