Sotomayor shows her true colors

I see your true colors
And that’s why I love you
So don’t be afraid to let them show
Your true colors
True colors are beautiful,
Like a rainbow

– Cindy Lauper

As noted here by Curt, the recent SCOTUS ruling caused quite a dustup. Sonia Sotomayor is inclined to shooting her mouth off without thinking. She did it in this ruling and she’s done it in the past, and each time she reminds us of the poor decision it was to put her on the Court.

In the most recent ruling Sotomayor, employing the Al Sharpton method of association, essentially called the people of Michigan racists:

Sotomayor, in her dissent, opened by describing three stages of “the majority” discriminating against racial minorities in the political process, beginning with the Jim Crow laws that flouted the 15th Amendment.

“This time, although it allowed the minority access to the political process, the majority changed the ground rules of the process so as to make it more difficult for the minority, and the minority alone, to obtain policies designed to foster racial integration,” she wrote. “Although these political restructurings may not have been discriminatory in purpose, the Court reaffirmed the right of minority members of our society to participate meaningfully and equally in the political process. This case involves this last chapter of discrimination.”

Then she immediately had to walk it back:

“I of course do not mean to suggest that Michigan’s voters acted with anything like the invidious intent of those who historically stymied the rights of racial minorities,”

But of course she did. It’s undeniable. Now let’s crank up the wayback machine for some predictions:

As I said, it’s not first time she’s blathered something out that she probably should not have let escape. Back in 2009 when asked a question about the difference between Federal District and Appeals Courts she blurted out:

“Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And, I know, and I know that this is on tape and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know.”

Mark Impomeni then remarks:

What we know is that Sotomayor realized immediately that her words could jeopardize her chances at a Supreme Court nomination sometime in the future, so she does her best to restore the veil of secrecy she just tore down. But her tone of voice and gestures make clear that Sotomayor does not believe a word of what she is saying. The audience’s laughter proves that the message was sent loud and clear. Every student at that forum walked out secure in the knowledge that Sotomayor believes courts should make policy, but that they should never talk about that publicly.

If Sotomayor really believes that her role as an unelected justice on the Supreme Court should be to decide policy questions, then that should be a topic of discussion in her confirmation hearings. But as her half-hearted cover-up shows, Sotomayor does not want to be as honest about her view of the Court’s role as she does about how gender and ethnicity influence judicial ability. Like all liberal activists, Sotomayor wants to hide her true intentions behind politically correct rhetoric. In short, she is willing to lie to gain power, after which she will do as she pleases.

Liberals got all hot and bothered when some on the media referred to Sotomayor as a liberal:

Setting up a look at Sotomayer’s record, ABC anchor Charles Gibson fretted about how conservatives had “already” assessed her: “Even before the President announced his decision, conservatives were reviewing Judge Sotomayor’s judicial record and were already saying she would be an activist on the court.” Jan Crawford Greenburg then framed any notion of Sotomayer as liberal as based on accusations from conservatives: “…which conservatives have called code for,” “…conservatives today seized on this comment” and “already, conservatives have jumped on the decision.”

Over on NBC, Pete Williams presumed a conflict between her rise from poverty and being liberal: “Despite her remarkable personal odyssey, Judge Sotomayor is already being called a liberal activist by some conservative groups.” (That sentence included NBC’s only liberal label utterance during four segments.)

“Conservatives view Sotomayor as a liberal with an agenda,” CBS’s Wyatt Andrews relayed before he cautioned the nominee “is generally seen as liberal, but experts say is not always predictable.” The CBS Evening News, however, came closest to an unattributed description of Sotomayer as a liberal when anchor Katie Couric, who also trumpeted her “amazing life story,” asked Jeff Greenfield: “Will she really change the make-up of the court, or have an impact on some hot-button issues because many people are saying that Justice Souter is just being replaced by another liberal?”

Sotomayor has referred to herself as a “wise Latina” whose judgment would be better than that of a white male.

Pat Buchanan was having none of it:

Imagine if Sam Alito had said at Bob Jones University, “I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his life experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman, who hasn’t lived that life.”

Alito would have been toast. No explanation, no apology would have spared him. He would have been branded for life a white bigot.

Judge Sotomayor will be excused because the media agree with her and she is a Latina who will use her court seat to impose upon the nation the values of the National Council of La Raza (The Race), of which she is a member.

Buchanan then forecast the future with a look at the past:

Sotomayor’s support for discrimination against white males was on exhibit when Ricci v. DeStefano came before a three-judge panel of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Sotomayor sits.

Frank Ricci is the New Haven firefighter who, suffering from dyslexia but desperate to realize his dream of becoming an officer, quit his second job, bought $1,000 worth of books and had a friend read them to him to prepare for the crucial exam.

He made it, coming in sixth among 77 firefighters, qualifying for promotion to lieutenant.

A problem immediately arose. Seems that of those who qualified for promotion, all but one were white, and he was a Hispanic.

Can’t have that. So, the New Haven City Council, under pressure from the usual suspects, threw out the tests, refused to promote Ricci or any white firemen, and called for new tests — to produce greater diversity. In other words, get rid of at least some of those white guys who somehow managed to come in near or at the top of their class.

Ricci and 19 other firemen sued, claiming they had been denied the promotions they had won for one reason: They were white.

What did Sotomayor’s three-judge panel do with Ricci’s appeal of the district court decision that turned him down? She tried to kill and bury it in a single dismissive unpublished paragraph so Ricci and the white firefighters would never get a hearing in the Supreme Court.

Stuart Taylor, former New York Times Supreme Court reporter and a National Journal columnist, charges Sotomayor with engaging “in a process so peculiar as to fan suspicions that some or all of the judges were embarrassed by the ugliness of the actions that they were blessing and were trying to sweep quietly under the rug, perhaps to avoid Supreme Court review or public criticism, or both.”

Had it not been for the intervention of Judge Jose Cabranes — a Clinton appointee outraged that so momentous a case was being put in a dumpster — Sotomayor’s misconduct might never have been uncovered, and those firemen would forever be denied their chance for justice.

Jonathan Turley reviewed 30 of Sotomayor’s cases and found them notable for lacking in depth.

Then Buchanan drops the hammer:

Liberal law professor and Supreme Court expert Jeff Rosen of The New Republic reports, after talking to prosecutors and law clerks, that Sotomayor covers up her intellectual inadequacy by bullying from the bench.

The lady is a lightweight.

Bingo.

We’re going to have a wait a while longer for a wise Latina on the Court. What we have now is a liberal activist bully. Her true colors.

On the way to the airport I got to listen to Jim Vicevich (one of our Connecticut treasures- his blog is here) who made the point (I think quite valid) that Sotomayor wants to institutionalize Affirmative Action so that it could never be taken away. It seems the last thing she wants is a level field.

DrJohn

DrJohn has been a health care professional for more than 30 years. In addition to clinical practice he has done extensive research and has published widely with over 70 original articles and abstracts in the peer-reviewed literature. DrJohn is well known in his field and has lectured on every continent except for Antarctica. He has been married to the same wonderful lady for over 30 years and has three kids- two sons, both of whom are attorneys and one daughter on her way into the field of education.

DrJohn was brought up with the concept that one can do well if one is prepared to work hard but nothing in life is guaranteed.

Except for liberals being foolish.