Sonia Sotomayor: Supreme Court Nominee

Sonia Sotomayor is a radical racist. In hter opinioins and public statements, she has made clear that she feels judges should deliberately write their opinions into the law--especially if those opinions are based on the "richness" of experience of growing up as a minority woman. You will hear the "1984" style Big Lie from Democrats and the mainstream media that she is a "moderate". As indicated, that is a "1984" style Big Lie. She is as radically left as they come.


Should Republicans opposes Sonia Sotomaryor to the extent of voting against her (the way many Democrats voted against Clarence Thomas totally on ideology, and against Alito and Roberts on the same ground)?


Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican. See the previous entries today where I quoted her on "latinas" and then started talking about Mexican-Americans. As I stated, it is a major, racist error to consider all "latin" cultures as the same (Itlaly, Spain, Peru, Argentina, Mexico--they are all different). It is not me that is in error by talking about Mexican-Americans as "latinas" (which they are), but Sotomayor who is in earror, and racist, by suggesting that all "latinas" are the same, and superior to "white males". The one area where you might question what I said is where I suggested "Sotomayor" was not a "Mexican" name, although I hardly meant that very seriously. I have seen MANY Mexican-Americans with names I did not recognize as "Mexican", including (for example) "Lomeli". Is "Sotomayor" a Puerto Rican name? Is it her married name? Is it a married name from a "white male" in here ancestry? WHO CARES? I don't. Not even enought to go on Google/Wikipedia and find out (possibly). I leave that as an exercise for you (looking Sotomayor up on Google).


If I were in Congress, I would oppose Sotomayor, because she is a racist/sexist AND because she has a totally wrong view of "the law" as a way for a judge to impose her own policy views by dictatorial fiat. She flatly states this, and has been reversed many times for doing it.


That said, she is going to get confirmed unless the embarrassing things about her that come out are outrageous and overwhelming. I think the statement I quoted in my first entry today is that outrageous, but most of the country will not.


However, this whole question of Supreme Court nominees gets tricky. Yes, the people on the left oppose people totally on ideology. So do people on the right--usually not as virulently and widespread. Most of Clinton's nominees received in excess of 90 votes, while the left raised virulent opposition against all of Bush's Supreme Court nominees. The problem, of course, is that it is somewhat dangerous to reduce judicial confirmation votes to party line votes. The President is elected, in part, to select these people. "Advise and consent" was never meant to give the Senate the right to do the selecting. We are graducally moving in the direction of making judges totally political. More accurately, judges themselves, and the partisan fights over judicial nominees (primarily, but certainly not exclusively, on the left), have pretty much eroded the old fiction that judges are not "political". Still, it was a valuabe fiction, and we lose a lot if we discard it altogether.


In short, Sotomayor will be approbed, absetnt major revelations ("major" to the public at large, rather than to me). This is NOT a vote (such as the "bailout" votes) where I disown a Republican who votes to confrim Sotomayor. There ARE principles involved here where you can legito,ate;u vpte for a "qualified" (is she, really, when she is that wrong in her approach to judging?) nominee on the grounds that the judiciary should not be totally politicized. It IS useful, after all, to point to cooperation on Democratic nominees the next time we have a Republican President. That is, it might be useful if the left were not becoming so arrogant and political that they don't care about tradition. Leftists---more and more--only care about POWER.


Bottom line: Yes, I would probably vote against Sotomayor--albeit I would have an open mind in terms of the information that comes out about her. I don't think ANY Repubican Senator can afford to immediately say he is voting against her. The full facts of her record should be allowed to come out first. You might think my mind closed, and to a degree you would be right (based on the information I now have). No Senator can afford to give that impression. What you have to do is the Democratic/leftist tactic of "raising questions" and looking into her background. Even this gives me qualms to the extent we are turning every Supreme Court nomination into a Clarence Thomas/Bork style witch hunt. And Bork WAS rejected for his "radical" views no more "radical" (on the right) than Sotomayor's views are radical (on the left). Indeed, I think Bork was considreably less radical, in terms of objective jurisprudence (jurisprudence that does not simply impose your policy views on every decision, whatever "the law" says).


Make no mistake. This appointment is bad. It may even be worse than expected. But an appointment of this type was expected. That is what happens when leftists are in power, and it is the downside of McCain losing.


I have said before that Obama is dishonest abut gay marriage. He fully intends, and intended, to appoint people to the Supreme Court that impose their own policy views on the country. I don't know Sotomayor's polciy views on gay marriage (although I suspect Obama does). But if she supports gay marriage as a policy, then she will write it into the Constitution. That is what she has said she does--make decisions based on her own "wisdom" gained from her "rich" life experiences.


Her personal life story, and the results of recent elections, virtually guarantee that Sotomayor will be confirmed--absent enough ammunition against her being brought to light. That does not boter me, although her "philosophy" does. It is probably as it should be that Presidents should be able to get confirmation of judges over totally political opposition, even if the left is definitely NOT of that opinion.


We will see what surfaces on Sotomayor, and if she can do better than Nancy "Total Failure" Pelosi in explaining herself. Republicans should, at least, make her defend her judicial philosophy and explain whether whe really thinks judges whould write their own opinions into law. Explaining some of those quotes referenced in the first blog entry today would be a start in terms of demanding that Sotomayor explain herself.