This week the conformation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor will begin in what will certainly be a media circus. Sotomayor has a lot of explaining to do with regard to remarks she made about a wise Latina making better decisions than a white man. She also has a few questionable associations that must be dealt with. When all is said and done there is no way 40 Republicans can stop her from being confirmed unless Teddy Kennedy is too sick to vote and Robert Byrd has not made it back from his recent illness.

Sotomayor has a few strikes against her and with Harriet Miers like numbers she will have a tough road but she will eventually be confirmed. She will not change the make up of the court even though she is an activist judge who uses her position to address social issues rather than the law.

He recent decision in the Ricci case was overturned by the Supreme Court and it will be one of the topics covered. Frank Ricci is scheduled to be called as a witness. He is the white firefighter who filed a lawsuit for discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed with him that he and all the others who passed the promotion exam were discriminated against contrary to what Sotomayor’s opinion in the case.

The outcome of this is that groups supporting Sotomayor are targeting Ricci. They are working on destroying his reputation by digging into the two other workplace lawsuits he has filed. The bash patrol will try to discredit him so that the bad decision by Sotomayor is ignored while everyone focuses on Ricci and his work history. This is the politics of personal destruction. Ricci is the bad guy because he dared to stand up for his rights and he dared to win and make a liberal judge look like a rookie.

We have seen the politics of destruction with Joe the Plumber. He asked a question that caused Obama to disclose his true intent of redistributing the wealth in this nation. Instead of focusing on that issue the media and several elected officials went after Joe. Some elected officials committed crimes in order to discredit him and the media worked overtime in order to paint him in a bad light while protecting Obama. Joe was harassed endlessly because he dared to ask the sainted one a question. The answer might be one of the reasons Obama is always using a teleprompter. He needs to keep focused on telling you what he wants you to hear while masking his real intent. Off the cuff answers leave him vulnerable.

I am expecting some heated debate in this confirmation process. This woman needs to be hammered about her racist remarks (I have called her a racist for making them but whether she is a racist remains to be seen. The comment though, was a racist one) and she needs to hammered about her associations. She belonged to a women only club. I don’t care because I think people should be able to belong to whatever kind of club they want but judges nominated by Republican presidents seem to be taken to task for such associations by the likes of Ted Kennedy, of all people.

I want the Republicans to bloody her up. I want all of her dirty laundry aired in public and I want the Republicans to be ruthless. We need to live up to the standard that Democrats have established. In an ideal world we could keep her from being confirmed and maybe some procedural thing will make that a reality.

However, it looks like she will eventually be confirmed. I hope it is not until well after the carcass of her career has been picked clean.

Anyone want to bet that the Democrats will treat Ricci with hostility?

As an aside, I find it interesting reading all the liberals who want her confirmed. They complain about Republicans smearing her and that she should just be voted on and sent to the Court. It is funny that they don’t feel this way when a Republican nominee is on the hot seat. Then it is smear, smear, smear. Bork, Thomas, Alito and Roberts were all treated badly by the libs. We owe it to Sotomayor to ensure she gets the same treatment, in the interest of fairness, which is something she does not believe should apply to white firefighters.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, stumbled at LaGuardia airport and fractured her right ankle. This is a shame and though I don’t want her confirmed I certainly don’t want to see her injured. The only stumbling I want her to do is in the confirmation hearings.

The liberals who comment here might imply that her injury symbolizes the fractured Republican Party (the fractured right).

But I want to know how she broke her right ankle to begin with since she leans to the left.

Of course, now she leans way left.

Someone at the Taylor Marsh blog has the smoking gun with regard to Sotomayor. Those not living in a cave know that she has stated that judges make law and then said she knew she should not say it. Well, someone who goes by djjl posted:

“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”

I am no legal scholar but this ruling seems to be different than what Sotomayor was saying. This ruling deals with state court judges and their ability to “make” law (notice the quotes). I don’t think Scalia was agreeing with the idea that it happens. I believe he was saying that they have the power to do it and they do which is why the election of STATE judges became popular.

The issue at hand was a law that prevented judges from discussing issues while campaigning if they could come before the court the person was elected to. The decision by the SCOTUS was that the rule (known as an Announce Clause) was a violation of First Amendment right.

One would have to ask Scalia what he meant but it would be helpful to read the entire ruling to better understand this.

There is no doubt that some of the positions taken by Sotomayor have been taken by others. All people will be influenced somewhat by their experiences and there is no way to get around that. Sotomayor took it a step further by asserting her experiences would allow her to make a better decision than some white guy.

One commenter at Taylor Marsh wrote:

I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.

I imagine this is some young easily swayed liberal with a head full of mush. Gutter politics have stooped this low with THIS nomination. Where was this person when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being confirmed? Alito caught hell from, of all people, Ted Kennedy for belonging to a group that did not like the idea of women being at Princeton (Kennedy belonged to a a group that did not allow women while he was attacking Alito). I don’t want to rehash the issue because it was benign but will anyone make an issue of the fact that Sotomayor belongs to a group that is for women only?

Personally, I don’t care if people belong to groups that disallow certain people. If blacks want to have a group of only blacks (and they have many) then fine. If whites or Asians or anyone else wants that, fine. So long as they are not groups that try to discriminate against people then they can invite who they want.

But back to the point, where was the commenter when Judge Bork was nominated? If you want stooping to a new low, that was it. Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork’s nomination was announced and said this:

“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Wikipedia

This is an attack and it was an unfair and slimy attack. If you want unfair then this is it. The commenter laments that anyone who is nominated better be prepared because of what is happening to Sotomayor. Right, the standard was set by Ted Kennedy and it continues to this day. The commenter is upset at the right wing attack machine. Where was this commenter (and all other liberals) when Kennedy was the left wing attack machine?

I don’t want to hear liberal pukes crying about the way Sotomayor is treated. They were all at Kennedy’s feet kissing his shoes when he attacked Bork. None of them came out and cried about how unfair it was or how things had degraded.

Ted Kennedy had spoken and that was good enough for them.

If Bork were confirmed women would be forced into back alley abortions. I wonder why no one said that if Kennedy were elected women would be forced into the back seat of submerged vehicles where they would die a horrible death while he laid on a bridge in the fetal position crying why me, why me. That would be the most accurate of the two statements.

Anyway, Sotomayor needs to be taken to task for everything. Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine and attack her on it all. This is a lifetime appointment so we need to hammer her on all points.

According to World Net Daily Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, is a member of the racist group La Raza.

As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a “racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.

Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

I said she was a racist because of her previous statement. I would agree with Ann Coulter who said she did not know if Sotomayor is a racist but the statement was however, the membership in La Raza is a pretty clear indication to me that she is racist. The statement in question is; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

Imagine the uproar if a white male had made a similar statement…

Now that Obama has selected the anti gun, empathetic, racist Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court he is asking the Senate to make quick work of her confirmation. There is no doubt in my mind she will be confirmed because the Republicans do not have the numbers to stop her. She will only be stopped if there is a major issue or she stumbles. This means that Republicans need to be diligent and take a long hard look at her and her record. They need to do this slowly and deliberately. Obama wants it done quickly before more negatives pop up. We need to take our time and dig as deep as we can.

This judge does not belong on the Supreme Court. Justice is supposed to be blind but she has already admitted that she uses her life experiences to guide her. She does not interpret the Constitution and apply the law, she allows her emotion to dictate her decisions. It is also true that she believes that policy is made in the court which means she lacks an understanding of our system of governance or she does not care about it.

I have demonstrated that she does not understand the Constitution by showing that her view of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that is indisputable. Only people who lack intelligence or wish to rewrite history or enact a personal agenda see it otherwise.

Sotomayor is also a racist. People have been accused of taking her comment out of context but I have read the entire quote. It is racist. The assertion is that she will understand the downtrodden before the court because of her background and because she is a person of color. Does this mean that she could not get decisions right if the dispute involved privileged white men? I mean, if she had been on the court in 2000 would she have to recuse herself from Gore v Bush because she did not live their lives and could not understand their issues?

Or is it more accurate to say that justice is supposed to be blind and that it does not matter what color, nationality, sex, or ethnicity a judge is, the law should be applied equally across the spectrum and that the only experience required to get it right is a thorough understanding of the Constitution? Her comment was racist and those who deny it are the same ones who see racism when a noose is hung at a house on Halloween or when someone says that welfare recipients should get off their lazy butts and get a job. The immediate assumption is that the speaker was talking about minorities. I would ask; who is the racist, the one who made the statement or the one who made the assumption?

Sotomayor seems to think that because she is a Latina with a humble beginning that her experiences will allow her to make better decisions and to get it right more often than some white guy who did not live her life. So did her life experiences lead her to mess up Ricci v. DeStefano? Did she have such a loathing for white people that she decided that they did not deserve the same protection against discrimination as a minority group would? Is there any doubt that if this had been reversed and the blacks were suing that she would have sided with them?

This is the heart of the issue. The law was ignored in Ricci and several very serious Constitutional issue were ignored. Evidently, her life issues did not allow her to get it right and the Supreme Court will likely overturn her decision in the case.

That should not be surprising since 60% of her cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been overturned. This is but one more indication that she does not understand the law or the Constitution and it puts a big dent in her assertion that she would get it right more often than some white guy. 60% of the time she was wrong and this is just in cases that went to the SCOTUS. How many of her lower court decisions have been overturned?

Sotomayor does not belong on any bench much less the Supreme Court. Republicans need to aggressively push her and dig up all the things that she has done that run counter to the way good law is practiced. She might end up being confirmed but the detailed analysis will demonstrate what Obama is and what he is doing to this country.

We also need to target Democrat Senators from red states who have a fairly conservative base. Make sure the gun issues are well played and ensure the gun owners know. Tell these Senators they will be in danger of losing if they support this person who does not understand our rights.

As for you liberals who are whining that she was attacked from the start, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork within 45 minutes of his selection by Reagan and what Kennedy said was not very nice. Democrats have been nasty and played lots of games with nominees of Republican presidents. Now it is time to ensure this nominee is asked tough questions and that she is asked to explain law and her statements.

Let’s see if she can do it like John Roberts, without notes.

But be careful how you discuss her because the White House is warning to watch what you say about her. Gibbs, the Obama butt boy, said that people who are criticizing her intelligence probably did not graduate number 2 in their classes. I don’t question her intelligence but being smart does not mean she knows the law or is not an activist. There are really smart people who passed law school and they are terrible lawyers.

The National Black Republican Association is not happy with the pick either.

Ann Coulter has a great article up.

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.”

~snip~

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.