, , ,

As per usual, Obama appoints someone to another post, an infinitely important one no less, without proper vetting and based on what he admits are her “feelings.” How liberal is that! Libs make decisions purely based on how it “feels,” and Obama says he was looking for someone with “empathy.” Oh, yes, that is what we need on the Supreme Court alright…empathy! Not intelligence, non-partisanship, support of the constitution (oops! THAT’S not liberal!) or experience in astute decision-making–but empathy!

Here, again, is another vote-getting, self-serving move. BHO wants the Hispanic vote and most certainly, those Hispanics who are not politically savvy WILL vote for him based on this decision. And if he grants amnesty to the 40+ million illegals here, which he most certainly will, those with almost no understanding or knowledge of our country’s political system will be voting for him based on his empty rhetoric toward the Hispanic vote which indeed equals his empty rhetoric toward the African American vote and his empty rhetoric toward the Jewish vote and on and on and on. Famous is her case of reverse-discrimination vote by Sotomayer toward 20 high-scoring white firefighters (all non-black including one Hispanic man).


Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”


So who is Sonia Sotomayer, BHO’s latest vote-promoter?

…Despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

Her opinions, although competent, {YIKES!!} are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” (The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)


From Rush:

The personal story of Sonia Sotomayor, where she came from and where she has now arrived, you can’t deny that this is a tremendous story, very inspirational for practically everybody.  But the thing I’d like to point out is that she accomplished all of this during the Reagan years.  She accomplished all of this during the Bush years, both Bush presidential years, 12 years, and even the Clinton years.  She accomplished all of this before President Obama, The Messiah, was elected president of the United States….”Absolutely we should, once again an opportunity to draw the distinct contrast that exists today between conservatives and those in the Republican Party to President Obama.”

I doubt that Sotomayor can be stopped.  She should be.  She is a horrible pick.  She is the antithesis of a judge, by her own admission and in her own words.  She has been overturned 80% by the Supreme Court.  She may as well be on the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals, given all the time she’s overturned.  She has been reprimanded by a truly strong Hispanic judge, Jose Cabranes. She has been rebuked in writing by Cabranes for opinions that she wrote that had no bearing on the constitutional issues before her in the case that was being decided.  Details on that coming up.  But here is why, even though she may not be able to be stopped, here is why Sonia Sotomayor needs to be opposed by the Republicans as far as they can take it, because the American people need to know who Barack Obama really is, and his choice of Sonia Sotomayor tells everybody, if we will tell the story of her, who he is.

He got up in his announcement and said everything about her that isn’t true, that she’s a great constitutionalist; that she doesn’t use personal opinion; that she understands what her role is and the oath is of a Supreme Court justice.  She has done just the opposite of that.  She is a hack like he is a hack in the sense that the court is a place to be used to make policy, not to adjudicate cases, not to adjudicate constitutional law but to make policy.  She’s even admitted it.

It will remain to be seen if the Republicans, one of whom must join his/her Democrat Judicial Committee members, will filibuster this judicial nominee never letting her get out of committee . With our luck, we’ll end up with Collins or Snowe as the token Republican in this group. Breaking what would be considered to be a filibuster in the Senate Judiciary Committee requires the consent of at least one member of the minority. Uniquely in this case it would be the Republicans.

Peeking at color and gender for justice

"And I see color...and gender....and ethnicity....hmm...I just can't seem to see blind justice!"