Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the High Court. As expected, she is a deeply flawed candidate who has made outrageous comments concerning race and judicial activism. The mainstream media has either not reported or downplayed her controversial statements, which are the most relevant points about her to be scrutinized. Instead, the media is focusing on the most trivial and irrelevant topics of ‘her compelling life story’.

Sotomayor has revealed on more than one occasion that she is a judicial activist and is therefore wholly inadequate to sit on any court, yet alone the highest court in the land. The New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor made the following comment: “I would hope that 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.” Aside from her statement being tinged with racism, what difference should it make whether you are a white male or a Latina female if your job is to impartially apply the law?

Sotomayor later 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.” Sotomayor readily admits that she, as a judge, is influenced by “gender and national origins.” That fact alone should disqualify her from the bench. Additionally, a very high rate of her decisions are overturned, giving further evidence that she is a liberal activist.

She manifestly has no respect for the proper role of a judge or Supreme Court justice. It cannot be made more clear than to think of a judge as a referee who applies the rules of the game (law). It should not make a scintilla of difference what her sex or race is as a referee. But radicals like Sotomayor do not think of themselves as referees who apply the rules evenly. She believes a judge should be changing and/or making the rules of the game.

There is a video of her admitting this, saying that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” In a moment of truth she let it slip and added: “And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it …” But the problem is she just did, and she did so in a contemptuous way. In backpedaling and trying to retract her own words, you can hear people in the room laughing, as though the corruption of the judicial branch should not be taken seriously.

Sotomayor, like other activist judges, appears to have more of a social philosophy than a judicial one. Historical context or original intent is done away with in favor of personal preferences and social engineering.

With a judge like Sotomayor, the Constitution is an amorphous ‘living’ document. If it is constantly ‘evolving’ with the times, then by definition it cannot be the same thing it was before. Where it once had authority and meaning, it will no longer. Thomas Jefferson called the judiciary “the despotic branch”, and warned that the Constitution would become “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

This is precisely what is wrong with make-it-up-as-you-go-along liberal judges. A non-living Constitution is the only sensible one to have, because it binds people to a set of rules with a fixed meaning. As Jonah Goldberg writes, this is important because it “ensures that future generations will be protected from judges or politicians who’d like to rule arbitrarily…We all like to believe that we have some say about what this country will be like for our children and grandchildren. A ‘living Constitution’ denies us our voice in this regard because it basically holds that whatever decisions we make…can be thrown out by any five dyspeptic justices on the Supreme Court. In other words, the justices who claim the Constitution is a wild card didn’t take their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in good faith because they couldn’t know what they were swearing to.”

A Supreme Court justice is supposed to interpret the Constitution in a dispassionate and agenda-free manner. Liberals on the other hand want activist judges, who will ignore or twist the Constitution to produce the outcomes they desire. For the Left, the only job of a judge or Supreme Court justice is to create equality or ’social justice’. They will admit as much, as Democratic Senator Herb Kohl remarked: “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . ” The Left has always been a product of postmodernism and the French Revolution. Therefore, the greatest evil is not injustice or even murder, but inequality.

A country cannot function with a legal system based on feelings or empathy. If a judge can rule in favor or against someone based on what creates ’social justice’, regardless of law, the system crumbles into a third world kangaroo court. America has spent decades trying to get away from the tyrannical notions of other countries, where who you are determines what kind of justice you get. Unfortunately Judge Sonia Sotomayor represents that kind of judicial tyranny, because who you are will influence her decisions. There is a good reason why Lady Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold. But with activist judges like Sotomayor the scales will tip in the direction of her personal preferences, now that the blindfold is removed.

David Hamilton is being touted by the White House (and the New York Times) as a “moderate”, yet there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest it. However, there is every reason to believe he is a far left activist judge who does not respect the Constitution or the traditional role of the judiciary.

So what are some of this ‘moderate’ appointee’s credentials?

• Was a fundraiser for ACORN, a far-left organization that engaged in criminal voter fraud and closely allied to Obama.
• Served as a board member of the ACLU, another far-left special interest group.
• Hamilton ruled that prayers in Jesus’ Name was unconstitutional, but prayers to Allah were okay.
• He prevented enforcement of an Indiana law requiringabortion clinics to warn about the risks of the procedure, or requiring two visits before the abortion.
• In 1994, when Bill Clinton nominated him to the district court, the ABA rated Hamilton as ‘not qualified,’ apparently because of his almost purely political (as opposed to legal and judicial) experience. There is nothing in his record to suggest he is more qualified now.

If this is Obama’s idea of what a ‘moderate’ judge should look like, then the country is in very big trouble. But all of the warning signs that Obama would appoint extremist judges were there.

A New York Times article dated May 28, 2008 gave us a glimpse of the type of judges Obama would appoint. When asked about judicial nominations Obama responded, “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.”

Feelings? Empathy?

Do we really want judges deciding cases based on something other than the facts and the law? How can a judge be impartial and give a fair trail when feelings should be considered? This is something that justice Ginsburg would endorse as a valid way to reach rulings. Ginsburg also recently said, “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” Because taking into account foreign rulings undermines American sovereignty since most countries do not have Constitutions or a Bill of Rights.

The article went on to explain that Obama had opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by saying that Alito showed “extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless” and “for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.”

That last part is laughable, as Obama and the Left are the ones who are in favor of massive overreaching federal government, as has been seen lately, and have consistently been opposed to individual rights and liberties. True conservatives are trying to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and do everything they can to protect individual rights and liberties.

As for the first part about Altio supporting the powerful over the powerless, this is just plain rubbish. This nonsense comes straight from the socialist propaganda playbook. It is a pure emotional claim, like most liberal criticisms, and is without validity.

Liberals were against Alito because he hinders the Left’s agenda. Alito is considered an originalist justice, and interprets the Constitution in a dispassionate and agenda-free manner, as much as possible. Alito’s politics should not matter if he just interprets the law, not creates it. However, liberals want activist judges, who will ignore or twist the Constitution to produce the outcomes they desire. They do not want an accurate or faithful interpretation of the Constitution. They see the courts as a vehicle for social change. Hence the hostility to all ‘conservative’ judges, which really means judges who do their job properly.

For the Left, the only job of a judge or Supreme Court justice is to create equality or ’social justice’. No other value is higher to modern liberals than their idea of equality. Those on the political left will admit as much, as Democratic Senator Herb Kohl remarked: “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . ” The Left has always been a product of postmodernism and the French Revolution. Therefore, the greatest evil is not injustice or even murder, but inequality.

A country cannot function with a legal system based on “feelings” or “empathy”. If a judge can rule in favor or against someone based on what creates ’social justice’, regardless of law, the system crumbles into a third world kangaroo court. Law will not matter, right or wrong will not matter, personal responsibility will not matter, contracts will not matter.

Western civilization in general, and America in particular, has spent decades trying to get away from the tyrannical notions of other countries where who you are determines what kind of justice you get. This is especially strange coming from Obama, a black (half-black) man, who in the past would have likely been ruled against in court simply because of his skin color. But the political left does not mind injustice, per se. If injustice helps bring about equality of outcomes, then it is acceptable to liberals.

A president and his administration are only around for four to eight years, but a federal and Supreme Court justice is a lifetime appointment, which can mean decades of harm to this nation and the Constitution.

Barack Obama will stack the courts with radical activist judges who will legislate from the bench and rule by judicial fiat. For the political left, it is not about right or wrong, but weak and strong.

The only exception to this are cases involving the government and money/power. For instance, eminent domain abuses are acceptable if it benefits the state. Kicking people out of their homes for greater tax revenue is unjust and unconstitutional, but to the statist it is permissible.

But in all other cases, the ‘little guy’ must always come out the winner. Judges who side with murderers and terrorists exemplify this. Outcome-based jurisprudence is no different than any totalitarian country, but unfortunately that is where we are headed as a nation.

http://thenationalscene.com/