Thursday, May 28, 2009

More about Judge Sonia Sotomayor

President Obama has promised to nominate liberal judicial activists who will indulge their left-wing policy preferences based on "empathy" instead of neutrally in applying the law. President Obama highlighted “empathy”-- an appreciation of the "real world" implications of their decisions (a loosey-goosey standard) rather than loyalty to Constitutional principles and law.

Forget that justice should be blind... Throw out the Constitution...

Now, we see what that means -- a judge who makes it clear she decides cases on feelings, not facts. President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor who will replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter is a radical judicial activist who readily admits that she applies her personal political agenda when deciding cases. In selecting Sonia Sotomayor as his Supreme Court nominee, President Obama has carried out his promise.

In a speech at Duke Law School at 2005, Sotomayor said that her own Court of Appeals -- not the democratically elected legislature -- is “where policy is made.” Taking such “judicial action,” she said in a 2004 speech, is part of the “heroics of judges today; it may dwell in protecting our own turf and ensuring that it is we who interpret the law.” Her opinions have followed that approach. What she was referring to was that public policy was made by the Court of Appeals, not by the Legislature.

Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech given at Berkeley, she said she believes it is appropriate for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color," which she believes should "affect our decisions." She went on to say in that same speech, "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."
"Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'" blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga. "Wouldn't they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw."

Radio's Rush Limbaugh noted, "And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don't have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he's appointed one. ..."
Heritage constitutional scholar Robert Alt explains:

Judge Sotomayor's statements about judges as policymakers, her questioning of whether judges can be objective in most cases, and her insensitive statement that the ethnicity of some judges somehow makes them better at doing their job than judges of different ethnicity—raise serious questions about her view of judging which must be carefully and fully explored by the Senate.

First, they knew that embracing the idea of legislating from the bench–of a judge substituting his or her policy preferences for those of the elected branch of government–is the kind of frank admission that can get a judge into hot water. But second they laughed because it was their little secret–that while "progressive" judges must verbally play the game, they oughtn't to let niceties such as separation of powers get in the way of coming to the "correct" outcome. It's exactly what President Obama has talked about. He likes that. He thinks that liberal judges are so smart and so enlightened and have such great instincts about what policy should be that they should be making the decisions about policy for the rest of us.

The Senate Judiciary Committee needs to ask tough and thorough questions to Sotomayor regarding her judicial philosophy and temperament when the confirmation hearings get underway this summer.

FYI -The poor quality of Sotomayor's decisions is also reflected in her record of reversals by the Supreme Court. Sixty percent of her decisions have been reversed by the Supreme Court.

For all the President’s talk of finding ‘common ground,’ this appointment completely contradicts that hollow promise," Americans United for Life president Charmaine Yoest told "Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy undermines common ground."

"She believes the role of the Court is to set policy, which is exactly the philosophy that led to the Supreme Court turning into the 'National Abortion Control Board,' denying the American people the right to be heard on this critical issue," Yoest added.

"This appointment would provide a pedestal for an avowed judicial activist to impose her personal policy and beliefs onto others from the bench, at a time when the Courts are at a crossroad and critical abortion regulations supported by the vast majority of Americans like partial-birth abortion and informed consent laws lie in the balance," Yoest explained.

(from Lifenews)

Leading Pro-abortion groups are already lining up to endorse Obama’s choice. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor would replace outgoing pro-abortion Justice David Souter, and likely keep the court's apparent 5-4 pro-abortion majority.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL, was one of the first to chime in with her backing for the appeals court judge. “President Obama has selected a nominee with a distinguished record of professional accomplishments as a judge, prosecutor, and community leader," she said in a statement. " This impressive personal biography signals that she possesses an understanding of how the law affects everyday people’s lives,” Keenan said. “We are encouraged by the strong support she receives from her peers and other legal scholars and the fact that the Senate has twice confirmed her for federal judgeships." The National Organization for Women (NOW) said it would “celebrate” the nomination with a “Confirm Her” ad campaign.

Does Sotomayor's richness of experience include abortion? We know from numerous polls and studies that Hispanics in the United States overwhelmingly disagree with the notion of abortion on demand. Abortion is not a part of their cultural richness--it is not a part of their identity as Latinos.

A new survey conducted by a popular Latino social networking web site finds a plurality of Hispanic Americans believe abortions should be illegal. The informal poll confirms others which show a majority of Hispanics do not support abortion, would back limits and want most abortions made illegal. ... "Though some Hispanic political groups back abortion, the vast majority of us know what's right," Rojas explained. "We know that every child has a place en nuestras casas y nuestras familias -- our homes and families. We know and cherish and honor the sanctity of motherhood and of life.".... Other polls confirm a majority of Hispanics take a pro-life position.

Want to know more about Judge Sotomayor?

Here are some interesting facts/links to learning more about this "empathetic" nominee:
  • Judge Sotomayor is the daughter of Puerto Rican parents and grew up in the South Bronx. She was diagnosed young with diabetes and lost her father in childhood. She has a Catholic background, but it appears she is not terribly observant. She was briefly married during her college years, but was divorced and has remained single.
  • In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor ruled that reverse racism was to be used in making decisions. She ruled in favor of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to firefighters. In Ricci, an applicant to be a firefighter scored the highest on the test but was denied the job because he was not black. )
Judge Sotomayor apparently "empathized" more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.

Let's hope she's as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.

In the now-famous firefighters' case,
Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. ...

But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions. ....

So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one. ...

Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.

Concerned that Sotomayor's famed "empathy" might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, ....

If it were merely "empathy" that explained liberal judges' lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.

But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims -- always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups.
excerpts from Ann Coulter (click link to read entire article)


  • Judge Sotomayor judicial decisions have been pure politics, reflecting her “blind political allegiance” to radical environmentalists.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's nominee to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter, ruled in a 2007 case that power companies must protect “fish and other aquatic organisms” from being sucked into cooling vents regardless of the costs, saying the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not allowed to use a cost-benefit analysis in measuring power companies’ compliance with the federal Clean Water Act.

The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling on April 1 of this year that a cost-benefit analysis was entirely appropriate when judging whether a power company was following the law. ...

The Supreme Court ruled that Sotomayor was in error and that the EPA could continue using a cost-benefit analysis when enforcing environmental regulations.
“We conclude that the EPA permissibly relied on cost-benefit analysis in setting the national performance standards,” Scalia wrote. “The Court of Appeals,” Scalia ruled, “was therefore in error.”

Steve Milloy, a lawyer, author, and founder of, told that Sotomayor’s decision was pure politics, saying it reflected Judge Sotomayor’s “blind political allegiance” to radical environmentalists.
“This was ultimately a political job, where a narrow interpretation of the law is going to help or be consistent with her politics--that’s what she’s going to do,” said Milloy. “Where a more expansive view is going to help with her politics, she’s going to adopt that. She’s going to find a way to side with whatever her political views are, regardless of the law.”

“This doesn’t have anything to do with the law or the environment,” said Milloy. “These are all political jobs now. I can only describe that [ruling] as blind political allegiance to the Greens.”
to read entire article from click here.

  • Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor racist?
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. ...

As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical "pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland."

Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees "the Race" as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.
excerpts from WorldNetDaily

  • Judge Sotomayor ruling against protecting our rights to keep and bear arms as guaranteed in the Second Amendment.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois. .....
read entire article here:

No comments: