Supreme Court Reverses Sotomayor's Decision in New Haven Firefighter Discrimination Case

Sonia Sotomayor has had a setback while waiting for her confirmation hearing:

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

The verdict was the right one, and I am pleased that the Supreme Court upheld justice in this case. Discrimination and racial preferences is wrong no matter who you are.

This will be a blemish on her record. However, I do not believe that it will mean the end to her chances of becoming a Supreme Court justice.

It could just a bump in the road on the road to confirmation. However, it could be a one of many strikes against her that could lead to her being out of the Supreme Court. Time will tell which.

Sotomayor's Past Indicate Pro-Choice Beliefs, Dashes Conservatives' Hopes

With people like Rush expressing hopes that Judge Sotomayor is a closet pro-lifer, it is a huge downer to learn about her history in pro-abortion advocacy groups:

Consider that from 1980 until October 1992, Judge Sotomayor served on the board -- at times as vice president and at times as chairman of the litigation committee -- of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. The New York Times in 1992 described her as "a top policy maker on the board." During that time period, the fund filed briefs in not one, not two, but at least six prominent court cases in strong support of "abortion rights."

The cases began with an abortion-funding case, Williams v. Zbaraz, just as she joined the board, and they continued through the landmark cases of Rust v. Sullivan, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Especially in the Webster case, in which all nine justices joined at least part of the decision saying that states need not provide public funds for abortions, the fund supported positions far more pro-abortion than the court itself did. Also, in the case Ohio v. Akron Center, the fund wrote that it "opposes any efforts to overturn or in any way restrict the rights recognized in Roe v. Wade."

No statement could be more categorical. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund thus presumably would oppose any restriction, including those on late-term abortions, partial-birth abortions, abortions for minors and the like.

Some were speculating that since she is a Catholic she might be pro-life. After all, most Catholics are pro-life. There weren't any of her opinions to abortion related cases that seemed to indicate otherwise. So, conservative pundits were trying to find the silver lining and say that she might secretly hold pro-life beliefs. However, this new revelation unfortunately seems to put that theory to rest.

Sotomayor Repeated Same "Racist" Comment Many Times

This has gone from one instance of using a "poor choice of words" to a consistent pattern of thought from Obama's Supreme Court nominee. Robert Gibbs may not be able to give another pitiful excuse for her this time:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor delivered multiple speeches between 1994 and 2003 in which she suggested "a wise Latina woman" or "wise woman" judge might "reach a better conclusion" than a male judge.

Those speeches, released Thursday as part of Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire, (to see Sotomayor's responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee click here and here) suggest her widely quoted 2001 speech in which she indicated a "wise Latina" judge might make a better decision was far from a single isolated instance.

A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion." That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her "racist."

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said "a wise woman" would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women's Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

This is going to become a real problem for Evan Thomas' god-in-chief. Comments like this is very revealing to how she truly sees people of other races and gender. It makes one wonder if she can really be unbiased if she believes that a person of one race and/or gender are inherently better than whites and especially white men.

NRA Stays Silent Over Sotomayor Despite Her 2nd Amendment Views

Conservatives received some bad news yesterday:

The National Rifle Association (NRA) is staying on the sidelines in the battle over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, to the dismay of conservative activists who hoped that the gun-rights group would pressure conservative Democratic senators to oppose her.

As The Hill explained, the NRA has a track record of staying mum in these sort of situations. However, may hoped that things would be different this time because of Sotomayor's previous rulings and comments regarding the 2nd amendment. Her thoughts of allowing the states to usurp power over the Bill of Rights especially the 2nd amendment would seem to be something that would normally enrage the NRA, but they seem to be keeping silent for now.

Is Michael Steele Asking Conservative Commentators to Committ Media Malpractice When Discussing Sotomayor?

The GOP chairman raised some eyebrows this morning while substituting for radio host Bill Bennett by chastising fellow Republicans for criticizing Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor:

“I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position,” Steele said. He added that instead of “slammin’ and rammin’” on Sotomayor, Republicans should “acknowledge” the “historic aspect” of the pick and make a “cogent, articulate argument” against her for purely substantive reasons.

Steele warned that because of the attacks, “we get painted as a party that’s against the first Hispanic woman” picked for the Supreme Court.

He also said that conservatives should refrain from speaking against Sotomayor because of how the overly liberal media outlets like MSNBC would react.

I personally like Steele, but he seems to have a Biden-like knack for putting his foot in his mouth. I wholeheartedly disagree with him on this issue.

Now, I'm not saying that we should just name call and make up stories to discredit her, but there should be a honest vetting process of his nominee by the press. We cannot be afraid to criticize her because the left will call us bigots. If we failed to vet her, we would committing media malpractice just as the media did when they failed to vet Obama properly.

Many people were "afraid" to vet Obama because he was the first black that had a legitimate chance at the White House. It wasn't right then, and it wouldn't be right if we didn't vet Sotomayor because she was the first latina nominated to the Court.

The "Affirmative Action" label probably should be avoided because there is no real proof that a reason why Obama picked her was her race or gender, but her quotes, legal rulings, and stances on legal issues are fair game.

As long as her race and gender are not used as reason why she shouldn't be confirmed and critics make a well-thought out and relevant case against her, it shouldn't hurt them with Hispanics. They must take the case to them, though. Maybe go on Spanish tv and radio to make their case why Sotomayor is outside of the mainstream and isn't right for the Supreme Court. Perhaps, they should also give a couple of alternatives of other Hispanic women that would be better suited for the highest court in the land.

Gibbs Gives Pathetic Excuse Regarding Sotomayor's "Racist" Statement

A couple days ago, Robert Gibbs tried to explain away the statement by Sotomayor that white men don't make as good of decision as latinas most of the time.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs sparred with reporters during Wednesday's briefing about the context of Judge Sotomayor's remarks. "I feel confident that if you look at the context and then listen to the words, you, your listeners, and everyone that you talk to will have a greater and fuller appreciation for exactly what she said." But reporters pushed back demanding Gibbs explain what he thought Sotomayor meant in her remarks and "why there is no racial component" to them. Gibbs said the nominee had lived a different life than than others that would lead Sotomayor to different conclusions.

Judge Sotomayor didn't say they would be "different" conclusions. She said that they would be "better" conclusions. There is a huge difference.

It's amazing that this response was the best Gibbs could do to explain her "racist" statement. It shows that there isn't a good excuse that anyone can come up with to make Obama's Supreme Court nominee look good regarding this quote.

We should proceed with extreme caution. She has some very questionable stances in the past. We need to make sure that she was just misquoted or misunderstood. If she wasn't she is far outside the mainstream. We don't need to be giving a lifetime appointment to someone that far out.

Liberal Jonathan Turley Says Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor Lacks Intellectual Depth

MSNBC's Chris Mathews didn't get a tingle up his leg after being blindsided by the liberal Jonathan Turley's criticism of Obama's choice of Supreme Court replacement of Souter:

Until (Tuesday), liberal law professor Jonathan Turley was generally hailed by the leftwing blogosphere for speaking "truth to power." However, now that same group is attacking Turley for speaking truth to MSNBC. Chris Matthews probably thought Turley would support Sonia Sotomayor's nomination right after it was announced. If so, he was in for a big surprise.

Chris Mathews looked a bit like a deer in the headlights after Turley said this:

You're not going to have a nominee stand up and say "The first thing I do is get rid of the Founding Fathers." But I do think that there is a problem here when we talk about temperament and empathy.  You know, we are not selecting a house pet. We're selecting a Supreme Court justice and as an academic I have a certain bias. And that is does she have the intellectual throw weight to make a difference on the court? And I have to tell you the optics are better than the opinions in this case. I've read a couple of dozen of her opinions. They don't speak well to her being a nominee on the Supreme Court. She will be historic in many ways like Thurgood Marshall but I'll remind you Thurgood Marshall was not a lasting intellectual force on the court. He was historic because he was first. And I think that a lot of academics are a little bit disappointed.

This could be interesting if the liberals start turning on her. It would be yet another failed nomination and appointment for Obama.

She has been called racist and now Turley is pretty much saying that she isn't really that bright for a Supreme Court justice.

This nomination just keeps getting better and better for The One.

Sotomayor: Many Question Nominee's Past Regarding Possible Racist Beliefs

Previous quotes and associations regarding Sotomayor has led many to question whether or not she holds certain racist beliefs:

As President Obama's Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a "racist," Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that's promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

La Raza claims to be just a Hispanic civil rights organization, but some of their views go beyond just looking out for the rights of Hispanics. They have advocated that some of the states in the Southwest United States should secede from the US.

Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California's Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

So, according to Sotomayor, a white man could never have experience as "rich" as a latina. Therefore, a white man can't make a decision as well as a latina.

Isn't this same type of logic that whites used against blacks to justify their enslavement and later segregation? They believed that the European culture was superior to the African culture. Therefore, according to white supremacists, blacks can't be as smart as a white person. What is the difference between that logic and Sotomayor's?

This another dangerous position for a judge to hold. If she really believes that Hispanics "reach a better conclusion" than whites, she could subconsciously favor a Hispanic attorney or client that comes before her court over their white counterpart.

Obama Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Believes Second Amendment Doesn't Apply to States

Apparently, Sonia Sotomayor's "empathy" stops with gun owners:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled in January 2009 that states do not have to obey the Second Amendment’s commandment that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.

The opinion said that the Second Amendment only restricted the federal government from infringing on an individual's right to keep and bear arms. As justification for this position, the opinion cited the 1886 Supreme Court case of Presser v. Illinois.

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right,” said the opinion. Quoting Presser, the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.”

I wonder how we are to know which of the rights in the Constitution states are supposed to follow. Maybe New York can block the freedom of the conservative press. Florida can arrest any dissenters for daring to petition their grievances to Tallahassee. Utah makes the Mormon church of the state and will not any other churches to exist within its borders.

Let's not even start with the 13th-15th amendments. If those amendments didn't apply to local governments, slavery and segregation could possibly make a comeback.

What makes the 2nd amendment different from the other amendments other that Sotomayor and other liberals don't like it? Her decision flies in the face of the Supreme Court case just a few months earlier that said that DC must recognize the 2nd amendment.

She seems to believe that states can pick and choose which amendments they like to uphold and ignore the rest. This is a dangerous position for a Supreme Court judge to hold.

Obama's Supreme Court Hopeful Sonia Sotomayor: Courts Are Where Policy Is Made

Judge Sonia Sotomayor shows exactly what many people are afraid of from an Obama Supreme Court appointment:



No, Sonia, policy is made by the other two elected branches of the government. This kind of judicial activism is what has taken away our rights and freedoms. Many judges act as if they are the ones that know better than everyone else. The overturn the will of the people because of their own beliefs even when they have no right to do that.

They overturned gay marriage bans even after the people voted to keep marriage between man and a woman in many states like Massachusets and California.

They've taken away some of our freedom of religion. Students cannot pray on school grounds anymore.

These are just a couple of examples of how liberal activists judges have wrecked havoc on our Bill of Rights. We don't need another judge who thinks that they are the lords of the law and can mold public policy as they see fit.