Opposing Sotomayor: A Line in the Sand


As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on Tuesday, “It’s not the rule of law, it’s the rule of lawyers: That’s the central message conveyed by Pres. Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.” She is, after all, widely admired among the Obamanist left for her empathy, not her temperament or wisdom. That plus her compelling life story and her love of Nancy Drew mysteries.

We also know that she has had many of her decisions reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court, that she is argumentative and unpleasant divisive, that she believes the place of a judge is to create policy, rather than to apply the law impartially, and that she believes her race and gender make her better than whites or men.

Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried a long time. And you would think by now that we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.

(Thomas Sowell, 5/27/09 on the Glenn Beck Show)

Democrats and the partisan Democrat media have started their campaign for Sotomayor by blackmailing Republicans; saying if they oppose her that Republicans will never get another Hispanic vote. And they are also preemptively accusing Republicans of hypocrisy because George H. W. Bush mentioned upon nominating him that Clarence Thomas’s inspirational life story should arouse Americans’ empathy.

Let’s deal with these lines of attack.

Hypocrisy and Empathy

I’ll take the second one first. When Bush pere nominated Thomas he praised him for his learning, his wise and brilliantly written opinions, and the respect he had earned from his colleagues and those who appeared before him. He also mentioned Thomas’s background as an interesting sidebar. Then Thomas, who was a child of an impoverished single black mother became the target of the most hateful, vicious slanders and character assassination from the Democrats and their catspaws in the media, government bureaucracy, and academia. Let me repeat this. The Democrats insulted and attacked a black man who had overcome incredible odds and difficulties to rise, through merit, to the peak of his profession. In America, he had become through his own efforts an honest to goodness role model that should have made all black Americans proud, that should have inspired black Americans to become great jurors like Clarence Thomas.

Thank God the Democrats lost that battle, and Clarence Thomas survived it to become a great Supreme Court Justice.

Blackmail

Did Democrats suffer any backlash from their relentless, hateful, awful demonization of one of the best and the brightest among black Americans? They did not. Why not? Because they claimed he was a misogynist, that he liked porn movies, that he told off color jokes to women. So they claimed he was a misogynist, and that privileged them to attack him.

When Republicans proposed to appoint Miguel Estrada, another Hispanic, to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Democrats opposed him precisely because he is Hispanic. Karl Rove writes:

The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada’s nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing “stealth missile” who was “way out of the mainstream” and openly questioning Mr. Estrada’s truthfulness.

What is wrong with Sotomayor? What makes her an out of the mainstream, left-wing stealth missile? What is wrong enough with her that even a Democrat would agree she is the wrong choice? Quite simply: She is a racist. Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the party that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments against Democrat opposition, the party that was targeted along with black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws alike, has a venerable history of opposing racism. A racist is a racist, “straight up,” and we can hardly doubt that the woman who said any Hispanic woman can out-think any white man would think the same of a black man or woman. She is a racist. She believes in protecting her own group, her own race, at the cost of others. The law is only a secondary concern. Appear before Sotomayor in court and be sure that if you are white you will lose. If you are an employer you will lose. If you are a man you will lose. If you are Republican you will lose. The law is not the most important thing to her. Empathy is: Empathy for those who are most similar to her.

She believes in tribal justice, and she will always defend her tribe. Are you sure you want to appear before her in court? Are you sure you’re in her tribe, and not in some other tribe? If the law changes with every new plaintiff how can anybody know how to act lawfully? If the written law is irrelevant then why should anyone obey it in the first place?

Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is not to obey the law as written. It is to rule by her whim. That is the worst kind of rule. It is a wholesale rejection of what America stands for with the Rule of Law, and a return to medieval times.

Can a judge who believes as she believes take the Oath of Office without, at least on a subconscious level, expecting to break it? How can she administer justice without respect to persons when empathy for persons is the most important aspect of her c.v.? How can someone who is so passionate and partisan claim to be impartial? How indeed?

“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

She is wrong about the law. She is wrong for any court. With all due respect, she is most definitely wrong for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Those are the principles upon which Republicans should respectfully oppose Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

If it is a lonely fight, so be it. Let us draw a line in the sand. We will not let the anti-Revolutionary forces of those who would return us to the rule of kings advance without a fight. We will make a stand here, because it is important. And even if we lose this fight it’s worth the fighting.

The choice to fight on principle says a lot about the party’s courage in a tough place. Instant retreat says just as much about cowardice. To fight will draw support both from those who have given up on Republicans (for good reason), and from those minority Americans who see that Republicans are actually willing to fight to protect them. Republican principles are true. They work for everyone: Black; white; yellow; red; English speaking; Spanish speaking; and even those who speak Mandarin. If Republicans fight for and articulate those principles every day, then the fight will inspire allies that Republicans need. Republicans need to fight for every step, every inch of ground. And instead of giving ten feet, or one foot, or one single inch, Republicans have to try to take an inch, or a foot, ten feet, or a mile.

Sirs, draw the line. Gird yourselves.

And when we are forced back, outnumbered, bloodied but still standing tall, then we draw the line again and once again prepare to fight. By fighting we will attract new allies and strengthen the will of our moribund support.

There is a principle in the opposition to Sotomayor: We will not accept racist or partisan or tribal interpretations of the law as just, but inevitably know they are as unjust as anything. The 14th Amendment stiffens our spine against them. And we will not accept “policy setting” and legislation from the bench as Constitutional. That is a lie. There is only one meaning to “interpret the Constitution,” and it is to follow the original, plain English meaning of the words. Anything else is making it up by whim. Anything else is post facto legislation.

Ever since the revolutionaries of 1776 stood for the Rule of Law against the Rule by Whim of the English King, America has stood for the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Whim. America will not change that now. America will not change that ever.

Maybe some inspirational language from another time and another place will help stiffen the spines of conservatives to take a lonely stand and oppose Sonia Sotomayor. I have two inspirational passages from Winston Churchill to offer.

“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim?

I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.”

And here is another, just as stirring. Obama gave back the bust of Churchill given to America after 9/11. He didn’t think we needed Churchill’s inspiration. I think we do.

“We shall fight on the beaches”

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

The battle begins today and every day for those who will take up the mantle to protect America against those who would overthrow America’s Revolution of 1776 and return us to kingship, taxes, bread & circuses, the persecution of Christians, and tyranny.

beaglescout-48.jpg

Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Category: ,

RSS feed

22 Comments Leave a comment

Beaglescout, your declaration should be sent to . . .

mailloux (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 9:45AM EST (link)

every Republican Senator, Congressman, and blue dog Democrat on Capital Hill. It is beautifully written and devastatingly convincing.

Well done sir!

Take Care, mailloux

 

Outstanding LJ...Highly Recommend...

Aaron Gardner (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 10:24AM EST (link)

And you may want to add that Sotomayor is also a member of La Raza…at least according to the American Bar Association.

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

“We’d be much better off if We The People had desired small government enough to keep it.” acat


La Raza...

larueladue (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 12:12PM EST (link)

Membership in La Raza should brand a person as membership in the KKK does. I grew up in northern NM, and La Raza is nothing but a racist organization.

I agree larueladue...

Aaron Gardner (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 12:19PM EST (link)

even if they do some charitable work and have some legitimate legal functions the taint of racism is seeping from La Raza’s very core. I would not stand by and allow a KKK member to be appointed to the SCOTUS and I don’t think we should sit back while a La Raza member gets a pass.

conform and celebrate diversity….or else!!!

“We’d be much better off if We The People had desired small government enough to keep it.” acat


But they will get a pass, unfortunately...

larueladue (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 12:41PM EST (link)

I don’t think most people know much about about the organization, like they do the KKK.

What I remember from my tender years is that the organization strong-armed businesses, politicians, and state and local government for favors and advantages for Hispanics over the “evil, repressive white man” (even though in northern NM, Hispanics were not a minority: they were the majority). Blatant, unrepentent racist view and agenda…

Perhaps they are different nowadays, but I doubt it…

 
 
 
 

I agree with all that you're saying, but ...

loganyung (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 2:01PM EST (link)

I agee with your analysis, but most people don’t have the intellectual curiosity to understand this. I think that Sotomayer is best understood in baseball terms, like I tried to do in this post:

http://www.redstate.com/loganyung/2009/05/28/sotomayor-and-baseball/

Excellent too

Beaglescout (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 2:05PM EST (link)

There is no reason why both could not be part of the conversation.

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton
 
 

Says it how he see it

djemi (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 3:08PM EST (link)

“If I can’t shoot rabbits,then I can’t shoot fascist”
“With age, comes Wisdom, but only if you are paying Attention, son” my ‘Old Man’
RS Help files (h/t JLenardDetroit) Grassroots in Michigan
Moes Strategy

 

LJ, I appreciate your passion. nt

barry915barry (Diary) Thursday, May 28th at 8:40PM EST (link)

...and from today's Washington Times:

Big Apple Infidel (Diary) Friday, May 29th at 9:31PM EST (link)

EDITORIAL: The franchise for felons

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It’s her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons. Ms. Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state’s refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote. Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision. In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the “plain terms” of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Judge Jose Cabranes, who like Ms. Sotomayor was appointed by President Bill Clinton, didn’t find the matter to be so clear. His majority decision against the criminal felons, in favor of the state, comprised 36 tightly reasoned pages. Particularly compelling is the fact that the Voting Rights Act was passed to help further the aims of the Constitution’s 14th and 15th Amendments. The 14th Amendment specifically allows states to deny the vote to those convicted of crimes.

Ms. Sotomayor is thus in the position of asserting that Congress can prohibit New York from doing something the Constitution itself specifically endorses. It’s as if she thinks black and Hispanic felons are convicted in order to deny them the vote, rather than that they are denied the vote as a result of being duly convicted. Her position ignores the fact that it is the convicts’ own actions, their crimes – not any state-based racial discrimination – that make those felons ineligible to vote.

As almost every state has done since the United States was founded, New York forbids currently incarcerated or paroled prisoners from voting. Some states go even farther by prohibiting some felons from voting even after they have served their sentences. New York’s law is not so stringent. It only applies to felons still under criminal sentences. It equally applies to all felons, black or white.

There is growing evidence that Judge Sotomayor believes some races are more equal than others. She said in a 2001 speech that she would expect a Latina judge to reach the right decision more often than would a white male judge. Her dissenting opinion in Hayden v. Pataki is another example of her taking racial grievance-mongering to absurd new depths. They are depths unbefitting a Supreme Court justice.

Greetings from occupied territory!

 

ABA By Laws

tedpomeroy (Diary) Friday, May 29th at 10:55PM EST (link)

Attorney called Mark Levin Friday, said her “couple of white men” comment is not suitable temperment for a judge.

Anybody have those by laws?

The Bylaws

red4ever (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 11:41AM EST (link)

are found here: http://www.abanet.org/policy/constitution_and_bylaws.pdf

Publicly accessible.

Also, the Washington Post has a story today about how a compelling story does not ensure a smooth nomination process, citing, Justice Thomas’ experience, of course. If even the leftie papers get this, Sotomayer may not be a lock after all.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/29/AR2009052903206.html?hpid=topnews

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
Dante

 
 

Code of Conduct for United States Judges

ColdWarrior (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 1:27AM EST (link)

Here is the Code of Judicial Ethics for United State’s judges.

http://www.uscourts.gov/guide/vol2/ch1.cfm#comp

See Canon 2.

Here is La Raza’s (in Spanish, “the Race”) mission statement, from their annual report, which can be downloaded from the La Raza web site, http://www.nclr.org :

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR)—the largest national
Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—
works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through
its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations
(CBOs), NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission,
NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy,
providing a Latino perspective in five key areas—assets/investments,
civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status,
and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its
Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities
for individuals and families.
Founded in 1968, NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, taxexempt
organization headquartered in Washington, DC. NCLR serves
all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country and has operations
in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Phoenix, Sacramento,
San Antonio, and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Sounds very benign, but just a little searching with Google will reveal lots more that does not sound so sweet and nice.

The “best” part – American taxpayers subsidize this in the many millions of dollars annually.

Thank you.

In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?

Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and Unified Patriots.

 

meant to say "United States judges" in the body. Oops

ColdWarrior (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 1:28AM EST (link)

Thanks.

In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?

Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and Unified Patriots.

 

The Oath would fit on a t-shirt

6eorge Jetson (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 1:59AM EST (link)

Anyone questioning the wearer could be asked if they believed in the Constitution.

 

Sotomayor will get a free pass and the Republicans will do nothing

its_a_right_wing_thing (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 10:49AM EST (link)

The Republicans can’t do anything because of fear of losing the 1,254,293
“Hispanic” voters they have left. They can’t ask Sotomayor the “tough” questions on her racial policies since it will make the heavily white Republican party look to be typically racist unable to accept change again.

This is one of The One’s motivations for nominating such a polarizing pick. He knows Republicans can’t risk losing the woman vote or what they have left of the “Hispanic” vote and he can quickly play any opposition against them as opponents of change and bigots. It not only makes him look good but his opposition bad so he can’t lose.

They have to let her pass otherwise they will continue to be further labeled as xenophobics, racists, and Nativists by the MSM and online bloggers.

Doesn’t really matter anyway as the Republican leadership is useless and leaderless right now. As for LaRaza yes, people don’t care about that because they don’t worry about what they don’t know and the org. isn’t talked about in schools the same way the KKK and their “evil history” is well documented and indoctrinated in society so that too will get a pass.

Doesn’t really matter though to me. The SC isn’t all that it used to be anyway much like the Senate where there used to be standards and you had the feeling qualified people were actually serving. Now they let everyone on just for the sake of equal representation regardless of merit. She’s gonna stomp all over the Constitution which is basically just a guideline in today’s society so that will fit in perfect with the Admin who sees it as a living, changable, adaptable document and not for the historic, symbolic rule of law that formes our very basis of society that it is.

Sotomayor is going to be the “Hispanic” version of Thurgood Marshall and will champion women’s and Latin rights. Expect Amnesty and open borders to cruise under her watch via the empathy card. They now will have a friend in the highest court in the land.

When Roe vs. Wade comes up, how can one not expect a woman to be neutral when the issue directly affects them moreso than a male? Its the same concept with race and she’s already proved where her loyalties lie on the matter and admits to injecting her own personal feelings into decisions. This pick is gonna be a disaster as more civil liberties for Gringos go away at the expense of immigrants.

When will Spanish be mandated?

I will not tolerate despair

Beaglescout (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 1:15PM EST (link)

Man up and stop playing the poor pitiful gringo loser card. If she needs to be opposed, then oppose her. And most importantly, when you sense despair in yourself banish it. Instantamente!

“A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.”

–Alexander Hamilton
 
 

agree

panthera (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 11:40AM EST (link)

I I truly believe that if Republicans stand by principle and clearly express why we oppose the nomination, we will not lose any votes. Afterall, liberals are making an assumption that Hispanics are like them – obsessed with race.

If we withdraw our opposition, then we are admitting to the so-called ‘racism’.

On a side note, it would be great if we could call all the Democrat Senators and tell that as Republicans we love that Obama nominated a pro-life candidate. (I know we dont know this for sure)

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

She's also against Free Speech

red4ever (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 11:45AM EST (link)

In a ruling akin to Chief Justice Robert’s “french fry eating” ruling, Sotomayer ruled against a teen blogger who called her principal a nasty, but not profane, name. She acknowledged that the ruling meant the teen suffered some bad consequences but that the school had a right to stop disruptive behavior.

I remember how Robert’s was vilified for the french fry case, which no one read the next sentence of his ruling, Yet, where is the Left outrage against a teen being told she can’t call an adult a nasty name on the internet?

The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.
Dante

 

Sorry

panthera (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 2:23PM EST (link)

I reread my side note- I was meaning to be sarcastic. Get the libs annoyed.

Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

 
 

Inspirational, BJ.

redneck_hippie (Diary) Saturday, May 30th at 2:03PM EST (link)

You are 100% correct! We must not allow this nomination to get a pass! I have been a bit down, seeing the lift in approval index O received from his “don’t look at the man behind the curtain, I have a shiney new nomination for you to sigh over!”

This race/gender politicking is sick, and if the confirmation is given without a fight, I will know that we grassroots conservatives are truly on our own.

Leadership must be put on notice that when they refuse to stand and fight, a la Vichy France, then we will fight on as the Brits did early in the war, ALONE!


Activists Taking Action: Unified Patriots

 

Latina Freedom Fighter on the Left's Sotomayor hypocrisy

ColdWarrior (Diary) Sunday, May 31st at 12:47AM EST (link)

I hope she’s a Republican precinct committeeman. And runs for office.

From TheRealRevo.com:

http://therealrevo.com/blog/?p=8648

In 2012, will YOU become a “voting member” of the Republican Party in your precinct?

Where it all started. Twitter @kaltkrieger
Learn how to GOTV at The Concord Project and at Procinct and Unified Patriots.