Sotomayor Either Perjured Herself, or Is Intellectually Unqualified to be on the Supreme Court
No, I didn't say it. A liberal law professor disgusted with her testimony did.
Ace distilled the essence of Sotomayor thus:I fully expect Sotomayor to be confirmed by the Democratic supermajority in the Senate. While the nation as a whole doesn't support her nomination, there simply doesn't seem to be enough of an immediate cost to her confirmation to make voting for her a short term political risk, which is all politicians care about any way. The fact of the matter, however, is that activist judges like Sonia Sotomayor and her peers that believe in what Ace so correctly mocked as the "Living Constitution" undermine the laws that holds society together with every decision they make. The constantly shifting standards and "law of the now" approach to jurisprudence means that no law is ever actually law; it is an ever-changing rough guideline. With no fixed compass, the law—as law—ceases to exist. She is a dangerous choice... and no one knows that better than the radical neophyte America elected as President who appointed her.
She's denying that there exists something called "theory of jurisprudence," which includes such doctrines as originalism, strict constructionism, and, of course, the ever-flexible and ever-expanding doctrine of the "Living Constitution." As she doesn't want to admit she's an adherent of the latter, she claims there's no such thing as judicial philosophy whatsoever. For example, faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say there is no Constitutional dictate either way: A law is permitted to exist; it is also permissible to have no law. Lacking a constitutional source of authority, a judge herself has no authority to set policy. On the other hand, someone like Sotomayor does not stop her inquiry simply because she finds that she has no authority whatsoever to make a ruling that binds anyone. She then looks to international law; the always-popular "changing social mores and norms;" "public policy considerations;" anagrams of Ricky Martin song titles; etc. So, yeah, she's lying.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:03 AM
Comments
1
What do you mean, "or"?
Posted by: Russ at July 15, 2009 12:19 AM (QH1SN)
2
To the liberal, what they plainly said and meant is not, in fact, what they plainly said and meant. The rest of us are merely too dull, non-nuanced, or Republican to understand them. So "liberal" becomes "progressive." "Corrupt, wasteful earmarks" become "investments." "War" becomes "overseas contingency operations." "Taxes" become "stimulus." Up is down, black is white and truth is falsity.
Judge Sotomayor knows that she must lie because her true beliefs, that which makes up her intellect and her belief system, is repugnant to most Americans. Simply admitting that she believes she's smarter and better than anyone else because she's female and hispanic might very well derail her nomination, and that would be unacceptable. For liberals, the end always justifies the means. It's the Chicago way.
Judge Sotomayor knows that she must lie because her true beliefs, that which makes up her intellect and her belief system, is repugnant to most Americans. Simply admitting that she believes she's smarter and better than anyone else because she's female and hispanic might very well derail her nomination, and that would be unacceptable. For liberals, the end always justifies the means. It's the Chicago way.
Posted by: MikeMcDaniel at July 15, 2009 01:08 AM (egZnw)
3
Short of a major meltdown, there was never a doubt in my mind that she'd be confirmed. With the current power structures history, she could almost do no wrong. Besides, the Repubs rarely play as nasty as the dems,
Posted by: Billiam at July 15, 2009 08:25 AM (nhTNn)
4
Again there is a somewhat counterintuitive upside. The judicial Left has been having coffee klatches for decades where they share their shared views which of course are explicitly aConstitutional and often extra-legal, sometimes illegal but always forward racial discrimination in the direction they prefer, which is anti-white. They have done this openly and why not? Sotomayor demonstrates that she is a dimbulb by her surprise at the reaction. She is, apparently, ignorant of the very basics of law, substituting preferential results for disinterested mediation and no one in media or law has every objected. Now the tide is out and we see who is skinnydipping. I'm shocked at the shock of this Lib critic. Looks like even some of her teammates were not in on the game. Everyone is now. Claims to Barack being some sort of post-racial figure cannot survive a close look at Sotomayor and close looks are what she will endure from now on. Is she in? Probably. Are we out? Well, the results on the court are not going to be pretty. If there is anything that can scrape off the irrationalists support for disguised Liberalism this could be it.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 08:47 AM (LVyKj)
5
I don't think she's a dim bulb, mega. It's only that, like most leftists, she is not used to defending her assumptions because in her circles they never are challenged.
Now she's in unknown territory, where she is expected to explain and defend statements which, while unobjectionable in her preferred environment, are at the least disturbing and at worst deeply offensive to many Americans. Clinton had a similar rude awakening early in his administration, where he discovered (no doubt to his great shock) that attitudes and opinions taken for granted by the Georgetown cocktail party set are alien and unwelcome to the great unwashed. Clinton was adept enough to adapt, but not quickly enough to forestall the '94 midterm elections.
Let's hope Obama's cluelessness and political tin ear (abetted by a syncophantic media unwilling to tell him anything he doesn't want to hear) lead to a similar result.
Now she's in unknown territory, where she is expected to explain and defend statements which, while unobjectionable in her preferred environment, are at the least disturbing and at worst deeply offensive to many Americans. Clinton had a similar rude awakening early in his administration, where he discovered (no doubt to his great shock) that attitudes and opinions taken for granted by the Georgetown cocktail party set are alien and unwelcome to the great unwashed. Clinton was adept enough to adapt, but not quickly enough to forestall the '94 midterm elections.
Let's hope Obama's cluelessness and political tin ear (abetted by a syncophantic media unwilling to tell him anything he doesn't want to hear) lead to a similar result.
Posted by: Steve Skubinna at July 15, 2009 09:47 AM (Vcyz0)
6
What is a living constitution? That is a whole new term for me.
Posted by: grady strickland at July 15, 2009 11:19 AM (Q/Vmi)
7
GOP needs to make sure she gets confirmed - I'm stunned by how poorly spoken and unintelligent she seems. She'll be the 9th batter forever.
Posted by: bandit at July 15, 2009 12:01 PM (/R+6i)
8
Bandit, digging out those silver linings is a full time job these days.
Posted by: megapotamus at July 15, 2009 04:39 PM (NNQkQ)
9
How about both, a liar and unqualified?
Posted by: Federale at July 15, 2009 05:32 PM (QZ/te)
10
Wise Latina is quite dumb ... Intellectually unqualified, and her bigotry is not becoming on any judge.
Ask yourself if Roberts had said that a wise white guy .... what do think the state run media would be saying about now?
Ask yourself if Roberts had said that a wise white guy .... what do think the state run media would be saying about now?
Posted by: bill-tb at July 16, 2009 03:27 PM (iiiMw)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0094 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0069 seconds, 18 records returned.
Page size 10 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.