Teens for Liberty

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

Just how radical is President Obama? Some of his decisions regarding the nomination of officials to key Government positions indicate that he is more radical than the majority assume. In this series of articles we are going to look at some of these nominees, and see what dangerous ideologies they have in common. The three that we are going to focus on in this series are: Van Jones, Sonia Sotomayor, and Cass Sustein. After we take a close look at the beliefs that these people hold, we can better understand the beliefs of our President, who I believe is more radical than most would assume. Today’s article will be about Sonia Sotomayor:

Sonia Sotomayor

Sonia Sotomayor was recently nominated to the Supreme Court by President Obama. Before the hearings for her confirmation to the US Senate took place, there was little doubt that she would be successful. However, when she came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, her answers to questions set before her astonished them. Even some liberals were disappointed by her testimony:

The Washington Post’s Eva Rodriguez, who had touted Sotomayor’s nomination, wrote:

“I’m surprised and disturbed by how many times today Sonia Sotomayor has backed off of or provided less-than-convincing explanations for some of her more controversial speeches about the role of gender and ethnicity in judicial decision-making.”

During the hearings, Sotomayor said that she agreed with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, who expressed the view that a wise old woman and wise old man would reach the same decision in deciding cases. But she has said the opposite in the past:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

She has recently tried to excuse this speech by saying that it was intended to show people the need to put bias aside. This is obviously not true, take a look at what she said here in 2001:

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Stephen Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. … Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives–no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

It would seem that personal experience plays a part in her decision-making process. Shouldn’t she be making decisions based on Constitutional law?

Pajamas Media DC editor Jennifer Rubin reports on Sen. Jim Demint’s (R-SC) comments from Heritage’s tele-townhall on July 14th:

In a Heritage Foundation-sponsored teleconference held after the Tuesday’s hearings, I asked Senator Jim DeMint and Former Attorney General Ed Meese about this issue. DeMint expressed concern that she had been less than candid not only in the hearing but in her private meeting with him. According to DeMint, he asked her in his office whether unborn children have “any rights.” She told him that she “had never thought about it,” a remarkable statement for any lawyer but especially for a judge who in fact has ruled on abortion cases.

As for her performance in the hearing, DeMint said that at the Republican lunch Tuesday there was a “growing concern” that she is not being forthcoming. He called her reversals a series of “hearing conversions” and confided that “increasingly more of our reasonable members” are raising the credibility issue. He dubbed her statement that she never read and was unaware of the [Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund] legal arguments a “jaw-dropper.”

It’s a wonder how she got away with saying that she had never thought about whether unborn children have any rights. Former Attorney General Meese expressed this view regarding the hearing: “What she is saying now is totally contradicted by the facts.”

Conclusion

Sotomayor obviously makes decisions based on personal experience,not Constitutional law. It is dangerous and unconstitutional to appoint people who have a record of making decisions based on personal experience to the Supreme Court. The question is: Why would Obama support Sotomayor? She is obviously not one of the most dangerous people in Washington, but I feel that the President should be called out for supporting someone who judges in such an unconstitutional manner. Is it a possibility that our President shares the same beliefs as Sotomayor when it comes to legal affairs?The next article in this series will be about President Obama’s recent pick for head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, aka the “regulatory czar.”

I hope that you have enjoyed this article, and I hope that you will read the following additions to the series.

-Calvin

Tags: Jim Demint, Sandra Day O'Connor, Sonia Sotomayor, Supreme Court, Supreme Court of the United States, United States, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Washington Post