I was familiar with one of Sonia Sotomayor's decisions bEFORE she was selected to be Obama's first Supreme Court nominee. That was because the case had come to the attention of my brother (the one who was a co-owner of Shippers Transport--the now defunct trucking company NOT bailed out by Obama/the Federal Government). My brother regarded it as an egregious example of racism on the left. Remember, if you believe in GROUP rights, and that people have "rights" as members of GROUPS (rather than as individuals), that is the very essence of racism. You then believe that people should be discriminated against, or for, based on the color of their skin. The Ku Klux Klan believes no differently (than Snia Sotomayor and the left), except as to the skin color they like.
Segue to New Haven, Connecticut (home of Yale--no "hisotry" of "past discrimination" here, and where the "racism" is almost totally a matter of punishing people for their skin being white). Say you are a dyslexic firefighter studying for the promotion exam to be on the promotion list for lieutenant and captain. You put in many hours of effort, including having people READ to you the texts useful for studying for the test. You make the promotion list because of your INDIVIDUAL hard work. But you don't get the promotion, and are in fact no closer to getting the promotion than you were before. Why not? Because of the COLOR OF YOUR SKIN. You happen to be "white" (who says? Are my daughters "white"--50% Hispanic as they are? Is Obama WHITE, more than 50% Caucasian that he is?).
This is "group think" gone amok. New Haven threw out the test, because out of 19 people who made the promotion list, none were "black", and only one was Hispanic. There was no real indication that the test was designed to exclude those groups. To the contrary, every attempt was evidently made to make sure the test was not racially biased. The ONLY reason for throwing out the test was that it did not produce promotions for "people of color". In other words, the idea is that people NOT be treated as inidividuals, but as members of the racial group (skin color) to which they happen to belong. This is racism, pure and simple.
Wel, the syslexic firefighter who "aced" the test sued, basded on his INDIVIDUAL right not to be judged on the color of his skin--the right not to have an earned result taken away from him because of the color of his skin. The leftisst, racist (redundancy) trial judge ruled against the dyslexic firefighter (joined, of course, byt h e others discrininated against because of their skin color). Remember, these peple (leftists) cannot even DEFINE who is "blakc", "Native American", or "white". Like the Ku Klux Klan, they don't let that stand in their way (although, unlike the Ku Klux Klan, they are probably not "honest" enough to pass the Black Codes, defining a person as "blakc" if the person has 1/8 "black blood"--the blood, of course, being red so long as it is exposed to air).
The case reached Sonia Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Sonia Sotomayor is a racist (already established from her own words, as previously quoted in this blog). Therefore, what resulted was a ONE PARAGRAPH, "per curiam" opinion upholding the decision of the trial judge, who had reasoned that the city could face a lawsuit from the BLACK firefighters if the city did not throw out the test--something which is true ONLY if you assume that the judges deciding such question are the same racists willing to discriminate against people based on the color of their skin.
You need to understand what a "per curiam" opinion is. It is really no substantial opinion at all. It is a summary decision--usually by a unanimous court--based on the conclusion that the case is not worth the time for a full blown opinion. In other words, a "per curiam" opinion represents a statement by the court that the law (and facts) are so well settled, or the case so uninteresting and insignificant, that it is as waste of judicial resources to devote much time to the case. Sonia Sotomayor, as a racist ideologue, regarded the firefighter case as such an insignificant case. Or, more likely, she--and a majority of her three judge panel, were trying to BURY the case in the hope that treating it as worth only a "per curiam" opinion would convince others it was not a case worth further review. If the latter was Sotomayor's object, it did not work.
"Pe curiam" opinions almost never have a dissent. A dissent almost contradicts the very essence of what justifies a "per curiam" decision. In this case, there was a stinging disssent from a HSIPANIC judge. Further, the panel opinion (Sotomayor's panel) was requested to be reviewed "en banc" by the entire Second Circuit. My understnading is that such "en banc" review was turned down only on a 7 to 6 vote. It was that close. This is the case that racist ideologue Sotomayor thought INSIGNIFICANT. (For yuor information, every Federal Appeals Court has a number of judges comprising the whole court, but every case, in the absence of extraordinary circumstances, is heard by a "random" panel of three of the judges--subject to "en banc" review of the panel decision, if the entire court deems it appropriate upon appeal/appllicationi from the "loser" of the three judge panel decision.)
Was this the end? Nope. The case that Sotomayor--esposing herself as a racist ideologue trying to bury a case she did not even want to get a serious hearing--was then accepted for review by the Supreme Court of the United States, where it is now pending with an opinion expected prior to the vote on Sotomayor. Thus, the case that Sotomayor though "insignificant", or pretended to so think, is going to be the subject of a "landmark" Supreme Court decision. Sotomayor hardly showed herslef to be a judge who looks at the real merits and significance of a case in her conduct in the case of the dyslexic firefighter. What she showed herself to be was a leftist ideologue with a POLITICAL agenda to impose her personal views--as she, herself, has described herself on more than one occasion in the past. That is, she has described herself as looking up the judiciary as a place to make policy according to a judge's life experiences and view of the world. See previous blog entries this week on this subject.
Do I think the Supreme Court will come down with a ringing opinion against "group rights", and for inidividual justice--for the right of a person not to be discriminated against based on the color of that person's skin? Actually, I don't. Leftist racism has become too embedded in the judiciary, and even some "conservative" judges are unwilling to make clear statements on the subject. I expect an AMBIGUOUS decision, which may or may not give the "white", dyslexic firefighter individual "justice".
I have said before in this blog than I had an "op-ed" column printed in The Daily Texan on this very subject ("reverse discrimination"), at the time of the Bakke decision (on discrimination against "white" males in law school admission). What is important about this is that I was writing in about 1972. As I have previously described in this blog, I had to write the Texas legislature to get the article published, as The Daily Texan was reserving its "guest columns" for leftist propaganda at the time. I was a law student at the University of Texas School of Law, and one of the few outspoken Republicans on campus at that time (a time of the Vietnam War, Nixon, Watergate, and McGovern getting 95% or more of the "student" vote, while the country gave Nixon 60% of the vote--meaning the public was smarter then than they are now). I digress (sort of)
The point is that discriminating aginst peoloe on the basis of their skin color (so long as it is some accepted facsimile of "white") was an issure FORTY YEARS AGO.
How can we still be arguing--as the left still is--that the rights of people should be determined by their skin color. For God's sake, we have a black (sort of) President!!!! Even if you think there was some justiciation for pro-active countering of rednect racism in 1970 (and, as I said in The Daily Texan back then, clear thinking would have shown you that assigning individual rights on the basis of group membership was always indefensible), it is not longer possible to argue that we shoud STILL be discriminating against people on the color of their skin.
Do leftists want us to do this FOREVER, on the grounds that it is group "rights" that is important and not individual rights? The short answer is "YES". That is exactly what leftist racists like Sotomayor want to do. They regard the world as a power struggle between "people of color", and sometimes women, against evil "white males" ("white Eurpopeans", in the language of Reverend Wright). Sotomayor's own statments make clear that is how she views the world. See, again, previous blog entries this week.
Let me be clear here. I expect to oppose Sotomayor on the grounds that she is a radical leftist, and racist. However--contrary to what you may think--I do have an open mind that she MIGHT be able to "explain" here previous votes and statements. You know that Obama is going to choose someone left of center, and he is President with a Democratic Senate. So it is possible that Sotomayor is not the worst we could get. My initial reaction is that she is as bad as they come, but I am open to changing that opinion. If you leftists out there think that an EXTREME leftist philosophy is not grounds for voting against a Supreme Court justice, you need to remember Robert Bork, and all of those others you opposed on exactly those grounds.
Now I do NOT intend to go into this kind of detail as to every questionable opinion of Sonia Sotomayor. I really only did this entry because I had long planned an entry on this case, before Sotomayor was nominated, and the case is instructive on leftist thought even without the participation of Sotomayor, and what it reveals about her.
Make no mistake. Sotomayor is NOT going to be defeated as a nominee because of an individual opinion, or even a few individual opinions. She is probably not going to be defeated at all. But if she is defeated, it will be because either her EXTREME, racist overall judicial philosophy is exposed or because some really disturbing personal misconduct (say a tape of a truly racist rant or not parying her taxes or whatever) comes to light.
That is what Repubicans need to do in the hearings, and time before the hearings: Try to turly confront Sotomayor on her radical extrmism and willingness to impose her fiews on the country as a dictator from the bench. This will give Sotomayor a chance to self destruct. The likelihood is that she will be confirmed, but Republicans have an obligation to at least try to force Sotomayor to reveal the details of her judicial philosophy, including challenging her on past statements. If Republicans fail to do that, they are worthless (a conclusion, of course, that I have pretty much already made as to current Republican officeholders).