To The Senators Who Will Vote To Confirm Sotomayor:
When you vote to confirm Sotomayor, you will have failed in your responsibility to stand up for impartial justice and the separation of powers.
Sotomayor doesn’t know whether biology, culture or experience is the most important source of her prejudice, but she anticipates that her bias will confer judging skills that will make her superior to white males.
From a speech, Sotomayor in her own words (and with ample context):
- “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
- “Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. …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.”
- “Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. …I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First…there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.”
[Translation: Judges are prejudiced, my prejudice will stem from my female gender and my Hispanic heritage ...my prejudice will be an asset.]
“So accustomed have we become to identity politics that it barely causes a ripple when a highly touted Supreme Court candidate, who sits on the federal Appeals Court in New York, has seriously suggested that Latina women like her make better judges than white males.
“Any prominent white male would be instantly and properly banished from polite society as a racist and a sexist for making an analogous claim of ethnic and gender superiority or inferiority.”
That Sotomayor touts her prejudice would be reason enough to vote against her confirmation, but Sonia has also hinted at a preference for legislating from the bench. While Sonia Sotomayor was participating in a panel discussion at Duke University Law School, she said the following:
“…Court of Appeals is where policy is made, and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t MAKE law. I know…uhm…ok… I know, I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it. I’m…you know…uhm…ok…uhm…”
Reaction to the statement from Verum Serum:
“Talk about a ‘wink, wink, nudge, nudge‘ moment. Everyone there KNEW what she meant. That’s why they were all laughing.”
So Sotomayor is quite comfortable with the idea of legislating from the bench and admits to being prejudiced. How can you take this candidate seriously?
In nominating Sotomayor, Obama is delivering on a promise he never should have made:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory… I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”
From The American Spectator:
“Obama’s call for Supreme Court justices who demonstrate the proper ‘empathy’ isn’t merely wrong; it’s unlawful, indeed anarchic, and it utterly trashes the entire American tradition of equal procedural treatment under the law. The proper conservative response to any nominee forwarded by Obama under such criteria is to demand, and force, extended and illuminating public debate in the Senate.”
FYI, The Judicial Oath, for all Federal Judges and Justices:
“I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”