The leftward thinkers of the mainstream media are confused about the reasons that Sonia Sotomayor's racist comments against Whites are being brought up by Conservative Talkers and bloggers. An editorial from The New York Times, "Judging Sonia Sotomayor," even takes the argument to a higher level, claiming that Sotomayor is being attacked as not being smart enough, and for being too abrasive, adding a little quip about that being a description often applied to women who speak their minds in public life. The editorial in The New York Times even refers to a ridiculous criticism that critics have taken aim at her taste for Puerto Rican food, as if that represents the mainstream of conservative writers and talkers.
The Times' Writer then writes: "It is time to elevate the discussion to where it belongs: the Constitution and the role of the judiciary."
The United States Constitution and the role of the judiciary is exactly why the characteristics of Judge Sotomayor, portrayed through her past verbiage, which wreaks of racism, liberalism, and support of judicial activism, are being addressed. The Constitution, and the role of the judiciary, demands that we address these issues.
Leftists are appalled that Conservatives have picked out something said by Sotomayor in a 2001 speech: "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a White male who hasn't lived that life." The liberals are indicating that she has somehow been taken out of context, and that Sotomayor was simply pointing out White racists throughout history who failed to uphold race and gender discrimination.
She was speaking in the here and now. There is no way that anyone can argue that recognizing her statement to be a racist statement against Whites is somehow taking her out of context. She said what she said, and she meant every word of it.
I agree that one's life experiences, be they due to individual choices, or environmental factors like race, gender, or level of wealth, influence one's perception of the world around us. I agree that when cases of discrimination come up, judges who have experience with those kinds of tensions will view the case from a "humanity" point of view more clearly than one that hasn't. But the Left fails to understand why what Sotomayor said is being so criticized. She did not say that her life experience would enhance her abilities to judge by the rule of law. She said, in a nut shell, that a Latina is better able to judge than a White male. That, any way you slice it, is placing a superiority of one race over another due to simple genetics and experiences of ethnicity. In a word, that is blatant racism. Besides, is a justice supposed to perform their duties based on their feelings about "humanity?" Or are they supposed to reach their decisions based on the rule of law?
Let's explore deeper why her alleged "racism" is such a big issue by reminding ourselves of what the New York Times writer said in the aforementioned editorial: it is time to elevate the discussion to where it belongs: the Constitution and the role of the judiciary."
What is the role of the judiciary?
One of the roles of the judiciary is to see cases from an impartial point of view. In fact, the oath they take to become judges specifically mentions impartiality. How can someone, however, be impartial if they believe that one gender and/or race is better qualified to judge than another? Is she going to be ethnically intolerant when she sees cases, too? Will she discard any racism claims by Whites, while supporting any racism case brought forth by Hispanics or Blacks, as she did in the Connecticut Firefighter Reverse Racism Case? Is one race more deserving than the other to her? And I won't even go into the details of her association with the National Council of La Raza, which is a racist, anti-White hate group that proclaims the superiority of Hispanics, practically calling themselves "The Master Race."
The New York Times writer also took a shot at the "too abrasive" criticism, a criticism I haven't seen out there coming from The Right. Honestly, I could care less if she is abrasive. Her ability to play nice-nice with other people has nothing to do with her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice. Nonetheless, I wish to examine the sentence that followed the "too abrasive" comment in the Times' Editorial. The next sentence proclaimed that being too abrasive is "a description often applied to women who speak their minds in public life." Is this an accusation against Conservatives that we somehow wish our women to be seen, not heard? Is that the insinuation? If that is the case, then how do you explain the popularity of Sarah Palin among Conservatives? Palin is, in fact, a very abrasive woman that has no problem speaking her mind in public. I seem to remember while Palin was shaking up the presidential race last year, liberal writers and talkers were saying that she needed to be at home with her kids, and that she was too simple-minded to be able to handle Washington.
Liberal double standard?
The sentence in that New York Times Editorial about Conservatives essentially saying that Sotomayor is abrasive because she speaks her mind in public life was only added to the article to be a cheap shot, and to attempt to portray The Right in the very same light The Left always tries to portray Conservatives: Bible thumping, gun clinging, extremists who want to keep their women barefoot, pregnant, silent, and in the kitchen.
While trying to prove The Right to be a bunch of knee-jerking simpletons, The Left is showing the world how intolerant and unwilling they are when it comes to understanding their opposition.
Shame on you.
The discussion regarding Sotomayor's failure to understand the Constitution and the role of the judiciary doesn't stop there, however. She has also made the statement, in the past, that the "Court of Appeals is where policy is made." Sotomayor attempted to backpedal once she realized she proclaimed her true feelings out loud so that everyone could hear, and then said, "I know — I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t make law. I know, OK, I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it."
Too late, she let the cat out of the bag. Besides, why was she backpedaling? The Democrats have always believed that the judiciary can legislate from the bench. That is why Roe v. Wade was able to unconstitutionally overturn a Texas State law regarding abortion, and why before Proposition 8 in California passed as a State Constitutional amendment the State Supreme Court was able to overturn a law defining marriage as being between between a man and a woman without argument from The Left - thus, the judiciary "making law."
She backpedaled because she was worried about the response from the people who truly do understand the Constitution, and understands that the court rulings on Constitutional matters are supposed to be "opinions," not laws or policy. Specifically, she was trying to appease non-liberal Constitutional Originalists.
Do not think for a moment that Barack Obama, the attendee of Reverend Wright's racist church for twenty years, was not aware of Sotomayor's racist opinions, or unconstitutional mindset when it comes to the courts. In fact, the opposite is true. He not only chose Sonia Sotomayor in the hopes that she would be a person that would once again make him look historic (First Hispanic on the Supreme Court), but also someone that thinks as he does. Like Obama, Sotomayor hates Whites, supports big government, believes the courts should legislate from the bench, and is a militant liberal activist that will not stop until all of liberties are stripped away from the individual, and rationed out by the all-knowing, government - because after all, they just want what is best for the common good, right?
Oh, by the way, I really don't mind if she likes Puerto Rican food. I am partial to Mexican Food, myself - but that does not automatically mean I support Illegal Aliens coming into this country (regardless of nationality).
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Is Sotomayor A Racist? - Real Clear Politics
Judging Sonia Sotomayor - The New York Times
Sotomayor: Courts Where Policy Is Made - Sweetness and Light
Barack Obama The Racist - In His Own Words
No comments:
Post a Comment