Sonia Sotomayor is going to to be the next associate justice of the Supreme Court. Obama has the votes, and has enough popularity right now to whip his Senate Democrats into voting his way. But the nomination is troubling nonetheless mostly because of the double standard it exposes, and past the the new era we are in. First, the double standard. When you compare the careers of Sonia Sotomayor and Miguel Estrada, its actually quite similar. Both had compelling personal stories, both came from broken homes, both immigrated with limited english, both used hard work and ability to go to Ivy League schools for both undergrad and law school. But one is conservative and one is liberal. During the Estrada battles for the DC Court of Appeals nomination, Senate Democrats continually urged us to look past the story and look to the fact that he is a conservative, to look at his judicial philosophy. So I decided to look around to find some quotes from Democrat senators who looked at Miguel Estrada, since he and Sotomayor are like different sides to the same coin. One is liberal, one is conservative but for the most part every thing else is the same. So here is what I found:
- "When a nominee does not answer basic questions, the Senate clearly has a constitutional responsibility to ask for the answers." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, February 26, 2003.
- "I believe questions ought to be asked and answered and senators have a right to ask questions and senators have a right to have those questions answered. It is pretty simple." — Sen. Barbara Boxer, February 26, 2003.
- "Is it too much to ask of a person who is being offered a lifetime position to simply answer a few questions?" — Sen. Blanche Lincoln, February 13, 2003.
- "The Senate has a right to complete and responsive answers to its questions before confirming someone to a life term on such an important court." — Sen. Russell Feingold, February 10, 2003.
- "We are straining to find some information on which to base a reasoned judgment about his nomination to the second highest court of the land for a lifetime appointment." — Sen. Richard Durbin, February 26, 2003.
So when approaching this nomination, lets remember how the Democratic minority treated Bush nominees and hold them to the exact same standard. This judge is troubling because of her believe in using the law to enforce social justice based on sex, race, and creed . . . essentially arguing different rules apply for different people because of their differences. There has yet to be a Supreme Court nominee to say this. Then there is this gem . . . the whole clip from her "the Court of Appeals is where policy is made" line.
This quote is scariest the most:
"When your on the district court your looking to do justice in the individual case, you are looking much more to the facts of the case then you are to the application of the law because the application of the law is not precidential so the facts control. On the Court of Appeals your looking towards how the law is developing so that it will then be applied to a broad class of cases."
Its clear that Judge Sotomayor sees the facts of the case and the application of the law in opposition to each other, and the reason why you can't apply law is because, to her, the law is always changing and that each case can change the law based on the facts of that case. I'm not a lawyer, but that strikes me as a formula for judicial chaos, where there is no set law to apply to the facts of the case, rather the facts themselves will dictate the law. That's radical, that means that you can make law do anything you want. To me, that's chaos, that means whatever special interest groups has the most money to afford the best lawyers will get their way. The Constitution is what it is, its meant to be applied as it is, not stretched and warped to fit whatever social justice issue is the de jour of the era. The Constitution is mean to transcend popular fads. The supremacy of our system rests with the people, not with unelected judges. The greatest sovereign of America is the ballot box, and when you lose the system is designed so you can change opinions. The Judiciary is not meant for that.
Consider this quote from Thomas Jefferson:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves." --Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820
The nomination of Sotomayor shows us that President Obama intends change America through the courts, that though he might lose the social battles in Congress it will be in the courts where the Constitution will be changed, where America will be changed to fit the progressive goals of the Chicago illuminati that he comes from. The ballot box will no longer matter, even when states like California stand up to radical social intrusion on traditional American values. Its also the maxim of Obama's America that who you are means more than what you've done. The fact that Sotomayor is an up-from-poverty immigrant means more to him than her actual judicial acumen. But its also hypocritical because that story only means something when you come out of it as a liberal . . . as the Estrada filibuster proved, or even the Clarence Thomas hearings, there is a limit to how much liberals will celebrate a story like that. It all depends on where you land on the political spectrum.
So Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed, but I hope Republicans use this as a chance to really make Americans understand where this country is headed, that disenfranchisement by the courts is in our future, where any loss at the ballot box will be repudiated by judges like Sotomayor who see the law will not be applied as its written or by its precedent, but rather stretched to meet the individual facts of a case to do social justice based on the differences of race, sex, and creed.
I hope Senate Republicans, especially on the judiciary committee itself, will find the stones to talk about this. Folks, we are already in the minority . . . what do we have to lose, elections? We've been loosing them already because we won't fight back based on our principles. And don't give me this "oh, block her and you lose the Latino vote." As Rush pointed out today, last year we nominated the architect of amnesty and we still got killed in that demo. Lets stand up, and lets make sure these senators stand up and fight to expose both Sotomayor and Obama. We'll lose, but the victory will come in the fight, not at the end of the fight.
Recent Comments