Conservative Minorities Weigh in on Sotomayor

You probably wouldn’t know it from the sycophantic Obamedia, but guess what? Not all minorities are jived about President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. They’re actually not star stuck by the “historic” nomination of this Hispanic woman. (just as, not surprisingly, they weren’t so taken by the “historic” candidacy of Barack Obama). Some actually see Sonia Sotomayor for exactly who she is: A leftist activist judge who was appointed by a leftist president hell-bent on using her to achieve in the Supreme Court whatever he can’t from his throne in the Oval Office.

Alicia Colon of the Alicia Unleashed blog has a column in the NY Sun (which is apparently back???), in which she writes:

Right now, many conservative pundits are focusing remarks she is on record as having made, in 2001, at a speech at Berkeley, California, where she said: “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.” I’m not surprised that her Berkeley audience and many in the world of liberal academia would applaud Judge Sotomayor’s statement. It signifies their core beliefs.

I do believe, however, that there are clues as to why the judge has elected to embrace the liberal side of the bench. In an earlier speech she said, “I have spent my years since Princeton, while at law school and in my various professional jobs, not feeling completely a part of the worlds I inhabit.” She said added that despite her accomplishments, “I am always looking over my shoulder wondering if I measure up.”

It happens that I too have always felt a disconnect from the world of the high and mighty whenever I’ve been invited to attend fancy functions. I can imagine that it must have been difficult for a girl coming from humble beginnings in the Bronx to compete in the realm of the Ivy League. How much easier it must have been to accede to majority rule rather than to assert any conservative principles taught in a Catholic school.

What I am wondering is whether, once she gets to the Supreme Court, she will be truly liberated from all of that. Certainly her record includes statements that are far more important and even encouraging. "I don't believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance,” she said a decade ago in her Senate confirmation hearing. “It says what it says. We should do honor to it.”

What more could we ask from a Supreme Court justice than total respect for the Constitution? If the question of abortion arises during the confirmation hearings, it will be interesting to hear how Judge Sotomayor addresses this issue. Is she a Scalia, Alito, Roberts, Thomas Catholic or a Pelosi, Kerrey, Biden, Kennedy Catholic? And does it matter? Even the pro-life members of the bench believe their job is not to impose religious law but to interpret the Constitution.

But does the Constitution really prohibit the Congress or the state legislatures from regulating abortion? Does it really outlaw the Congress from weighing, when it considers abortion, the views of, say, Joseph Francis Cardinal Spellman, after whom the school Judge Sotomayor attended was named? If she has “never forgotten where she began,” as President Obama suggested, will those who educated her and embraced pro-life principles be recipients of, at least, her empathy? […]

Next, Neocon Latina asks a very pointed question:

Who Is Worse: Sotomayor or Imus?

Remember when Don Imus referred to the Rutgers women’s basketball team as “nappy-headed hos”? A crass comment, to be sure. But Imus was a “shock jock.” Making crass remarks was his job. And it wasn’t a comment Imus had prepared in advance—it was an off-the-cuff attempt at humor. The very same kind of “shock” humor Imus had practiced for decades.

But uttering those infamous words proved to be the downfall of Don Imus. The outrage was universal. Although he was almost immediately suspended from his job, that wasn’t enough. They wanted his head. Nothing short of an outright firing would satisfy the morally-outraged, “anti-racist” crowd. Obama himself called for Imus to be fired. Obama explained:

He didn’t just cross the line. He fed into some of the worst stereotypes that my two young daughters are having to deal with today in America. The notions that as young African-American women—who I hope will be athletes—that that somehow makes them less beautiful or less important. It was a degrading comment.

And so Imus was fired. His career was taken from him, he was publicly humiliated, and now he’s got cancer, which he claims was caused by the stress of his public ordeal.

By comparison, Judge Sotomayor seems to be getting a pass for her racist comment that Hispanic female judges are inherently “better” than white male judges. In Sotomayor’s words, “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.”

There is simply no excusing that remark. And there was nothing off-the-cuff about it. Sotomayor delivered that line during a prepared speech at University of California, Berkeley. So she can’t claim it was a slip of the tongue. What’s more, as the New York Times has shown, Sotomayor’s remark was part of larger pattern of remarks, which demonstrate not only that she entertains anti-white, anti-male, pro-Hispanic bigotry, but also that Sotomayor believes that it is actually desirable for her biases to affect the way she decides cases.

Condemnation from Obama? Are you kidding—he nominated her for the Supreme Court.

And so I ask you, dear reader, who is worse: Sotomayor or Imus? Sotomayor appears to be a bigot, and appears to believe it is desirable for her bigotry to influence the way she decides cases. Impartiality is the most important quality for a judge. Not only is Sotomayor not impartial, but her impartiality stems from racism and sexism. Yet, she is qualified to be on the Supreme Court?

But Don “nappy-headed hos” Imus? Off with his head!

Sounds like a reasonable question to me. (Also read this provocative post, where Neocon Latina argues Sotomayor would be a “Civil Rights Set-back for Latinas.”)

Finally, Duane at Black Informant has this to say:

Judges should FOLLOW policy, not create their own. Plain and simple.

“All of the legal defense funds out there– they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience. “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…”

If a judge is following the law, how can he or she reach a “better conclusion”?

So once again we see how King’s words conveniently get ignored by the left in times like this.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.”

But they were suddenly “remembered” back in 2003 when Bush nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Miguel Estrada was struck down by Democrats. Something I wrote some time ago on the argument that race guarantees a different result.

Past window dressing experiments~

Schools

We need more Blacks on the school board. Forget that. We need a Black school principal. Forget that. The school superintendent needs to be Black. Forget that. We need more Black teachers. Forget that. We need more Black male school teachers.

Did any of this drastically improve grades? Nope.

Police

We need more Black officers. Forget that. We need more Black police officers and the Chief must be Black.

Did crime go down because now supposedly Black citizens can only relate to Black officers, otherwise we act the fool? Nope.

Where race should not be the issue, the left is making it the issue. If you do not go along with the program, you will will be branded as a “racist”. Sotomayor is a “liberal”. In fact, if I wanted to add drama to her own admission, she would be classified as a “FAR left” individual.

President Obama campaigned as one who was a “moderate”. Yet I wonder how many moderates will complain about him moving too far to the left with this pick. Or will they continue to engage in public self-flagellation over how their party isn’t cool enough?

As I said a while back, “This is starting to remind me a lot of the Justice League back in the day when they added Black Vulcan, Apache Chief, and Samurai to show that the League was culturally-diverse.” Once we as kids realized that they were just as vulnerable as the other members of the Justice League, we quickly lost interest and moved on. Now that we are grown, we are still expecting different results from the same game.

I know what you’re thinking about these apostates, libs/Dems: Uncle Toms, right? Traitors to their race/ethnicity?

Here we call them rational free thinkers. Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid, and maybe someday you’ll be one too.