Senator,
You made this statement in regard to Judge Sotomayor's nomination for the Supreme Court:
"I look forward to reviewing Judge Sotomayor's record and learning more from her hearings. Judge Sotomayor once said 'I don't believe that we should bend the Constitution under any circumstances,' I agree that is how judges should rule and I will expect her to continue that view."
I can appreciate that you're waiting for the official hearings before making a final decision on this nomination, and I certainly agree with your opinion on how judges should make their rulings. However, I am extremely concerned with the tone and implied resignation in your statement. Clearly, you have not taken any look whatsoever into this woman's judicial philosophy or background; if you have, you do not appear to be overly bothered by it, and that's even worse. The quote above was made at a 1997 confirmation hearing. Of course she would say she holds the Constitution above all else...what idiot wouldn't, in that situation? Far more important than her words under the confirmation spotlight are her words in every day situations, when people may or may not be looking. That's when we discover who a person really is and what they really believe. Senator, if you are basing your vote for Sotomayor's nomination on her own quotes, please consider these as well:
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
"Um, all of the legal defense funds out there, um, they're looking for people out there with court of appeals experience, because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law, I know. Um, um — [laughter] — I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, and, I'm … you know."
"Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, "to judge is an exercise of power" and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states "there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging," I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."
"Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…."
"The constant development of unprecedented problems requires a legal system capable of fluidity and pliancy. Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions; although changes cannot be made lightly, yet law must be more or less impermanent, experimental and therefore not nicely calculable. Much of the uncertainty of law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value."
These are the words of a judge who clearly feels it is not only possible, but actually desirable to disregard the Constitution whenever she feels like it. Perhaps less important but just as telling is the fact that her decisions have been overruled or reversed 60% of the time! Is this the sort of judge that America needs and deserves on the highest court in the land? Absolutely not!
Senator, I found these quotes and this information after a few minutes of Google searching on my home PC, but you -- with a large staff and millions of dollars of resources -- chose to cite as your justification for apparent support of her nomination a single one of her quotes from a confirmation hearing in which she was clearly telling the panel exactly what they wanted to hear. With all due respect, Senator, what is wrong with you? Are you truly that much of a coward that you will allow this radical activist judge who clearly disregards the sanctity of American law and the Constitution in situations other than a Senate hearing room to be placed on the Supreme Court of the United States of America? Have you been bought off by some sort of compromise deal that the public doesn't know about? Do you simply lack the will or the spine to stand for what's right? Have you lost your moral and ethical compass after years of saturation in Washington DC? I sincerely hope you are simply being non-committal right now, and will throw the gauntlet down when crunch time comes. I would be thrilled to see that!
As a Republican, a Senator, and a law-abiding American citizen, your support of this nomination would be a complete and utter disgrace. Redeem yourself, uphold the Constitution, and represent the American people: vote NO on Sotomayor.
Thank you.
It's possible Bond is just being cautious right now, and will end up voting against the nomination. If so, I'll happily report it. Of course it's also possible that Obama will implement tax cuts and increase defense spending. Knowing Bond to be a moderate big-government type of Republican, I'd be surprised if he took a stand here. But it's possible. We'll see.
Anyway, if he does vote her through, I'd like to suggest that it is shameful actions like this that have cost the GOP so much support from the base over the years. Where are the men and women willing to stand and fight against obvious radicalization like this? Where are the orators willing and able to dismiss the baseless accusations of racism as just plain stupid, and point out the facts instead? Where are the ethics and the principles that keep a person grounded in what's right? Who is standing up for the foundations that made this country great in the first place?
All these have been evaporating over the past few years. There are signs of new life bubbling up, and there are a few true leaders floating around, but not nearly enough. If the Republican party cannot pull its act together enough to draw a line in the sand on a few core principles -- foremost among which should be less government control and the primacy of the Constitution -- then it is truly finished. And if the Republican party goes, so goes any hope for a meaningful recovery and return to global prominence for this once-great nation.
Boy, do I hope I'm wrong!
There's my two cents.
PS - if I get audited next year, I guess we'll know why. At this time, I'd like to offer a gigantic pre-emptive apology to my wife...
No comments:
Post a Comment