Thursday, July 16, 2009

Questioning Sotomayor

The talk of the week has been the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor. But when we consider that the Democrats have way more votes needed to seat her on the bench, it seems like an incredible waste of time and taxpayer money to keep up this charade.

Between her failure to recognize the purpose of the judiciary and her lack of knowledge of the law, I think she is questionable at best. But when you consider that she is a member of the radical group La Raza (HT: AOW) in addition to her lack of qualities, I think it becomes an even worse choice.

La Raza, you may recall, is the group that wants to take back parts of the US that were lost by Mexico after the Mexican War. Here a the map (also courtesy of AOW) that shows the areas they consider Mexican territory.


When we read the op-ed piece found at the American Spectator yesterday, it outlines a clearer picture of Ms. Sotomayor:

Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor a product of grinding poverty and beneficiary of affirmative action, and now a victim of its unintended consequences? Or has she instead cynically embraced affirmative action and romanticized her past as a way to further her judicial career?

As the confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee continues for Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's pick for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, with a lifetime appointment at stake, a review of the evidence shows she has changed her position on affirmative action and fictionalized her past to serve her own purposes.


It is a better focused image, one that is created solely by fluff mastering. It shows us a more in depth picture of the character (or lack thereof), and it shows an Administration that has relied on PR for the bulk of its successes. This is the kind of thing Hollywood likes to generate, the same kind of the thing the USSR used to communicate to the people under their control.

First, she was never in the target audience affirmative action was designed to help. Second, while in school she vehemently disavowed affirmative action as playing any part in her educational advancement. Third, as her career played out on an increasingly public stage, she rebranded herself as "a perfect affirmative action baby" and an ardent supporter of racial quotas willing to engage in activist judging—and even ethically questionable judging—to advance that agenda.

Sotomayor's basic résumé is well known. To hear her tell it, she is a product of the "third world" territory of Puerto Rico, raised in public housing projects in the Bronx. She was socially and economically impoverished. She didn't meet admission test requirements at Princeton University and Yale Law School because of "cultural bias" in the testing. But she was accepted at those schools anyway because of affirmative action. Her success has led her to believe ardently in racial quotas.


This is the kind of thing that dreams are made of, right? But as we all read on, the article paints a different picture:

A closer look at her background tells another story, however. She was born in the United States. The projects in which she was raised, the Washington Post reported, were "pristine," virtually crime-free, and racially mixed. A mere 10 percent of the residents were on welfare. The rest had jobs. Sotomayor's mother was a nurse.

"These were not the projects of idle, stinky elevators, of gang-controlled stairwells where drug deals go down.… Far from dangerous, the projects were viewed as nurturing," the New York Times wrote. "I never perceived myself as a poor child," Sotomayor said in an October 1999 housing authority publication, the Post reported.


The truth, whatever it may be, is once again elusive. Who knows what it is?

It seems like another fine instance of the old smoke and mirrors game for political expediency, if you ask me. But I think we should be asking ourselves another question, somewhere along the way. If the goal is to get a Hispanic woman on the bench, is this the best one we have? If so, it begins a whole new line of questions.

But then I would ask, who has the courage to ask them? Certainly not the rubber-stamp Democrats in Congress. We cannot depend on them to be vigilant, especially when the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee insists on rewriting history during the hearings:



That's what he said, but that's not what she said. Her exact words were:

"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 who hasn't lived that life."

A word here and a word there can really distort the true message and certainly alter the truth. And believe when when I say this, we all know that people who have been in government as long as Leahy are very likely to use words to distort, exaggerate, and fabricate. He does himself no favors when he engages in this kind of action and further cements himself a dishonest legacy.

But as I implied earlier, this is the kind of tactic the Left must resort to when they settle for someone as controversial as Sotomayor. If they really wanted a better candidate who happened to be Hispanic and female, maybe Christine Arguello would have been a better choice. I don't know much about her or her record. But surely she isn't as inept or radical as Ms. Sotomayor.

Maybe Sotomayor would be better suited as a TV judge, call it Judge Sonia. But then again, maybe not.


11 comments:

A.C. McCloud said...

Headline on CNN.com right now-- "Sotomayor could move a jury to tears". And here you are picking on this nice wise thoughtful woman like this. You oughta be ashamed!

Mustang said...

Yes, AC ... he ought to be ashamed. But you know this guy as well as I do; we might regard him as a master of sarcasm, a crusader for truth, justice, and the American way ... but he is never repentant (unless Mrs. Sunset threatens violence).

We have no doubt that Judge Jimmie Lee Jones would be excluded from consideration because he was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood. There is some question whether Ahmed Faisal would be excluded because he happened to be an active member of Al Qaeda. But when Sonia Sotomayor associates herself with a similar organization, that's okay.

This is because we employ a double standard in our country these days, and of course ... we're politically correct in doing so. As humanitarians all, we should feel good about that.

Barf.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

On a side note, let's help La Raza in one of their goals and give 'em back California along with their debt and electoral votes. Sounds like a win win to me.

Z said...

"Sotomayor could move a jury to tears"..and a blogger to nausea......TRUST ME.

NOBODY asked about LA RAZA...I posted on this, too.......Ducky condemns the Right for that "if they're so concerned..."?? AND THEY SHOULD HAVE...but ANY America-loving senators SHOULD HAVE........Ducky exposes himself again.

Oh, I just saw Mustang's last "barf"..funny I wrote about nausea before seeing that (great ....not minds..STOMACHS?!) HEH

Good post, LA.........NOW WHAT? WE're STUCK with this woman! We need to hope NO OTHER SCOTUS JUSTICE EVER STEPS DOWN (until a Conservative pres is back in office...which is probably NEVER)

Z said...

just for the record, the "we ought to give California back" stuff's About All I Can Stand.

A.C. McCloud said...

On a side note, let's help La Raza in one of their goals and give 'em back California along with their debt and electoral votes. Sounds like a win win to me.

Laughing out loud.

LASunsett said...

//Headline on CNN.com right now-- "Sotomayor could move a jury to tears".//

Just like George Soros could move an investor to tears?

LASunsett said...

//As humanitarians all, we should feel good about that.//

That's our Uncle Mustang. He always makes us feel so much better after he tears us all down. I know I feel better already.

LASunsett said...

//On a side note, let's help La Raza in one of their goals and give 'em back California along with their debt and electoral votes. Sounds like a win win to me.//

Nice to see you again AICS. But I am afraid your life may take a turn for the worse now.

Z and many others who read this blog are from CA and they are one rough bunch when irritated. Nice knowing you brother. ;)

LASunsett said...

//Ducky condemns the Right for that "if they're so concerned..."?? AND THEY SHOULD HAVE...but ANY America-loving senators SHOULD HAVE........Ducky exposes himself again.//

What else is new?

//NOW WHAT? WE're STUCK with this woman! We need to hope NO OTHER SCOTUS JUSTICE EVER STEPS DOWN (until a Conservative pres is back in office...which is probably NEVER)

Any of the left wingers will be replaced with the same. This is why this isn't as big of a deal as if Kennedy or Scalia were to retire. Kennedy is the swing vote as it stands now. Either one would be replaced with a left winger because they would see this as a chance to own the court.

LASunsett said...

//Laughing out loud.//

Way to go AC. It's not enough that i lose one good blog friend for this, but now I stand to lose two. I hope the Z Squad has mercy on both of you.