As you’re probably aware, President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to replace outgoing Supreme Court Justice and Stan Laurel ringer, David Souter, the man who is George HW Bush’s biggest mistake (second biggest if you’re on the left).
There are a number of troubling issues in the professional career of Sotomayor, but this is one of the biggest clues to the coming activism we’re bound to see on the rise in the Obama Court:
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge Ã¢â‚¬Å“may and will make a difference in our judging.Ã¢â‚¬Â
This isn’t a rare opinion, and it’s not a new one either. What other judges in history may have agreed with Sotomayor?
Roger Taney, one-time Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, among others, certainly took their own ethnicity into account when rendering an opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford.
How about the 1874 SCOTUS ruling in Minor v. Happersett — this decision found that the Constitution does not guarantee the right of women to vote in federal elections. The court was, of course, comprised of all men, none of whom dissented. The sex of the Court certainly “made a difference” in this ruling. Is this what Sotomayor believes to be an acceptable judicial tendency?
Our nation’s history has proven that judges who have to look in the mirror to remind them how they should rule are an affront to justice, not promoters of it — no matter what side of the political aisle they fall on.
But this analysis is off-topic, because the choice of Sotomayor has nothing to do with the Constitution and justice. When you’re supervising the destruction of a Constitutional Republic and the building of a Socialist Nirvana, what use do you have for a blind justice on your work site? They can’t even tell the difference between a hammer, and a sickle.
Update: If you’re up to shenanigans like this, you want friendlies on the court whose rulings have little to do with law and plenty to do with shared agendas.