Description:
Ladies and Gentlemen,
You have no doubt been blitzed by media story after media story about the 'biography' of Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's first pick to sit on the US Supreme Court. A Latina female, the first of her racial/gender identity to ever be nominated to the High Court, the story of her success is deeply rooted in the American Dream. Born to Puerto Rican immigrants, she was raised by a single mother in a housing project in the Bronx. She broke through an atmosphere of tragedy into a universe of triumph by hard work and dedication, excelling in academics and going on to graduate from Princeton and then Yale, studying law. Truly we can all take heart and forget about the politics for a minute and enjoy the telling, re-telling, and re-re-telling, of her compelling journey from rags to riches.
The President of the United States agrees wholeheartedly, and he is counting on her upcoming confirmation hearing being more about her life story than about her legal opinions, Constitutional commentary, her particular interpretation of the law, and her view of the role of a judge. Why let facts get in the way of nominating based upon emotion and racial/gender empathy?
To this smokescreen, Judge Sotomayor is in complete agreement, saying in 2001...
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"
The President released a statement today distancing the White House from the above racist comment, saying that she probably would have chosen better words to express her thoughts in hindsight. Am I the only one not falling for this 'rope-a-dope?'
Just imagine if a white jurist would have said that being a wise white male made him a better judge than a latina female, or a black male, or worst yet a black female? They would be immediately cast as the KKK incarnate, and would be instantly dismissed from consideration. Yet Sonia Sotomayor can hide behind her minority status and take all of the racist snipes she wants to, and nobody in the mainstream media with call her out on the carpet about it?
You see, to President Obama and Jude Sotomayor, this is all about 'empathy' and 'compelling life stories.' The fact that you can 'relate' in your personal life makes you the most qualified jurist for the job. Yet for Conservatives, ironically yet not surprisingly enough, these cunning reverse-racist leftists have a different take. Case in point? Justice Clarence Thomas.
Clarence Thomas, this strong Conservative black man, has a life story that makes Sonia Sotomayor look like a spoiled rich kid. Born into abject poverty in a small rural Georgia town called 'Pin-Point,' Thomas lost his father very young and was raised by his single mother in a little shack without so much as running water until he was sent to live with his grandfather. He worked manual labor jobs every day after school and could not even study at the local library because the color of his skin was black. Thomas went on to become the first in his family to go to college and graduated from Yale with a law degree.
You don't get a more compelling story than the compelling story of Justice Clarence Thomas.
Therefore you would think, since President Obama is so big on 'compelling life stories,' 'empathy,' and 'personal experiences of hardship and pain,' that Justice Thomas would be his favorite and in his opinion a very qualified Justice for the High Court, right? You would not be more wrong.
Asked by Pastor Rick Warren in the first unofficial Presidential Debate about which Justice currently on the Court that he would not have nominated and why, President Obama, a fellow African American who has lived a life of priviledge and pleasure when compared to him, had the nerve to say this about Justice Thomas...
"I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation."
I was watching this and I wanted to throw something at the TV. How dare this preppy elitist private schooler abandoned by his black father and raised by the white parents of his white mother, pick out the lone African American on the Bench as the one whom he would not have nominated, critical somehow of his 'legal thinking' and his ability as a 'jurist' (when his credentials at the time of his nomination were impeccable!), despite him having the most compelling life story of ANYBODY THEN ON THE HIGH COURT!
Now that same Barack Obama, as President, touts the 'compelling life story' and 'empathy' of Sonia Sotomayor, not so much her ability as a jurist or her legal thinking (which are all very much in question by her own peers!), as evidence of her qualification to the Supreme Court.
Obama is one of the biggest political hypocrites that I have ever seen, and he isn't even as good as Bill Clinton was at hiding it!
What happened to Clarence Thomas during his nomination? Was he a media darling? Did the media go on and on about his 'compelling life story?'
Well initially he sailed through his hearing, and then that jerk Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Joe Biden, now the Vice-President of the United States (God help us!), let Anita Hill and her wild unproven accusations of 'sexual harrassment' be aired, not in a criminal or appeals court where they belonged, but at the confirmation hearing of Clarence Thomas! Since when do allegations which accuse breaking the law, go before a judiciary hearing before they go before a jury or a judge in civil or criminal court? After his vicious 'high tech lynching' failed, then Senator Joe Biden (forever the jerk that he is), said this...
"I think the only reason that Clarence Thomas is on the court is because he's black. I don't believe he coulda won had he been white. The reason is I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush (41)."
Interesting how I remember former Vice-Presidential nominee, Democrat Geraldine Ferraro (a white female), making a similiar remark about Barack Obama on the campaign trail vs. Hiliary, with Ferraro saying that Obama is where he is because he's black. This kind of thing comes only from the Democrats. But liberals only keep score on this when the reverse comes from Republicans, and it never ever even comes at all from Republicans, but when liberals make racist barbs against each other and against Republicans, it is fine and dandy!
The ones who bring racism into the debate are Democrats. No Republicans said that Barack Obama's success was because he was black. No Republicans said that Sonia Sotomayor's success and nomination are because she was Latino.
But remember what Democrats said about Miguel Estrada when he was nominated by Bush 43?
November 7, 2001/To: Senator Durbin
"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."
So you see folks, this racist stuff only comes from one side of the isle, the Democrats, either against each other or against the other side when assaulting minority conservative politicians or jurists, but it never comes from Republicans against minority liberal politicians or jurists. In their rejection of Miguel Estrada, they included the condemnation, "...He is Latino..."
Here are some great links on what is happening, what has happened, and why Republicans must ignore pleas from the moderate jelly-backbones among our Party and stand up for our principles and oppose the nomination of the reverse-racist jurist Sonia Sotomayor.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/sotomayor_and_white_wise_guys.html
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/When-Democrats-derailed-a-GOP-Latino-nominee-46407227.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124355478303064587.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305
Remember that Democrats are the ones who made Justice Samuel Alito's wife leave the hearing in tears. Democrats are the ones who tried to give African American Justice Clarence Thomas a 'high tech lynching.' Democrats, led by that jerk VP Joe Biden, let Anita Hill come into a judicial confirmation hearing and say anything she wanted to, no proof necessary, solely for political purposes to try and derail Clarence Thomas's judicial nomination. The Democrats are the cruel ones, the intolerant ones, the ones who make judicial nominees' wives cry. Let us not ever forget the nomination that started it all, President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork, one of the most brilliant jurists ever, to the Supreme Court.
The carnage that followed coined the political term 'Borking' to describe the destruction of the life, name, and reputation of Constructionalist jurists nominated by Republican Presidents to the Supreme Court. Here is what Senator Ted Kennedy, the so-called 'lion of liberalism,' ranted on the Senate floor a mere forty-five minutes after Bork's nomination was announced...
"Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy. … President Reagan is still our President. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate, and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and on the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice."
This was all a vicious pack of lies. Easily disputed and easily refuted falsehoods, peddled by a lying Democrat named Ted Kennedy who also lied about a certain personal drunk driving incident involving the drowning death of a certain young lady named Mary Jo. Maybe that was a little mean on my part, but me telling that truth is no more mean than the lies he told above, smearing a brilliant jurist named Robert Bork. It is time to take the kid-gloves off and confront these hypocritical Democrats, and this issue is the perfect opportunity.
I rest my case. Sonia Sotomayor has said that judges make policy (wrong Judge, the elected representatives of the people do that, the legislative branch, not you and your little gods in black robes colleagues), that her empathy and life expriences qualify her to be a judge, and that a latina woman because of her racial/gender identity can make better judicial decisions than white males. This reverse-racist judicial activist needs a civics lesson, not a seat on the highest court in the land! Oh how I long for the days when Republicans had courage!
Tell me how a judge who has been roundly criticized by her colleagues and had 60 percent of her rulings overturned could possibly deserve a seat on the High Court?
CJ3
A son of Liberty
"Don't Tread On Me!"
"Join, or Die."
