Tuesday, May 26, 2009

The Sotomayor Nomination

Obama's first Supreme Court nomination reveals much about his radical view of the Constitution and his desire to remake America according to his liberal imagination. By choosing to nominate Sotomayor, Obama reaffirms his view that judges should ignore the constitution (at least the American one) and engage in policy-making. Sotomayor clearly believes that the bench is "where policy is made."

So we have two broad theories of the American justice system:
1) Judges should be impartial and unbiased, making decisions according to the US Constitution and turning a blind eye to all else.
2) Judges should make decisions based on emotion and partisan political philosophy with an eye to handing out rulings favorable to the chosen few.

The Founding Fathers and nearly all Americans up to about 1950 and most Americans today would probably go with theory #1. Obama, Sotomayor and the Democrat political class are clearly going with theory #2, a choice that undermines the rule of law and threatens to erase much of the unprecedented individual liberty enjoyed by our nation for the last two centuries.

Not much is known about Sotomayor yet, but her involvement in a New Haven firefighters discrimination case should tell us enough. She voted in favor of the lower court's ruling in favor of discrimination, rejecting a 46-page opinion with a solitary paragraph of her own. George Will has some of the details of the case in a Washington Post column last month (the case will soon be heard by the Supreme Court). Suffice it to say that the firefighters involved have the wrong skin color to elicit Sotomayor's fabled sympathy.

Republicans cannot reasonably expect to block her confirmation. The Democrats have the votes. However, Senate Republicans can and must use this opportunity to expose Obama's radical agenda to the American people. Democrats from conservative states need to feel the heat. We need to acquaint the American people with as much information as possible about this and future nominees to the bench. Elections have consequences, but so will will the next one.

Michelle Malkin has much, much more.

3 comments:

Ed said...

I don't recall Obama ever saying he was going to ignore the Constitution...I guess he figures the last president did that enough in his eight years. I digress.

The constitution limits government power not the peoples and the 9th amendment states we have more than enumerated rights-- because of this, we need an someone who can apply legislation fairly. From what I've seen of her case history it's not as if she is catering to interest groups.

"a choice that undermines the rule of law and threatens to erase much of the unprecedented individual liberty enjoyed by our nation for the last two centuries."

I fail to see how the nomination of a political centrist undermines any of this. Nor, how interpretation of legislation threatens it.

Philip said...

Obama thinks the Warren court didn't exceed the limits of the constitution enough. He doesn't want the limited government spelled out by the founders; he wants to reshape the country into a socialist welfare state and control every detail of your life. If that's not an assault on personal liberty, I don't know what is.

Sotomayor is not a "centrist" by any stretch of the imagination. She is extremely partisan and will rule based on her political ideology (her sense of "fairness") rather than according to the rule of law, as she has demonstrated many times before (she has been reversed 60% of the time by higher courts).

If you really believe a judge's interpretation of legislation doesn't affect the political and legal landscape (often for decades), then I guess you're okay with Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito. Right?

Interpretation is everything. Either we interpret law based on the constitution (limited government and individual liberty) or we interpret it according to personal whims, a misguided sense of "fairness" or even radical socialist ideology.

Once we nullify the constitution's role in the interpretation of law, anything goes--whoever has the judges has the power to rule. Anything and everything can suddenly be condemned or allowed based solely on the word of a few ruling elites. This how it works in North Korea, Iran and Cuba. I'd prefer that it didn't work that way here.

Ed said...

After reading that link...I have a couple of things to look up before I post a response.

While your points are well made, and on the issue of interpretation I agree but, especially that link, that's rhetoric is a bit much.