Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Obama Nominates Moderate Judge Radical Leftist Hack To Supreme Court

The big news from yesterday was Barack Obama's first nomination to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

We discussed her a couple weeks ago as being one of the front-runners, so this is no surprise. Also unsurprisingly, the media is already framing any potential opposition to her selection as being based purely on racicm or sexism, or both. This is absurd, to say the least, but
they've already begun, and you can expect such accusations to get more and more bold as the Senate hearings gear up. Also in full swing is the effort to minimize Sotomayor's radical record. For example, Time begins their coverage this way:
But Obama has chosen a mainstream progressive, rather than a wild-eyed liberal. And he has chosen a rags-to-riches Hispanic woman. Her life story is inspirational — a political consultant's dream. Since she is certain to be confirmed, there are plenty of smart conservatives who will, by midday Tuesday, have done the political cost-benefit analysis: at a time when Republicans are trying to demonstrate that their party can reach beyond rich white men, what mileage is there in doing anything but celebrating such a historic choice?
'Mainstream'? Sotomayor is a female Hispanic judge who openly holds a radically Leftist view of the law. She spoke candidly to a friendly audience at Duke Law School in 2005, telling them that she feels judges should create policy from the bench:



This is, of course, blatantly unconstitutional, and should be grounds for immediate dismissal from consideration. It is a sad sign of how far left America has wandered that she will still likely be confirmed.

Obama chose her for two apparent reasons. First, she allows him to check off quite a few constituent boxes (women, Hispanics, radical Lefties, globalists). Ironically, the fact that Bush nominee Miguel Estrada was Hispanic didn't seem to matter as the Left savaged him out of a Court of Appeals position. Second, she openly advocates for things like economic justice and empathetic rulings. This basically means that for her the law only goes as far as her agenda...if the two come into conflict, she chucks the actual Constitution in favor of what she thinks it should be. Given that the concept of justice should be equal for every American, this is a very, very bad sign. An example of how that belief might come into play in real life:
“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.”
So, basically, she knows better than any mere white man how the law should be administered, and she will use her position of authority to stick it to the eeeeevil white men every chance she can get. Ironically, if any white man made such a statement, he would be instantly drummed out of public life and probably exiled to a small island somewhere off the coast of Mars. Not Sotomayor...no, no, she's going to become a Supreme Court Justice! More informative quotes can be found here.

Another interesting bit of irony is that Barack Obama voted against both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. He admitted they were more than competent for the job, but that he just didn't like their politics. Now, we're being told to ignore Sotomayor's politics and just focus on her competence (which is, according to some, marginal anyway). Typical liberal hypocrisy, and typical Barack Obama.

One of the pro-Sotomayor talking points being thrown around now is the fact that she was appointed as a district court judge by George H.W. Bush. This is supposed to prove how moderate she is, but here's the real story on how that happened:
The normal time period taken from the time a nomination reaches the committee for investigation, hearing and committee vote is two months, with action by the full Senate ordinarily following within a few days. Current nominations, however, have been held up since October by a dispute between the White House and the Senate Committee over the committee's right to access to FBI reports on candidates. A compromise reached last month should get the process moving again.

The seven Southern District vacancies have existed for periods of from 7 to 39 months. Senator Alfonse D'Amato, R-N.Y., has recommended persons to fill five of the vacancies, and, under an agreement between the Senators, Senator Daniel Moynihan, D-N.Y., two.
It was a deal to get the nomination process moving, and Sotomayor was actually selected by a fellow Democrat. Don't buy the company line on this one!

Sotomayor also has a history of throwing tantrums, getting her way, and throwing more tantrums. While an undergrad at Princeton, she was shown incredible privileges in selecting a Dean who was a minority; that apparently wasn't enough, and she complained that too few minorities were included in the process. She also wrote that 'uniform treatment' of all candidates should have been applied, even as she herself was granted privileges far beyond her status and authority. Yes, it looks as though Barack Obama has found someone with a hypocrisy that runs just about as deep as his own!

For an interesting comparison between comments offered on current Supreme Court Justice Sam Alito and Sotomayor, go here.

NRO suggests that conservatives and Republicans oppose Sotomayor purely on the basis of her radical Lefty judicial philosophy, but realize and prepare for the accusations of racism.

Powerline suggests that Senate Republicans should maintain integrity, refuse to raise the bar on filibustering her or provoking the nuclear option, but feel free to grill her in the questioning and to vote against her for no other reason than that she's a raving lunatic liberal. Makes sense to me. Bottom line: call your Senators and tell them what you think of Sotomayor. She's up for a permanent position in which she can and will influence your life for the next couple of decades with her radical Leftist philosophy.

I'll post more later if new details emerge, but this should give you a very good starting point on the topic.

There's my two cents.


Sources and Related Reading:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/sonia-sotomayors-greatest-hits/
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODJhNTA2ZGUzZWVkZjhiYzQwMmFhZjZmNWFjYmI4MTk=
http://minx.cc/?post=287759
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_052609/content/01125106.guest.html
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/why_sotomayor_was_appointed_by.asp
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/05/sotomayor_princeton_uniform_tr_1.asp
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/05/023654.php
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/26/video-rush-calls-sotomayor-a-racist-gets-called-a-racist-in-return/

No comments: