Opposing Sotomayor: A Line in the Sand

As Andrew C. McCarthy wrote on Tuesday, “It’s not the rule of law, it’s the rule of lawyers: That’s the central message conveyed by Pres. Barack Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.” She is, after all, widely admired among the Obamanist left for her empathy, not her temperament or wisdom. That plus her compelling life story and her love of Nancy Drew mysteries.

We also know that she has had many of her decisions reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court, that she is argumentative and unpleasant, that she believes the place of a judge is to create policy, rather than to apply the law impartially, and that she believes her race and gender make her better than whites or men.

Racism does not have a good track record. It’s been tried a long time. And you would think by now that we’d want to put an end to it instead of putting it under new management.

(Thomas Sowell, 5/27/09 on the Glenn Beck Show)

Democrats and the partisan Democrat media have started their campaign for Sotomayor by blackmailing Republicans; saying if they oppose her that Republicans will never get another Hispanic vote. And they are also preemptively accusing Republicans of hypocrisy because George H. W. Bush mentioned upon nominating him that Clarence Thomas’s inspirational life story should arouse Americans’ empathy.

Let’s deal with these lines of attack.

Hypocrisy and Empathy

I’ll take the second one first. When Bush pere nominated Thomas he praised him for his learning, his wise and brilliantly written opinions, and the respect he had earned from his colleagues and those who appeared before him. He also mentioned Thomas’s background as an interesting sidebar. Then Thomas, who was a child of an impoverished single black mother became the target of the most hateful, vicious slanders and character assassination from the Democrats and their catspaws in the media, government bureaucracy, and academia. Let me repeat this. The Democrats insulted and attacked a black man who had overcome incredible odds and difficulties to rise, through merit, to the peak of his profession. In America, he had become through his own efforts an honest to goodness role model that should have made all black Americans proud, that should have inspired black Americans to become great jurors like Clarence Thomas.

Thank God the Democrats lost that battle, and Clarence Thomas survived it to become a great Supreme Court Justice.

Blackmail

Did Democrats suffer any backlash from their relentless, hateful, awful demonization of one of the best and the brightest among black Americans? They did not. Why not? Because they claimed he was a misogynist, that he liked porn movies, that he told off color jokes to women. So they claimed he was a misogynist, and that privileged them to attack him.

When Republicans proposed to appoint Miguel Estrada, another Hispanic, to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Democrats opposed him precisely because he is Hispanic. Karl Rove writes:

The media has also quickly adopted the story line that Republicans will damage themselves with Hispanics if they oppose Ms. Sotomayor. But what damage did Democrats suffer when they viciously attacked Miguel Estrada’s nomination by President George W. Bush to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second-highest court? New York Sen. Chuck Schumer was particularly ugly, labeling Mr. Estrada a right-wing “stealth missile” who was “way out of the mainstream” and openly questioning Mr. Estrada’s truthfulness.

What is wrong with Sotomayor? What makes her an out of the mainstream, left-wing stealth missile? What is wrong enough with her that even a Democrat would agree she is the wrong choice? Quite simply: She is a racist. Republicans, the party of Lincoln, the party that passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments against Democrat opposition, the party that was targeted along with black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan and Jim Crow laws alike, has a venerable history of opposing racism. A racist is a racist, “straight up,” and we can hardly doubt that the woman who said any Hispanic woman can out-think any white man would think the same of a black man or woman. She is a racist. She believes in protecting her own group, her own race, at the cost of others. The law is only a secondary concern. Appear before Sotomayor in court and be sure that if you are white you will lose. If you are an employer you will lose. If you are a man you will lose. If you are Republican you will lose. The law is not the most important thing to her. Empathy is: Empathy for those who are most similar to her.

She believes in tribal justice, and she will always defend her tribe. Are you sure you want to appear before her in court? Are you sure you’re in her tribe, and not in some other tribe? If the law changes with every new plaintiff how can anybody know how to act lawfully? If the written law is irrelevant then why should anyone obey it in the first place?

Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is not to obey the law as written. It is to rule by her whim. That is the worst kind of rule. It is a wholesale rejection of what America stands for with the Rule of Law, and a return to medieval times.

Can a judge who believes as she believes take the Oath of Office without, at least on a subconscious level, expecting to break it? How can she administer justice without respect to persons when empathy for persons is the most important aspect of her c.v.? How can someone who is so passionate and partisan claim to be impartial? How indeed?

“I, [NAME], 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 [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

She is wrong about the law. She is wrong for any court. With all due respect, she is most definitely wrong for the Supreme Court of the United States.

Those are the principles upon which Republicans should respectfully oppose Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court.

If it is a lonely fight, so be it. Let us draw a line in the sand. We will not let the anti-Revolutionary forces of those who would return us to the rule of kings advance without a fight. We will make a stand here, because it is important. And even if we lose this fight it’s worth the fighting.

The choice to fight on principle says a lot about the party’s courage in a tough place. Instant retreat says just as much about cowardice. To fight will draw support both from those who have given up on Republicans (for good reason), and from those minority Americans who see that Republicans are actually willing to fight to protect them. Republican principles are true. They work for everyone: Black; white; yellow; red; English speaking; Spanish speaking; and even those who speak Mandarin. If Republicans fight for and articulate those principles every day, then the fight will inspire allies that Republicans need. Republicans need to fight for every step, every inch of ground. And instead of giving ten feet, or one foot, or one single inch, Republicans have to try to take an inch, or a foot, ten feet, or a mile.

Sirs, draw the line. Gird yourselves.

And when we are forced back, outnumbered, bloodied but still standing tall, then we draw the line again and once again prepare to fight. By fighting we will attract new allies and strengthen the will of our moribund support.

There is a principle in the opposition to Sotomayor: We will not accept racist or partisan or tribal interpretations of the law as just, but inevitably know they are as unjust as anything. The 14th Amendment stiffens our spine against them. And we will not accept “policy setting” and legislation from the bench as Constitutional. That is a lie. There is only one meaning to “interpret the Constitution,” and it is to follow the original, plain English meaning of the words. Anything else is making it up by whim. Anything else is post facto legislation.

Ever since the revolutionaries of 1776 stood for the Rule of Law against the Rule by Whim of the English King, America has stood for the Rule of Law, not the Rule of Whim. America will not change that now. America will not change that ever.

Maybe some inspirational language from another time and another place will help stiffen the spines of conservatives to take a lonely stand and oppose Sonia Sotomayor. I have two inspirational passages from Winston Churchill to offer.

“I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat.”

We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many, many long months of struggle and of suffering. You ask, what is our policy? I can say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us; to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime. That is our policy. You ask, what is our aim?

I can answer in one word: It is victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival. Let that be realised; no survival for the British Empire, no survival for all that the British Empire has stood for, no survival for the urge and impulse of the ages, that mankind will move forward towards its goal. But I take up my task with buoyancy and hope. I feel sure that our cause will not be suffered to fail among men. At this time I feel entitled to claim the aid of all, and I say, “come then, let us go forward together with our united strength.”

And here is another, just as stirring. Obama gave back the bust of Churchill given to America after 9/11. He didn’t think we needed Churchill’s inspiration. I think we do.

“We shall fight on the beaches”

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God’s good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old.”

Victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

The battle begins today and every day for those who will take up the mantle to protect America against those who would overthrow America’s Revolution of 1776 and return us to kingship, taxes, bread & circuses, the persecution of Christians, and tyranny.

beaglescout-48.jpg

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

3 thoughts on “Opposing Sotomayor: A Line in the Sand

  1. It is not empathy that Pres. B.O. wants it is sympathy. Empathy is saying I know you don’t like it but it is against the law. Sympathy is saying it is against the law and you can do it anyway because you have been mistreated.

  2. It certainly looks like an uphill battle to bring the rule of law back to be the norm for our judicial at all levels. The Supreme Court nominee is certainly troubling.

    At the same time we have the same problem at he lower levels. Through in a little politics and or corruption and we all should be very very concerned.

    When contracts are meaningless what will the basis for business be?

    I had a court case with a long time friend of then Governor Vilsack, now Secretary of Ag. Results not good. By all accounts it should have been ruled in my favor.

    I have written a book about it. Everyone should be concerned.

    Dixie Burkhart
    Facts Don’t Matter
    http://www.eloquentbooks.com/FactsDontMatter.htm
    http://www.squidoo.com/Dixie-Burkhart

  3. How many hundreds of times did I sit through those press sessions with Sen. Hatch, or Sen. Grassley, or another member of the Republican Right Wing, in which they said that they wanted judges who felt the pain of small businessmen, mothers trying to live on a budget, or the returning vet who couldn’t get a job — empathy, in other words.

    Hypocrisy is God-awful ugly on these guys. You’d think they would have figured out the wheel could turn after they lost the majority to the Democrats in 1987.

    You wrote:

    We also know that she has had many of her decisions reversed on appeal by the Supreme Court,

    But fewer than most judges, and a tiny percentage for such a long career. She’s got one of the best records of NOT being reversed on the federal bench, including all 94 District Courts and all the Circuits. What we know from this charge is that Obama opponents will make up anything to say to insult Sotomayor, hoping the American people are too stupid to pick up on the falsehoods. Talk about being cynical about democratic systems!

    . . . that she is argumentative and unpleasant,

    According to people who have never met her and know little about her and the courts. Opposing counsel in criminal cases say she was tough but fair, and that the “argumentative and unpleasant” charge is a hallucination. Other judges note that she is cool and calm, unafraid to speak up when it matters, and when the law is clear. Since when is speaking up for the Constitution “unpleasant.” If you hate the document that much, be square, and call the Constitution “argumentative and unpleasant.” But don’t try to pin that label on defenders of the Constitution as a pejorative insult, especially when all testimony is contrary to the claim. America hates the smell of hypocrisy in both the morning and evening.

    And she has spoken up for the poorest of the poor. That’s bad?

    . . . that she believes the place of a judge is to create policy,

    Damn straight. We call it common law in the U.S. We call it “first impressions.” We call it “trial law” as opposed to appellate law — but that’s a distinction that escapes your crudely shallow analysis. I’ll wager it never occurred to you that federal judges at the three different levels have distinctly different roles to play. I’m reminded of the appellate judge “considered” for the Supreme Court years ago who was accused of unfairness in trial procedure. One senator who had been both a prosecutor and judge asked the guy how he came to that conclusion, since the judge had never been a District Court judge, and so had never presided over a trial. “Lack of compliments.” Nuts.

    Who in the world do you think “makes” common law? What decision does not make policy in one way or another? Sonia Sotomayor has been a good judge, perhaps a great judge. She has hundreds of decisions — look at history, and stop making stuff up.

    . . . rather than to apply the law impartially, and that she believes her race and gender make her better than whites or men.

    I’d love to see you put evidence to that claim. It’s pure, unadulterated, fresh and uncomposted hooey.

Comments are closed.