Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Sotomayor, Soto my @ss

The headline in the LA Times, reads (as I'm sure hundreds of others around the country do) ""Sotomayor answers her Senate critics in hearing". Indeed she did. By lying her ass off:

Reporting from Washington -- Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor proclaimed Tuesday that she would not let ethnic or gender biases influence her decisions on the court, during a grueling round of questioning from skeptical Republicans who vowed to pursue their tough examination of her record today.

After watching Sotomayor fend off their best questions, opposing senators on the Judiciary Committee all but conceded that her confirmation was certain.

The appellate court judge backed away from her "wise Latina" speeches and the suggestion that ethnic identity might sway her decisions. "Our life experiences do permit us to see some facts and understand them more easily than others," she said. But the "law is what commands the result," she noted.

Otherwise she held her ground, explaining some of her controversial decisions -- like those on gun rights and employment discrimination -- as having been dictated by precedent, and refusing to take a stand on other issues, like abortion or property rights.

So "the law commands the result" of the decisions of the "wise (or not so much) Latina"? Tell that to the New Haven firefighters who apparently didn't merit so much as a paragraph's worth of consideration to their claim of reverse discrimination. Apparently most Supreme Court justices don't feel that way either because they decided six out of seven times upon review that "the law didn't command the result" of Sotomayor's decisions.

We don't need a couple of days of a dog and pony show on Capitol Hill. We have 17 years of decisions, 17 years of lefty comments about her backwards view of the law and 17 years of this woman viewing our entire society through the prism of race.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't wake up everyday thinking about my race, gender, social status, income etc. as a way of relating to the world -- I don't think it's in the least bit relevant. This woman clearly does but she's up on The Hill trying to BS a bunch of senators into believing that she doesn't and that's the main reason she's vastly unqualified to sit on the highest court in the land.

1 comment:

Dr. Mom said...

How come no one has made a big deal about the fact that she's our first diabetic Supreme Court justice? Maybe she's actually not. Maybe there were some before and we didn't know it. BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER. Just like the fact that she's Hispanic.

What matters is that she has a judicial activist viewpoint and is a legal realist, which is BAD. I thought it was cute the way she pretended she didn't know what that was when Jeff Sessions brought it up.