Sonia Sotomayor: The Court Makes Policy?

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

An announced "Hispanic" woman, educated at Princeton University (a rather "liberal" teaching institution with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become.  And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication. 

Your rating: None Average: 1 (1 vote)


not yet at war.

when you see a million refugees in America... well, honey, that still ain't a war.

Is Betsy ross your real name?

Yes, As a Former 45 Year Arizonan, It Is

Yes, as a former 45 year Arizona - that state has been at war over the border issue for as long as I can remember.  And now more and more Arizonans are dying and being left homeless.

And your lack of intelligence over this issue is telling, honey.

Get it right

You say: "A Mexican-American woman, educated at Princeton University (a rather "liberal" teaching institution with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions)."


She went to UNDERGRAD at Princeton.  Princeton does not have a law school.  She went to law school at Yale, as did Justices Alito and Thomas.  If you knew enough about Princeton for your analysis of the teaching there to mean anything at all,  you would know that it does not have a law school.

This post is embarassing, to say the least.

Yalies, Princeton, Harvard - All "Liberal" Collegiate Schools

Oh, even worse a Yalie.  I think I mentioned Yale in the post also, as I re-read it, and technically, she is also Puerto Rican - but also identifies herself as "hispanic-American," and is a liberal with respect to both her education (undergrad and graduate) and also in most of her "opinons," and does believe that the court makes policy, a "seat of your pants" Judge, not a Constitutional one.

And Obama is anything but a Constitutional lawyer, since they do not teach it at the law schools anymore at all.  Simply "judge made" or "case law," and that is really no law at all.

you're going to get a flame for this one, honey.

One of my favorite relatives is a Constitutional lawyer down in Georgia. Some places sure as hell do teach constitutional law. Understand, though, that it's a specialization. You don't expect everyone to be as good at everything, or to have studied everything as deeply. Just like you don't expect psychiatry from a gynecologist.

And, by the way,

Sotomayer's quote that the court of appeals "makes policy" should be considered in its full context, which I posted yesterday on my post.  Please feel free to check it out and comment.   

Honestly, for a liberal president's nominee, Sotomayer is a dream come true for conservatives: she is not hostile to business interests, she has only faced one abortion case and sided in favor of the pro-life agenda, she has not espoused judicial activism for gay rights or for civil rights in general, and she agreed with her Republican colleagues 95% of the time.  Unless additional facts come out that put Sotomayer in a worse light, this probably isn't worth a protracted nomination battle.  Fight this one too hard, and prepare to be VERY afraid of the next nominee.

Business interests?

So you are one of the neocons, I take it, concerned about business interests?  The businesses in this country have gotten more welfare from the citizenry, and we are living in global corporate socialism actually right now.  That was proved by the bank and AIG bailouts.

And "common defense" is the main reason the states united to begin with.  And I guess you never studied the Boston Tea Party to find that the founders actually abhorred "corporate" domination, as had occurred with King George's public/private partnership with the East India Company.

You are a conservative?  Hardly.

Taking things out of context, perhaps, Betsy?

My comment on "business interests" was merely designed to show that she's not a wealth-grabbing redistributionist; notice that I didn't make any personal comment on the role of corporations in America (I don't hate business, but I also don't favor government subsidies as a general rule), and that my comment was one of many that you apparently didn't find fault with (abortion rights, gay rights, civil rights).  Instead, you chose to turn your post into a personal attack on me for no reason, which, frankly, I find puzzling.  I have studied the Boston Tea Party, thank you, but this post wasn't intended to be a referendum on the Founders' philosophies about private/public corporate partnerships: I was merely pointing out that Obama could have picked someone much more off-putting to conservatives than Sonia Sotomayor.     

I said that according to your

I said that according to your post, you would be considered a neocon.  The fact that she has sided with the Republicans, you claim, 95% of the time when the majority of Republicans in Congress at this point are liberal neocons, indicates that .  If you stated polical beliefs and the label which those beliefs fall under is an "insult" to you, then that is your interpretation.  I believed that this was a conservative site, and conservative in the respect to the Constitutional foundations upon which this nation was founded, not what it is now due to judicial activism of the past.

And I do not find Ms. Sotomayor as at all acceptable as a conservative, since she is a liberal activist judge in most of her findings, whether they be of the Republican stripe now as represented on the Hill, or Democratic - since I am not a "party" person, per Washington's warnings of just what political parties could do to our government.  Which is quite true in his predictions.  Party platforms are determined by those who have the most money in the Republican and Democratic parties - and their corporate backers and interests.

We haven't had a true representative government in well over 100 years, and both labels have worn out their useage.  We now have either global corproate socialists, or American soveignists - those that hold with world government, or those that hold with the Constitution.

There really is no middle ground anymore, those two parties labels are long dead.

what are your thoughts on William Jennings Bryan?

curiousity killed the cat.

Sonia Sotomayor.....

People are anxiously awaiting news from the Senate hearings about "Wise Latina" judge Sonia Sotomayor, nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States.  Currently, the Senate committee handling Sonia Sotomayor hasn't confirmed her to the bench, but approved her to be voted on.  In other words, they voted on whether or not she should be voted on.  It seems to take payday loans at least to understand how these things work.  She's been accused of being an activist judge, which is a code word for when a judge makes decisions that are legally valid that conservatives don't like, like backing civil rights, for instance.  At any rate, Sonia Sotomayor won't need unsecured loans if she does take the Bench.