Posted by
John Caile on Wednesday, May 27, 2009 5:12:14 PM
Just
as Barak Obama was sold to the American people based on his "personal
story" rather than his actual qualifications to be President, so too
has his first Supreme Court nominee. Like Obama, Ms.
Sotomayor's "qualifications" for the highest court in the land seem to be her sex, her ethnicity, and of course, her "compelling life story" - a phrase nauseatingly repeated by every media talking head (as soon as they received the memo from the DNC).
Barely
minutes after the announcement, the dutiful media Obamaphiles were
giddy with delight - but not at her legal background. Oh no, the important
thing, you see, is that she's a woman, and not just any woman, but a Latina woman, don't you know. Why, it's a "historic" pick, as more than one info-bot gushed.
And gee-whiz, she has such a heart-warming "personal story" - the only thing
Obama's search team failed to do was to find someone in a wheel chair.
Never
mind that more than 60% of her decisions have been overruled, that she has
openly endorsed racial bias in her decisions, or that, by her own
admission, she has exhibited a lack of respect for the role of the
judiciary that boggles the mind of anyone who has spent more than 5
minutes reading the Constitution.
Nobody is really surprised - I and others predicted precisely what kind
of nominee that Obama would pick (see "Obama's Imperial Court"). But
the more disturbing thing is that so many people seem to go along with
the idea that "empathy" and "life experience" are more important than
a sound understanding of the law, most especially the limitations of
judicial power.
Imagine
if someone you knew were going to have major heart surgery, and instead
of wanting to know about the surgeon's skills and experience, they were
more interested in finding out where the doctor grew up, how many
children he or she had, what their political views were, or if they
"overcame obstacles" in their personal lives.
You'd think your friend was nuts. Any sane person would want a top-notch surgeon - period.
But
welcome to the Brave New World of Hope and Change, where feelings
trump reason, where someone's "personal story" is more important than
their legal knowledge. And where judicial impartiality (remember that
word?) is replaced with preferential treatment based on race, sex, and even income level.
Ms.
Sotomayor has consistently allowed her personal bias to influence her
rulings - she doesn't like the idea of private citizens owning guns,
so, to hell with that pesky 2nd Amendment. She didn't like that a group of firefighters who scored the highest on a promotion exam didn't include what she felt were the "correct" number of minorities, so she ruled against them. She is even on tape,
admitting that she sees the courts as a vehicle for "making policy" - a
flagrant violation of the principle of the separation of powers.
Perhaps even more telling, when Ms. Sotomayor made these remarks she
was laughing about it.
Legislators
are supposed to make law. Judges are not - they are supposed to act as
neutral "umpires." Ms. Sotomayor either does not understand this, in
which case she is merely incompetent - or she simply doesn't care, in
which case she is downright dangerous.
I've always thought that the term "judicial activist" was much too tame a moniker for those who attempt to legislate from the bench. We should call anyone with such a flagrant disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution what she is - a Judicial Extremist.