Racism, empathy, bias, personal life experience, sex or gender, La Raza: all these terms have been used to explain or justify the rich experiences of Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
We’ve all heard the sound bites from other right wing extremists, but I’ll share a few here as well: “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.”
In a forum at the Duke University School of Law in 2005, she said, “The Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know – and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it, I’m – you know. OK. Having said that, the court of appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating – its interpretation, its application.”
These two statements alone should have disqualified her from candidacy for the position. In my opinion, they should have qualified her for recall from the bench and incapacitated her from rendering any courtroom adjudication or opinion what so ever on the bases of racial and gender bias as well as delusions of grandeur.
Yes, she has acknowledged the impropriety of the statements. She has stated that she would like not to have said them and certainly not while being recorded. But the truth is that these are her beliefs and she is willing, according to those statements, to allow her personal background to influence her courtroom rulings.
It is my understanding that judges are to be completely impartial. How can one profess to be impartial if they believe that a Latina woman is better than a White man when it comes to rendering decisions on the bench? Why should her personal background have any influence on any decision? Do justices on the Supreme Court really have to be empathetic as our President describes her, or should they impartially hear and rule on the evidence presented in each individual case?
Does she really believe, as she voiced, that the Court of Appeals makes policy if the Supreme Court is not addressed? Does a District Court of Appeals have a greater influence on our laws and our society than does Congress? This is beyond Bizarro!
Obviously, not all judges agree with her because she has had over 70% of her cases as a Second District Court of Appeals Judge overturned. One case that is due to be heard by the Supreme Court happens to be one that she recently ruled on in her current position on the bench. Should that case be heard after she is confirmed, if she is confirmed, will she recuse herself from the trial due to conflict of interest? Even if she does, it’s going to be very difficult for the other justices to overturn a decision made by one of their own colleagues, even if she is only a freshman.
And, of course, the fact that she is a member of La Raza, a hate group that advocates Hispanics take-over of the Southwestern United States, I think should be a major concern and consideration. She is Hispanic, she does belong to a subversive group and she could have a strong voice in what is often regarded as the most powerful branch of our government.
Yes, she should be proud of her background and accomplishments. She should not, however, be allowed to make decisions affecting 310,000,000 lives based on her limited and obviously prejudiced scope of our society.
Robert Gibbs (White House press secretary) issued the following warning to critics of Judge Sotomayor: “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.” It really sounds like a threat from the highest office in the land.
Slashed tires, residential break-ins and slaughtered dogs owned by political opponents were all associated with a former Democrat President. Do we have to worry about this and/or worse happening during the current administration, just because someone voices an opinion that differs from our President’s?