Sotomayor: Sidewhow, Except to Extent Leftists Are Exposed

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed. The only thing that could stop her is herself (with some amaizing gaffe). Further, it really does not matter whether she is confirmed, in terms of the type of Supreme Court justice we are going to get. Obama will just appoint someone just as bad. I Know. Republicans panic when they suffer a "loss", and cave to pressure. Not true of leftists, where the supply of reliable leftist judges cannnot be exhausted.


Thus, the only significance the Sotomayor hearing has is POLITICAL--to expose lefitists for the racist, anti-democrats that they are. For leftists, the judiciary is just a vehcile for imposing leftist IDEOLOGY on us all. Almost all leftist judges are willing to impose their views on all of us as what SHOUD be in the Constitutiion, if the framers haD only known what they were doing. In short, almost every leftist judge is a "far leftistist".


Well, you say (not being as smart as the blog author), are not "far right" judges just as bad? Is this not a power game where both sides are trying to impose their views on everybody?


Nope. There are NO "far right" judges. Do you know what a "far right" judge would be? It would be a jduge willing to declare the "right to life" as a fundamental right, and therefore our country MUST prohibit abortion. That is the true" far right" position. The moderate "right" position of judicial restraint is simply to reverse Roe v. Wade, and turn the matter back to DEMOCRACY to decide--probably in every individual state.


Yes, there was a time when "far right" judges were wllling to impose their views on the country. That was back in the period from 1900-1935, when the Supreme Court was often willing to protect property and business interests (although often in ways that stood up for individual rights of the "little guy" more than you would think, as by opposing government price fixing of HIGHER prices). In other words, there was a time when conservative judges were willing to IMPOSE conservative values on the country. The dirty little secret is that there was more REASON for this view of the Constitution than there is for the leftist view of what personal views judges should impose. As Yale professor John Stuart Ely said, in a law review arcile opposing Roe v. Wade: "Anyone who honestly askes whether the framers of the Constitution were more interested in protecting property and contracts, or in protecting a woman's "right" to abortion, will not like the answer". (quote paraphrased, but accurate in capturing the meaning). The Constitutiion purposrts to PROHIBIT "impairment" of contracts. It says NOTHING about abortion.


There are NO (for all intents and purposes) such "far right" conservative judges anymore, willing to dismantle the entire Fedreal Government (desirable as this might be). "Conservative" in the judiciary today--Saclia, Thomas, et. al.) means RESTRAINT--refusing to use the judiciary to impose your own views. From abortion to homosexuality, 'conservative" judges merely want to let DEMOCRACY decide. Conservative judges do not want to "prohibit" gay marriage. They just want to REJECT imposing the leftist view that gay marriage is a "right" (something the framers would have been astounded to think was part of the Constitution).


As I have said, I do not regard this as a "test" of conservatism in the Senate. It is a prefectly respctbale position, for a conservative, that the PRESIDENT appoints judges, and that the Senate should not impose its own veiws of who should be appointed. Basically, the President needs to go considerably far afied before his choice should be rejected. Now leftists are HYPOCRITES on this, as usual, in that many of them opposed judges like Aliton and Roberts solely on their "mainstream" conservative leaning (but not "far right") ideology. Therefore, I do not regard a Republican who votes for Sotomayor as some sort of traitor (although I regard most of them as traitors on other grounds--bailouts, etc.).


Would I vote for Sotomayor if I were in the Senate. Probably not. That is because I consider her a decleared RACIST. She said some SIX times, in prepared remarkds, that a "wise Latina" is will make BETTER decisons than a white male. In other words, she is arrogantly declaring herself, and her entire ethnic group, as SUPERIOR to white males. It would be unacceptable to me to vote for a person who blieves this kind of thing as a member of the Supreme Court. But leftist judges who have not been so obvious as this would vote the same way as Sotomayor.


).S. Yes, I know. The blog author (me) thinks that men THINK better than nwomen!!! To the pont that women should never have been given the vote. Note I am not saying men are "better" PEOPLE (we all know, if only from women, that "men are scum').. But men think better. You say that is horrible, and that no one would vote for me as a member of the Supreme Court? RIGHT YOU ARe (at least as to my chances of people voting fto confirm me). That is my problem In essence, that is EXACTLY what Sotomayor said--except she said that latinas were "better", instead of that males are better. WHY should a different standard apply to her than to me? Nope. I would vote against her, but repsect those who might vote the other way on the grounds that it is not the job of the Senate to keep the President from appoiting the kind of person he was elected to appoint--whether the electorate fully ralized it or not.