By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
Per Obama’s typical trend in below-par nominees, we receive the news that Sotomayor is his choice for the Supreme Court vacancy. Not because she is a constitutional scholar, not because she is tops in her field of law and as a judge – no, no, none of that boring stuff. She’s a latino woman with empathy… What a crappy way to choose someone who wields so much power and authority.
However, not all Democrats are happy with this pick. From Twitter:
tvnewser CBS and ABC have two-shot of #Obama and #Sotomayor w/o prompter…cablers stuck with prompter covering #Sotomayor’s face.
SonOfDeepThroat SEN STAFR: “9 Dems intend to vote NO on Sotomayor: Baucus, Tester, Bennet, Dorgan, Johnson, Byrd, Lincoln, Pryor, Nelson + 4 others likely”
And if you want the scoop on her: http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Sonia_Sotomayor
She’s as liberal as she comes – don’t be fooled by her experience on the bench. It does not make her a constitutionalist by any means. Look at her record. Look at her rulings and reversals, they say an awful lot about her. More importantly, look at who backs her.
Don Surber puts it better than anyone I have heard: “She’s a caught-on-video activist judge.” See his article here: AP: Sotomayor gets the nod. Maybe she should be renamed the, ‘You know…’ judge.
Another excellent post is by Tom Elia at The New Editor: Identity Politics And Sotomayor.
Key excerpt:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
Empathetic judges are a true monstrosity to behold. They lack any predictability and rule with emotion rather than by law or constitutionality. They see themselves as above the people and as some sort of higher being that should hand down the law rather than interpret it.
Here are the headlines out there this morning:
Obama Chooses Sotomayor for Supreme Court
VIDEO: Sotomayor on the court: ‘Where policy is made’
NBC: Would Republicans dare vote against first Hispanic Woman?
CAL THOMAS: Obama Gets a Three-Fer — But What About the Constitution?
Make up your own mind. Personally, rather than having someone who is in love with herself (not just a spring thing either mind you) and someone who has so many leaks in her legal arguments you could irrigate all of China, I would rather have a strict constitutionalist who knows the law and sticks to the vision of our founding fathers. Sotomayor will be carrying the US’s legal football that protects all of us and she has butterfingers…
A parting excerpt from Cal Thomas:
Unfortunately in much of the commentary so far, there is nothing about her view of the Constitution, which ought to be the primary concern for anyone ascending to the court. We have moved from such things to biography, “feelings” and “empathy,” thus allowing the Constitution, in the words of former Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, to become whatever the Justices say it is. That is dangerous for the country and the Constitution.
UPDATE: A great post from The Anchoress: Sotomayor for SCOTUS?
Also, check out these posts:
National Review Online: Bench Memos
Hot Air: Sonia Sotomayor’s greatest hits
Bookworm Room: Do we dare vote against the first Hispanic justice? *UPDATE*
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: I’m Gay! I’m Hispanic! I’m Female! Meanwhile…..
Rush Limbaugh: GOP Must Go to Mat on Sotomayor to Tell Real Story of Barack Obama
Glenn Beck: Roger Pilan about the Sotomayor nomination
Glenn Beck: Ed Whelan about the Sotomayor nomination
MyHeritage.org: The Facts on Obama’s Supreme Court Nominee
Eagle Forum: Obama Makes His First U.S. Supreme Court Pick: From Souter to Sotomayor
Excerpt:
A Portrait of a Constitutionalist Judge
1. The Constitution is, and must be, by definition, the “supreme, fundamental, paramount, permanent” law of the land. No court decision, statutory law, or other form of “law” is either equal to, or superior to, the Constitution.
2. The basic purpose of our Constitution, as of all constitutions, is to provide the stability necessary for our legal system to survive and thrive. Additionally, the Preamble lists six specific constitutional purposes, which balance individual liberty with the common good.
3. The provisions of our Constitution have fixed meanings. These meanings can, and must, be determined by careful objective study of such factors as the express language of the text (understood in its original meaning), the context of the provision being interpreted and of the entire document, the intent of the Framers, and the worldview in which the Constitution was embedded by its Framers.
4. The Constitution, properly interpreted, can express the values of only one worldview. It cannot reflect a “pluralism” or “diversity” of worldviews.
5. The worldview in which the Constitution is embedded is the Judeo-Christian worldview. The Constitution’s principles and purposes are defined and prioritized by the Judeo-Christian value system. The Constitution cannot survive if it is ripped from its Judeo-Christian moorings.
6. The Constitution embodies a multiplicity of distinct principles to guide our legal system and our culture. These principles include popular sovereignty with representative government, life, liberty, the rule of law, due process of law, equal protection of the laws, and private property/free enterprise. These principles are to be secured by structural principles including federalism and separation of powers.
7. Judges have neither the authority nor the competence to rewrite the Constitution by altering its basic meaning. Judges are governed by the Constitution. They are required to respect their boundaries and give full respect to the constitution document, the consent of the governed, the other branches of the national government, the state governments, and other societal institutions.
Well, Chris, since you don’t know me, you wouldn’t know that I am not a Republican. I am a Constitutionalist. There were many, many things I did not support about President Bush or Bush Senior…
You give no basis for your views other than a liberal catchall that “she is a fantastic choice.” In fact, with your depth of legal training, perhaps you should sit on the high court. Probably would not make any difference either way…
Regardless of what you think, she is fantastic choice for the supreme court. She is tremendously experienced and has worked very hard to get where she is. We need a voice for everyone in our upper courts.
I imagine there will be a lot of mudslinging from Republicans, but they will do so at their own peril. Especially since she was a George H. Bush appointee.