Sotomayor: Racist? Sexist? Fascist?

Today Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, and the hypocrisy of the announcement ceremony was breathtaking. Almost every relevant statement made by Obama and Sotomayor was what mature and honest people wanted to hear – and yet was obviously false.

Looking at her record, she is at least somewhat racist and sexist with inadequate respect for the rule of law, but I don’t think she is aware of her racism, sexism, or fascist leanings. Listening to her today, she did not seem angry, bitter, or mean spirited. She seemed like a happy, intelligent, and thoughtful person who lives in a sheltered world where she gets much love and support from the political class.

Like Obama, she is their “precious”.

In spite of Sotomayor’s difficult childhood, her sheltered adult life is apparently the reason that she has little awareness, and thus little empathy, for those with a different point of view, such as those who support the values on which America was founded: values such as individual freedom, equality under the law, limited government, and the rule of law. This is what the Tea Parties were all about, but I’m guessing that like Obama and others on the Left, she just doesn’t get the Tea Parties either. At this point in her life, she is probably incapable of getting it. She lacks the experience that would give her the necessary empathy to get it.

Ironically, Obama said that it was Sotomayor’s experience and the empathy resulting from that experience that set her apart from other well qualified candidates.

Breathtaking!

Consider that Sotomayor once told an audience, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She also told the audience that the first female Supreme court justice, Sandra Day O’Connor, was wrong when she said that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusion.

Sotomayor in a videotaped interview said that she probably shouldn’t admit it, but that the appeals courts are where the law is made.

Sotomayor ruled against the white firemen who were passed over for promotion. The firemen were told that promotions would be based on the results of a test, and then every white fireman outscored every Hispanic and Black fireman, so the city decided to not promote anyone. Clearly, white firemen would not be allowed to succeed because of the color of their skin. One of those white firemen was dyslexic and thus had to spend many hours studying and many dollars paying for materials and tutors. He scored very well on the test, but he was denied promotion because of the color of his skin. Sotomayor – the putative champion of the weak; Sotomayor – Obama’s goddess of empathy … threw out his case without a minute of consideration.

Can you imagine if a white male judge threw out the case of a black handicapped man who made a heroic effort and outperformed his white counterparts and who was then denied promotion because he was black?

Can you imagine if a conservative judge implied that he intended to use his position to make the law?

Can you imagine if a white man said that a white male judge would make better decisions than a Hispanic female judge?

If the Democrats wanted a Latin American on the court so badly, then why did they filibuster the Latino nominated by Bush?

Also, didn't Obama promise a post-racial and post-partisan administration?

Like I said, the hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Confirmation Hearings

First note that Sotomayor resigned from a club that only allowed female members. She said that she did not want it to become an issue during the confirmation hearings. Imagine if a white man resigned from a similar club that only allowed male members and expected no further discussion about it.

In the hearings, Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., asked Sotomayor about a 2004 opinion she signed, which found that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." He asked how she can believe in a fundamental Constitutional right to privacy, when the Constitution lists no such right, and then deny the existence of a fundamental right to “keep and bear arms”, when such a right is explicitly stated in the Constitution. Sotomayor answered: "Is there a constitutional right to self-defense? And I can't think of one. I could be wrong, but I can't think of one."

Breathtaking!

Sotomayor should read: The Universal Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

To Be Fair

Sotomayor does have a lot of experience.

Also, Sotomayor is probably no more racist, sexist, and fascist than the average American, and therefore she is probably less racist, sexist, and fascist than the average person around the world. However, if she is going to be on the Supreme Court, shouldn't she be far above average?

What about that case with the Firemen that went to the Supreme Court? Did they side with Sotomayor? Well, no. The Supreme Court UNANIMOUSLY ruled against Sotomayor on that case.

So, it is pretty clear that while Sotomayor is not that bad, she is simply not Supreme Court material.

Why do We Care?

If we expose the reality of mediocre and narrow minded Supreme Court nominees like Sotomayor, then maybe the Supreme Court will consist of more freedom friendly justices.

The Promise of Reality is Freedom.