No surprises with Sotomayor

Okay, first, let me say that I get angry when people won't take the time to respect a person enough to learn how to pronounce their name correctly. I do my best to reduce the chances that I'll massacre someone's name, even if I completely disagree with them.

Now that I have that out of the way, there is nothing on this earth that can convince me that Sotomayor, Obama's pick for the Supreme Courts, is prejudiced. And, in my opinion, based on her own statements, she doesn't seem to like men all that much. I do not believe she is capable of separating her clearly liberal philosophy from the single most important responsibility she would have on the Supreme Court: protecting the Constitution. Here are some examples of her decisions:

1. Judge Sotomayor has claimed that judges play an activist policy-making role. In a speech
that has been well-reported on in the press, Judge Sotomayor said that the “Court of Appeals
is where policy is made.”

2. As a federal appellate court judge, Judge Sotomayor claimed that she “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. . . . Personal experiences
affect the facts that judges choose to see.” In fact, she “accept[s]” that there will be
differences in her judging “based on [her] gender and [her] Latina heritage.”

3. In the same speech, she further questioned if “by ignoring our differences as women or men
of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

4. In a 1996 article co-authored by Judge Sotomayor, she wrote that “change—sometimes
radical change—can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social
policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often
unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving,
society.”

5. Of the six opinions of Judge Sotomayor’s that have been reviewed by the Supreme Court,
four of those opinions have been reversed.

6. In a short unsigned opinion, Judge Sotomayor and two of her colleagues upheld a district
judge’s determination that 18, 17 white and one Hispanic, firefighters could not sue the City
of New Haven for racial discrimination when the City threw out the results of two
promotional examinations after the exams failed to yield African-American firefighters who
were eligible for promotion. The opinion that Judge Sotomayor joined was criticized by her
colleague and fellow Clinton appointee Judge Jose Cabranes, for adopting the opinion of the
district court with “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at [t]he core of this
case.” Judge Cabranes explained, “The questions raised in this appeal … are indisputably
complex and far from well-settled.” The Supreme Court, which recently heard arguments in
the case, could overturn the decision of Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues.

7. Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the
Second Amendment espouses an individual right, Judge Sotomayor has read that decision
narrowly, claiming that “[t]he Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal
government seeks to impose on this right.”

8. Her book, "The International Judge", suggests that international law and policy should be considered in some cases.

The only thing I can say in her favor--and this is a stretch--is that she upheld the government's right to NOT use taxpayer money to pay for abortions...even though our Marxist-in-Chief promptly removed the restriction and babies are now murdered overseas at my expense. Her decision was based on legal technicalities rather than a truly substantive, thoughtful application.

However, even though she will, without a doubt, be another horrible liberal justice, the bottom line is that she will easily be confirmed and she won't change the balance of the court since she's replacing another liberal. Her "compelling story" as all the Obama News Networks like to call it, doesn't impress me a bit. Were they impressed by Alberto Gonzales' even more compelling story? No--he wasn't liberal, even though he was a minority. It only counts with liberals if YOU are a liberal...THEN your story counts. It doesn't impress me that she's female or hispanic. You see, I don't care what your race, ethnicity or gender are. What do you believe? That's infinitely more important to me. I have WAY too many friends across the spectrum--yes, even gay ones--for anyone to gain any footing calling me a bigot. It's the content of your character and whether you have a Biblical world view.

Sotomayor leaves me convinced that both are lacking in her world. What will the Republicans do? They've gone so far off the reservation, they largely have less integrit than the Democrats (whatever happened to the "most ethical Congress", huh?---LIARS), so it's anyone's guess. What should the Republicans do? It would be political suicide to vote against her. I think it would be better if they didn't vote at all. They do it all the time on other issues. Both sides do. This would be a case to simply play hookie and let the Democrats prop up their liberal hack without resistance OR support. Of course, as liberal as many of the Republicans are, political suicide might be exactly what the doctor ordered...after all, the Democrats seem to like doctor-assisted suicide.