"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. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." - Sonia Sotomayor, 2001 - University of California Berkeley School of Law, Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture.
Could you imagine if a White male Supreme Court nominee said something along the lines of what Sotomayor said in 2001, but worded to say something like, "I would hope that a wise White man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic female who hasn't lived that life." He would not be confirmed, and would probably be destroyed professionally.
Sotomayor didn't stop there, however. She also said, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
I am a firm believer that we are products of our life experience. The experiences of our lives help mold our character, moral clarity, and understanding of the world around us. Racial, or gender, indentities, however, do not change how the law should be interpreted. The law is the law, regardless of any external factors. Empathy should never play a part in a judge's decisions.
Reading Sotomayor's statements confirms in my mind that Sonia Sotomayor judges based on race and gender, not on the merits of a case, of which she has proven repeatedly in the past. In the case of 20 non-black New Haven, Connecticut firefighters who were denied promotion because no blacks passed the test, she approved reverse discrimination, based on the idea of disparate impact, meaning the test was unfair because it did not take into account cultural upbringing. The test, however, when reviewed, revealed no such details.
Sonia Sotomayor is also a member of "La Raza," a radical anti-White group that contends that the American Southwest belongs to Mexico, and that Hispanics are superior. La Raza, translated, means "The Race."
In a word, she is a "racist."
Barack Obama did not choose Sotomayor for her impartial judicial positions, because she is not impartial. He picked Sotomayor because she embraces indentity politics. She believes that judging should be done by taking into consideration the person's plight based on their gender or ethnicity, rather than sticking to the letter of the law.
The mainstream media, meanwhile, is proclaiming that Republicans are fearing the fight over Sotomayor because they don't want to lose more members of the Hispanic voting block. I don't seem to recall, however, Democrats worrying about upsetting black voters over their opposition to the nomination of Clarence Thomas.
Empathy. Obama believes a Supreme Court Justice should weigh people's "hopes and struggles" when applying the law, which is in direct opposition to the oath taken which demands impartiality. What about the U.S. Constitution? What about the rule of law?
Once again, we are seeing an example of the Democrats viewing America in groups. Gender, ethnicity, income level, behaviors, and whatever else they can think of, are the groups that Americans inhabit. Republicans, also, have fallen for the poor habit of thinking in groups, which explains why they are trying to be careful so that they don't upset the Hispanics. The GOP, if they were to return to their roots, would cease to see America in groups as the liberal left does. Instead, the Republicans would recognize that America consists of Americans, individuals with individual desires, hopes, and dreams. While Obama and Sotomayor views us as groups that needs the government to pander to, Americans desire to be seen as individuals. Republicans shouldn't worry about upsetting anyone, because if they continue to play the game of groups, in the long run, they will lose the most important voting group of all, Individuals.
For this reason, the GOP needs to realize Sotomayor for the racist that she is, and judge her based on her past judicial record, which is spotted with decisions that reveal her as a racist that bases her decisions on racial and sexual differences, and is incapable of impartiality.
It is no surprise that in the past Sotomayor has been repeatedly overturned by the Supreme Court for misinterpreting the law. This is because she consistently disregards the notion of judicial impartiality, a tendency fueled by her racist viewpoint, and tainted view of the American judiciary system.
Sonia Sotomayor will probably get confirmed, however, after all is said and done, because Republicans will foolishly cave because they fear angering Hispanic voters.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
JUDGE SONIA SOTOMAYOR, A JUDGE TOO FAR! - National Black Republican Association
Sotomayor Video: Judges Make Policy, Latinas Better Than Whites - News Max, Kenneth D. Williams
Identity Politics on the Supreme Court - Townhall, George Will
Limbaugh: Obama's judicial pick a 'racist' - World Net Daily, Bob Unruh
Gingrich: Sotomayor 'Racist,' Should Withdraw - NewsMax
Sotomayor ‘La Raza member’ - Stop the ACLU
Supreme Court nominee supports reverse discrimination - American Family Association, Donald E. Wildmon
Sotomayor Faces Scrutiny on Controversial Firefighters Ruling - NewsMax
For Republicans, Court Fight Risks Losing Hispanics to Win Conservatives - The New York Times, Adam Nagourney
On Sotomayor, Obama Can’t Hide Behind the Bushes - Townhall, Ken Blackwell
Empathy v. Impartiality - Townhall, Jonah Goldberg
I Feel Your Pain. Not Theirs. Yours. - Human Events, Ann Coulter
'Empathy' in action - One News Now, Thomas Sowell
Pat Robertson: Sotomayor Nomination an 'Outrage' - NewsMax, Rick Pedraza