« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Sotomayor a Perfect Liberal Activist Judge

Right down to the dishonesty.

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been deservedly criticized for two of her public statements: one in which she labels herself a “wise Latina” and declares that her judgement is necessarily better than a “white male” judge because of her gender, ethnicity, and life experience; and another in which she says that “policy” is made in the courts. As shocking as the first sentiment is, at least it is honest. Likely, Judge Sotomayor really believes that her ability to judge cases is better than a man’s. Her entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary says that lawyers who have worked with and argued before believe Sotomayor has an “inflated opinion of herself.”

Most of the criticism of her second statement has focused on the notion that courts should not make policy, as the nominee believes. But it is what Sotomayor said immediately after that reveals her to be a perfect liberal activist judge. Worse, she displays a willingness to be dishonest about what she believes a justice’s role in the system should be for the sake of protecting her judicial future.

Sotomayor made the remarks at a Duke University Law School forum in response to a question about the difference between the federal district and appeals courts. Sotomayor said that the difference was that, “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Immediately realizing her gaffe, Sotomayor attempted to walk back her remarks. But in so doing, she did not retract her statement. Rather, she merely tried to cover up the truth she just exposed; even acknowledging the radical nature of her beliefs with an awareness that they could come back to haunt her.

“Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And, I know, and I know that this is on tape and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know.”

What we know is that Sotomayor realized immediately that her words could jeopardize her chances at a Supreme Court nomination sometime in the future, so she does her best to restore the veil of secrecy she just tore down. But her tone of voice and gestures make clear that Sotomayor does not believe a word of what she is saying. The audience’s laughter proves that the message was sent loud and clear. Every student at that forum walked out secure in the knowledge that Sotomayor believes courts should make policy, but that they should never talk about that publicly.

If Sotomayor really believes that her role as an unelected justice on the Supreme Court should be to decide policy questions, then that should be a topic of discussion in her confirmation hearings. But as her half-hearted cover-up shows, Sotomayor does not want to be as honest about her view of the Court’s role as she does about how gender and ethnicity influence judicial ability. Like all liberal activists, Sotomayor wants to hide her true intentions behind politically correct rhetoric. In short, she is willing to lie to gain power, after which she will do as she pleases.

Cross posted at Mark on the Right.

COMMENTS

  • 10ksnooker

    Want her reverse racism to help rid America of the white guy influence. Progressives have been trying for the better part of the last century to do this, by anyway possible.

  • snewb098

    I listened to a lib talk show today
    Stephanie Miller. They were concerned because they
    don’t know her stance on abortion nor gay marriage.
    She may be more conservative that Suter..who knows?!?

    • Kyle-MI

      Do you really think that Obama (and AG Holder) would nominate someone who they weren’t sure about on gay marriage and, especially, abortion?

      If she does end up more conservative, it will be a pleasant surprise but shouldn’t change Republican tactics. She is almost assured confirmation by the Democratic majority and the few liberal GOP Senators. It is very improbable that we stop her, but, whether we stop her or not, our goal should be to educate the public and advocate for a conservative judicial philosophy.

    • JHancock

      did uphold the Mexico city gag rule saying that Americans had the right to decide which services they would not finance.

      She’s still a race warrior and identity politician’s pick-but she may not be terrible on abortion, and the person she’s replacing is far left on abortion anyway so a change for the worse seems unlikely

    • Menlo

      More than likely, her answer will be like Ginsburg’s in perhaps that Roe deserves criticism but Casey does not, and she will adhere to the precedent as specified in Casey. I’m sure we’ll hear something along the lines that her “personal views” won’t “interfere.”

      Based on the quoted section of an article I read, she hinted at her stance in the Mexico City policy ruling by her word choices of “pro-choice” versus “anti-abortion.” Unless that is a standard set for all judges, it says a lot.

      At this point, given the Casey ruling, pro-life people are the ones seeking judicial “activism.” And it’s the one place Democrats will use “restraint.”

  • RC

    Brave Conservative leaders like John Cornyn are on our side.

    Wait, no. He just walked over to our side to get a cup of coffee. He was just defending Sotomayor on her racist comments.

    Sotomayor’s klan-esque point of view might fit in at a La Raza BBQ, but it doesn’t fit in the Supreme Court. Just imagine if she was hearing a case of yours were you were up against a Latino. Do you really think she would impartially rule on your case? After all, she says that latinas come to better decisions than white men.

    Sotomayor may seem tolerant compared to Obama’s spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, but is that really enough?

    Blocking Sotomayor would be one of the greater victories possible. But there are a lot of Senate Democrats who will be weakened by their vote for an avowed racist. So a loss is not a total loss, unless we nominate a bunch of dime store liberals who refuse to draw contrasts with the Democrats on big issues.

  • http://brockwayfamily.spaces.live.com/ Erick Brockway

    Add [digg=url]

  • Swamp_Yankee

    … because someone published a front page article calling Sotomayor out on her wealthy elitist background.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/

    • Jack_Savage

      Their pets will be killed, their families will be threatened, and they will soon be in hiding in Honduras.

  • 6eorge Jetson

  • Menlo

    Now she’s off the Court of Appeals, where policy is “made.” I don’t know how many have noticed the dwindling number of cases the Supreme Court takes.

    The bigger concern, especially for those in her circuit, ought to be who will replace her. We can be glad for the vacancy while it’s there.

    She is correct though. Courts are not supposed to make policy, but they have been doing so anyway for a very long time. It happens whenever they make a “test,” think up a new “law” vocabulary term (like “rational basis” or “strict scrutiny”), or set a precedent.

    Besides, courts won’t have to make policy if Obama, Pelosi and Reid will do it for them.