I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor

After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.

I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.

First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.

That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “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.” New York Times

In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)

The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.

It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.

Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).

How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:

“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution [emphasis mine]

The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.

I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:

In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:

“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).

Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).

Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants

People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:

“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.


The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.

A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.

For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.

Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law

This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.

Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.

Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.

The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).

Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.

Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.

So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.

Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

18 Responses to “I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor”

  1. Adam says:

    “They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.”

    Don’t worry. Fox News has already found racists to attack, no need for waiting.

    • Blake says:

      Are you excusing her racist comments, Adam? ox news might not have commented properly, but then they aren’t in the running to be a Supreme court Justice. There were others Barama could have picked, but he chose a racist- she’s just a Liberal racist, so I expect you will excuse her, huh?

  2. Blake says:

    What bothers me is that Sotomayor has been overturned at appeals level 80% of the time- this does more than suggest that she doesn’t know law, and adjudicates with her “feelings”
    Adam, you see Fox news under every rock- if she is racist, she is racist on NBC- they just won’t call her on it, because they are uber- wussies and NOT journalists. Journalists are supposed to watch out for the people instead of licking the shoes of his divineness.

  3. Blake says:

    Oh- Adam, both BD and I could find sites where libbies said things just as bad or worse about virtually everybody on the right.
    Does your side’s bad behavior get a pass, but you point out gleefully, other, more conservative racist remarks? How completely hypocritical of you.
    Racist is racist, no matter who spews it.
    Didn’t your momma tell you two wrongs do not make a right? She sure should have.

  4. Adam says:

    The 80% overturn rate is a Limbaugh lie. Not sure where you got it since you said you don’t get your facts from liars like that gas bag.

    Nice straw men attacks, Blake.

    First of all where did I excuse her racist comments? Where did I say anything one way or another about her supposed racism?

    However, find me actual racist comments and not just out of context quotes and I’ll see if I excuse them.

    Second, when did I ignore or attempt to pretend liberals don’t spew hate or aren’t racist? When did I say anything of the sort? How can I be hypocritical?

    I’m only pointing out that there are people “jumping all over her” already using racist hate speech and it is not simply a label liberals use without justification.

    • Blake says:

      Much like Teddy “half a brain” Kennedy ranting about Judge Bork the DAY he was named? At least the lawmakers who are to confirm her have been fairly sedate about it- not at all like the Chappaquiddick killer.
      As for actual racist comments, how about the one where she said a wise, latina woman would have a richer experience than a white man? f that was turned around, you couldn’t begin to wipe the froth off of your mouth fast enough.
      Racist is racist, Adam.
      You pretend liberals don’t spew hatred by ignoring their comments while gleefully pointing out other, conservative hate speech.

      • Darrel says:

        “Racist is racist, Adam.”

        This from a person that called Obama “curious George” yesterday. What hypocrisy.

        • Blake says:

          Gee, I guess in your case, racism is in the eye of the beholder- that comment referenced his EARS, or don’t you notice those open cab doors?

        • Darrel says:

          Now you pretend a reference to Curious George, isn’t a reference to a monkey. Shameless dishonesty.

          • Big Dog says:

            Obama looks like curious George regardles of his color. However, I do not believe in treating blacks and whites differently and you all referred to Bush as a chimp and monkey for 8 years so any reference to Obama in those terms indicates he has attained the level you reserved for Bush.

  5. Blake says:

    Oh, the 80% figure came from the Houston Chronicle, who, I guess, got it from Rush, which is kinda weird, since they are as liberal as you.

    • Adam says:

      I can’t find any source for the 80% other than Limbaugh and a bunch of his dittoheads repeating the figure without questioning it.

      First of all she did not say “a wise, latina woman would have a richer experience than a white man” so don’t rephrase the quote to build your argument. Second, what she did actually say is taken out of context the way it is being used by conservatives.

      If you would read the speech Sotomayor you should find it isn’t racist at all unless you think she is wrong to suggest a Latina woman might have a better perspective on civil rights and gender equality issues than a typical white man who hasn’t faced discrimination for race or gender.

      In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

      Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

      • Blake says:

        You are correct, Adam- upon re reading the Chronicle, I see the newsprint was smeared, and 60 looked like eighty- still a lot of mistakes there Adam.

  6. Adam says:

    But she also states she does not think it impossible for a white man:

    I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

  7. Blake says:

    The facts are that someone should be judged on their merits and with a 60% overturn rate, well, that’s just not Supreme Court material, I don’t care if she’s latina, female, transgendered, tri- sexual, or what ever tingles your leg.
    We should look for competence, and she doesn’t have it.
    Empathy is an emotion entirely inappropriate for the court, which is supposed to treat plaintiff and defendant equally in deciding these cases. Empathy destroys that impartiality.

    • Darrel says:

      “Empathy is an emotion entirely inappropriate for the court,…”

      Maybe we should just get a computer to make these decisions? Why do we even need humans at all? Just cut the baby in half. That’s fair after all.

      Regarding this “overturn rate that isn’t supreme court material”, as I posted in another thread:

      “In fact, contrary to the claim that a reversal rate of 60 percent is “high,” data compiled by SCOTUSblog since 2004 show that the Supreme Court has reversed more than 60 percent of the federal appeals court cases it considered each year.

      The Times reported that “[t]hree of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents.” The article then quoted Wright’s assertion that Sotomayor’s “high reversal rate alone could be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record.” But according to data compiled by SCOTUSblog, Sotomayor’s reported 60 percent reversal rate is lower than the overall Supreme Court reversal rate for all lower court decisions from the 2004 term through the present — both overall and for each individual Supreme Court term.”


  8. Big Dog says:

    The interesting thing about statistics is you can make them say what you want.

    They give stats from 2004, why not from the past 20 or 30 years?

    Also, among those stats, who appointed the judges on the courts overturned and were they liberals or conservatives.

    Finally, none of the others are going to be on the Supreme Court. Pick the cream of the crop for that. If that many were overturned then there should be a few shining stars to pick from. They can make stats say what they want.

  9. True Patriot says:

    Adam stated that liberals call people racists when there is cause to.
    I can name many cases in which people were called racists without cause.
    It happens everyday with MSNBC and their reporting.
    Jeanene Garofalo called the tea party supporters “racist rednecks”.
    Yet, there were blacks, Mexicans, and even Asians at the tea parties all across the country.
    I believe that some liberals are hypocrites.
    It’s perfectly ok to sit down at a dinner and laugh about jokes that tell of the death of people that oppose you, but if you do it about a liberal, you are immediately called racists.
    The Democratic party started the KKK.
    They rely on votes from people of color to use the government programs which are utilized in an effort to bog down the government and create chaos in which the Socialists will build their government upon.
    It’s all about a utopia in which everyone gets their fair share, and the rich provide it.
    I think the Dems are the real racists.