Rotating Header Image


Barack Obama presented today his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as being qualified to the highest court’s Judiciary on these terms: Sotomayor has or had a mother (mentioned three times in the course of only a few minutes), she is of an ethnicity-other-than-White (she’s “Hispanic”), she’s “popular with (her) staff” and she’s female.

Most Americans trend toward the understanding that to be a judge — on any level, any court — one understands the law academically and also is wise enough to apply that knowledge on a legitimate, appropriate basis: what laws are appropriate to what situations, how they interact with other, possibly applicable, laws and what the conclusions are, then, after applying those laws to situations established before the court. Any penalty and/or advantage involved is, then, also right there, in those applicable laws — the court, the judiciary, is, simply, not the venue in which laws are created but in which laws are, instead, applied. A judge has to know the difference (between applying laws and creating or establishing laws), regardless of how popular and appealing they may be on a human level. Their personal characteristics really are not the issue, but their character is.

dot-black-sml4 However, to Barack Obama and many Democrats, the laws of the United States of America are there to be interpreted inorder to counter whatever conditions jurists — those who the Democrats approve of — perceive that is counter to the Democratic Party political perspectives: abstractions of the human condition not based upon the issue at hand before the jurist but upon the emotional intents, assumptions upon what’s at stake within the confines or trends of Leftist political goals. In other words, proving a point by use of the law — oftentimes exploiting the judiciary’s position in doing so — by way of operatives in the law who share a political goal.

Here’s Sotomayor defining “the law” as an opportunity and process by which political goals and intents are established (she’s advocating advocating-from-the-bench which disproves just about every glowing point Barack Obama has tried to sell about Sotomayor’s character):

All of that is cultural method — though, granted, knowledge of the law allows it to be exploited: in that context, expertise of the law, as can be seen in the culture of crime, enables exploitation of the legal process and what is required is other knowledgeable individuals involved who can and are willing to counter exploitive goals among others.

One can be quite “popular,” as Sotomayor is according to her selling points in the media today (“she’s popular with her staff” — I read once that Sotomayor has parties and events with her staff, self-celebrations among herself and those who work for her, which would be fine in a human-interest story to gain and maintain employee ‘happiness’ in the workplace, but how this is relevant to possessing a jurist’s expertise of the law remains a Sotomayor-and-Obama unstated political method toward “building consensus” or, specifically in this case, advocating from the bench: by being “popular,” you reduce the questioning as to just what it is you’re doing otherwise and what your motives are, which is to describe a political operation not a judicial characteristic).

Her former clerks report that because Sotomayor is divorced and has no children, her clerks become like her extended family — working late with her, visiting her apartment once a month for card games (where she remembers their favorite drinks), and taking a field trip together to the premier of a Harry Potter movie.

But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.”

Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It’s customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn’t distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions–fixing typos and the like–rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” (The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)

If Sonia Sotomayor is qualified as a jurist for the Supreme Court on her alleged legal expertise, let her (and Barack Obama as he who nominated her to that position) prove that and do so upon professional criteria and competency. Sotomayor’s gender (or anyone’s), ethnic type, whether one was “raised poor” or wealthy or somewhere in-between, none of this is relevant to what one’s character is, not in the world outside the Leftwing need to populate the judiciary with, as Obama calls it, people who are “empathetic” while rolling over the issue of character, competency and qualifications otherwise as to the judiciary. This is all subjective mish-mash speech designed and used by people who don’t want others to closely examine their motives.

dot-black-sml4 Moreover, among the points made today about Sotomayor and/or by Sotomayor about herself in relationship with any qualifications for the Supreme Court is that she’s:

— Hispanic (she has DNA, congratulations),

— she has a gender (congratulations, you’re a human being), and, she is of the mind that given her ethnicity and her gender, she’s better qualified for the bench than “a white male” (which makes Sotomayor a racist, an ethnic-supremacist and a sexist if ever I’ve heard one):

(Sotomayor says) 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…

— she’s popular with her staff (so was Hitler, have to say that to make this point),

— she has a mother (who she referred to three times in the brief nomination-acceptance speech she gave today as to her ability to fulfill the post she’s nominated for (everyone who has a mother, stand up and accept a nomination to be a Judge on the Supreme Court, you’re qualified according to the Sotomayor standard),

— She says her “heart is bursting,” a statement I find incredibly cryptic if not horrible,

— she says she won’t “bend the Constitution” yet how is anyone to believe that statement: her selling points are entirely subjective to-date and by this point in time, most observant individuals are well aware that anyone can say anything, it’s their behavior that is the truth of what their intents are, and, I find her statement in this regard the most suspect, as in, why is it necessary for her to even make this statement because it reveals she’s reasoning in a counter-purpose to what she’s declaring (it’s a statement like “these shoes aren’t stolen” when someone compliments one’s shoes); this quote by Sotomayor proves she’s lying in today’s declaration:

She ended a long baseball strike…briskly ruling against the owners in favor of the players.

The owners were trying to subvert the labor system, she said, and the strike had “placed the entire concept of collective bargaining on trial.”

This also proves that Sotomayor is lying (as also as to her emotional and mental instability — here she is clearly advocating her emotionally-based, cultural-imperative assumptions upon the American public):

Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion – U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

The case, Ricci v. DeStefano, involved a group of 19 white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter who filed suit in 2003 claiming that the city of New Haven, Conn., engaged in racial discrimination when it threw out the results of two promotion tests because none of the city’s black applicants had passed the tests.

Each of the plaintiffs had passed the exam. The case is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.


— she’s “thrilled” (emotional reaction, not something one finds appealing in a judge) at her nomination, without regard for her record.

dot-black-sml4 So on that criteria (what she said in regards herself and the job she’s been nominated for), she’s accepting the nomination to be Judge on the U.S. Supreme Court, declaring her qualifications to accept such a nomination.

dot-black-sml4 Barack Obama claims Sotomayor will “interpret the law, not advocate from the bench” but recorded bits of Sotomayor speaking among so-called “jurists” captures her making jokes about how clever she is in advocating from the bench as she also laughs with others how they’re (laughing in ridicule as she says this) “not supposed to say that” and “do that” but how clever they are in doing both anyway (credibility be damned, it’s funny to Sotomayor in that context, as it is with the ridiculous and advocating-jurists she is commiserating with).

So Obama’s claim in that regard is untrue as is Sotomayor’s immaturity and non-professional demeanor also irrational in relationship with the job she’s been nominated for (if not also her previous positions).

dot-black-sml4 If she’s qualified on professional standards to occupy a Supreme Court Justice seat, let her prove it. Bringing her mother, her ethnicity (and her ethnic-supremacy perspectives, at that, though captured from her in earlier press), her gender, her grandiosity among her staff — and that she finds it laughable that she is able to manipulate the legal context among her peers to advocate for socio-political goals — isn’t qualifying her, it’s proving that she isn’t qualified.

Her judicial record? Three of her six opinions from lower courts have been reversed by the Supreme Court. That means, she’s crashed half the time.

dot-black-sml4 Update:
Sotomayor’s lower court opinions have been reversed sixty-percent of the time. That means, she’s crashed sixty-out-of-a-hundred times.

C O M M E N T S : now closed