The Quiet Conservative May 27, 2009
The Nomination to the Supreme Court
It is hard to get worked up about the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Supreme Court. So she
is a liberal judge. So she is a member of the board of La Raza. So she has a reputation of being a
mediocre jurist and a bit of a bully on the bench. So she has made statements that would have
immediately disqualified her if she were a white male. What did anyone expect? Did you expect
President Obama to appoint a brilliant jurist who believed in the meaning of the Constitution and would
uphold that meaning? Where did that expectation come from?
President Obama does not, and has never, wanted equal representation under the law. At no point
has he ever been dishonest in his belief that justice should not be blind. He has been a judicial activist
proponent in all ways shapes and form. He wants justice more for the people he wants, than for those
he doesn't and isn't shy in saying so. The scales of justice are definitely weighted on one side in his
view of the law. His quote at a fundraiser in L.A. about Judge Sotomayor is quite illuminating: “This
woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble
steps and starting to provide some justice.” Well, that about sums it up for judicial philosophy from
the President’s viewpoint.
Up until now in his mind there hasn't been justice at the Supreme Court. ‘Providing some justice’ is
a simple code word for deciding what you want and then working backwards to justify it in writing. He
wants someone on the court who will make sure certain outcomes happen regardless of how the law
reads. Judicial activism is great when it is for your friends- not so great when you aren't the friend.
Say “Nuremburg” several times slowly. How about “Gulag?” Or, “reeducation camp?” Think about
their implications. All are possible with judicial activism. None are possible with strict adherence to the
law and the principles of justice and equal representation. So I can offer no fault for his pick. He
always said he would do this.
Under the traditional understanding of the Constitution and the role of the Senate, Judge Sotomayor
should find her place on the Supreme Court. No one has indicated she is an incompetent jurist. That’s
the standard. It was the standard when Justice Ginsburg, council to Planned Parenthood, went
through the process and was approved overwhelmingly. It was the standard when the left threw the
standard aside and Judge Robert Bork was defeated with an odious character assassination during his
process. Therefore it should be the standard now. Just because the Democratic Party doesn't believe
in the Constitution, the role of the Senate in advice and consent, and the equal representation under the
law, doesn't mean the rest of us should abandon the standard.
The following are pulled from the web site “The Eighties Club” following a search on Senator
Edward Kennedy’s statements during the Bork confirmation. This is when the left went openly
unhinged and abandoned all integrity in their role of advice and consent to the President on the
Supreme Court nomination of Judge Bork. The disparagements were notable enough to be
remembered after all this time for their underhanded, disgusting nature and outright hatred:
"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, children could not be taught about evolution."
This is from a U.S. Senator no less.
Also on the site were the following quotes. They paint quite a different picture than the dishonest
Kennedy:
The Washington Post editorial: “Judge Bork has retained from his academic days an almost
frightening detachment from, not to say indifference toward, the real-world consequences of his
views . . . . What people . . . needed . . . was simple assurance that, in addition to the forensic
brilliance, the personal integrity, and the care of the law, Robert Bork's moral sensibility could be
engaged . . . that he had a feeling for justice, not just for the law. They are not always the same.”
Judge Robert H. Bork -- "Liberal, moderate, conservative shouldn't apply to judging. The correct
philosophy is to judge according to the intent of the legislature or the intent of the Constitution's
framers. Judges are overwhelmingly from a very narrow segment of society, and if they begin to
read their own ideals into the law, then most of society isn't represented."
No wonder the guy was destroyed. He didn't get it. What true justice stood for, was that everyone
was equal under the law. That is what our system was designed to do. That was what Judge Bork
thought it should do. That was the American way. That’s not how Communists, Socialists,
Progressives, and leftists in general want it to be. What he should have known was that some people
need to be more equal than others. Judges need to be empathetic as Judge Sotomayor is now being
portrayed. What Kennedy and the other progressives wanted was someone who agreed with their
positions and then worked backwards to justify them. They wanted someone to make law in the
courts, not rule on laws passed by legislatures.
No one is a better example of this philosophy than the progressive Senator Schumer of New York.
This was then: ABA Law Journal July 27, 2007
“U.S. Supreme Court Schumer Says Senators ‘Duped’ By Justices
Posted Jul 27, 2007, 09:01 pm CDT
By Molly McDonough
A powerful Democratic senator from New York told the American Constitution Society on Friday
that the Senate should avoid confirming another one of President Bush's Supreme Court
nominees.
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., said a confirmation to the high court should only come in
"extraordinary circumstances,” reports The Politico.
He told the group, which was gathered in Washington, D.C., for a convention, that it was time to
"reverse the presumption of confirmation."
“The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens
replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito," Politico reports.
Reuters further reports that Schumer said that senators had been "duped" by then-nominees John
Roberts and Samuel Alito when they appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee for their
confirmation hearings.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino denounced the senator's comments as showing "a
tremendous disrespect for the Constitution."
From Senator Schumer’s web site now:
Senator Schumer's Statement on the nomination of Judge Sotomayor
May 26, 2009
U.S. Senator Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) released the following statement Tuesday regarding
President Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. Schumer,
along with fellow New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, had recommended Sotomayor for the Court
in a letter to President Obama in April:
“This is an historic choice, and much more. Judge Sotomayor meets three very important standards
in filling this Supreme Court vacancy—excellence, moderation and diversity. First, she is a top-of-
the-class legal mind who achieved the very highest honors at the nation’s foremost academic
institutions. Second, she is a moderate who was selected for the District Court by the first President
Bush and was confirmed with Republican votes. Unlike the last President Bush, who solely sought
nominees from the extreme right for the High Court, President Obama has not reached to the far left
end of the spectrum to fill this vacancy.
“In addition to having more overall judicial experience than anyone confirmed for the Court in the
past 70 years, Sotomayor will bring an important perspective to the Court as both a woman and a
Latina. Her life story, which has taken her from a public housing project in the Bronx to the finest
schools in the county and a distinguished legal career, is beyond compelling. It will give the Court
some needed understanding of how ordinary Americans live. Her outstanding legal mind, and her
compelling life experience, is just the combination this Court needs in its next justice.
“Given her track record of excellence and moderation, and her life story, it’s going to be very hard
for any senator, Republican or Democrat, to vote against her.”
--Senator Charles E. Schumer
What happened? Just two short years ago Senator Schumer was dangerously close to openly calling
for a moratorium on Catholics being appointed to the Supreme Court. Justices Roberts and Alito had
acknowledged brilliant legal minds. But being brilliant meant they weren't progressives. What they
were, were Catholics that believed in following their oaths. Other progressive senators echoed
Senator Schumer's call for a litmus test. There was the demand for “balance” and the reversal of “the
presumption of confirmation.”
In a very real sense a litmus test has been imposed on this selection. Only four women were
considered. Therefore one part of the litmus test eliminated all male judges. The next was…minority
status? The “diversity” part was one of the three pillars of Senator Schumer's approbation. This
narrowed down the field immensely and it didn't require anything even remotely like judicial ability.
That’s quite a litmus test. However, Judge Sotomayor is portrayed in the press as Catholic. It can
only be guessed she is the Sebelius/Pelosi/Biden/Catholic-In-Name-Only (CINO) type of Catholic.
The Obama administration doesn’t pick Catholics that actually follow the faith. Senator Schumer's
lack of objection seems to reinforce that point.
But just to be safe, the leftist administration has dangled a threat out there against anyone who would
“Bork” Judge Sotomayor the way the left destroyed Judge Bork. White House press secretary Robert
Gibbs issued this veiled threat “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to
be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this
impending confirmation.”
Coming from the people that have openly threatened Chrysler creditors, hedge fund managers, bond
and shareholders, and anyone mentioning the missing Presidential birth certificate, would it be safe to
describe the coming new justice as a liberal activist judge, with a middling record on the bench, and
unsavory ties to La Raza? Would that trigger the retribution of the White House? Is that exceedingly
careful enough? The White House press secretary isn’t a fan of free speech. It seems the left won’t
stand for the treatment given to Judge Robert Bork being given to their nominee. It is an eloquent yet
tacit admission of that past disgraceful confirmation process.
Will Justice Sotomayor be a disastrous addition to the court? Probably not. It would be hard to see
how she could outdo Justice Souter in the disaster department. The balance of the Supreme Court will
remain unchanged. There are four justices that believe the role of the Judge is to uphold the
Constitution and treat all people equally and fairly, and four that believe the Constitution is the jumping
off point for their Olympian opinions on social engineering. The final flip of the coin in most matters is
Justice Kennedy, who spins in the wind like a weathervane sometimes going on “empathy” and
sometimes on “law.”
Under the Constitution the role of the Senate is to determine whether Judge Sotomayor is qualified.
As of now there hasn't been a single report that she is not. Therefore, if the hearings prove this, she
should be elevated to the Supreme Court. It would be a hoot if Judge Sotomayor became a strict
constructionist on the bench. Wouldn't that throw a wrench in the gears of progressive
advancement? Wouldn't that frost those who wish to use the judiciary to finish what they have
started with the executive and the legislative? But with Judge Sotomayor enjoying the confidence of
our President and the progressive community at large, it is not likely to happen. They certainly saw
something in her they liked.