More Thoughts on Sotomayor

We know that Republican appointments to the Supreme Court have been hit and miss - for every Scalia there is a Souter, for every Rehnquist there is an Earl Warren, for every Thomas there is a Stevens.

The Democrats, no disappointments -- all liberal appointments are liberals, through and through. Often, they reflect the liberal nuance of the liberal appointing them.

Enter former Constitutional Law instructor B. Hussein Obama. In 2001, the Marxist Obama held forth the following about the Supreme Court and obsession number one for him -- redistribution of wealth.

"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. One of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

Now, we know the Anointed One wants a Supreme Court Justice that has "empathy" with the suffering from not enough Supreme Court redistribution of wealth. His perfect SCOTUS candidate was described as follows: "I will seek someone who understands that justice ... is about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families ... and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes."

The concept of justice being blind is a fundamental requirement of justice, because it is not justice when the cards are stacked in favor of one party over another. A judge is not a judge if she applies empathy towards a party to strive for a "just outcome." At that point, the judge takes off the blind and becomes an unelected policy maker.

It is precisely in this judge as policymaker position which Sonia Sotomayor feels comfortable, if you look at her own words. One point of Sotomayor's now-famous La Raza speech was that the life experiences of women and minorities in the law often inform - nay, dictate - the ultimate outcome of a case, leading to some greater overall, racially- economically- or gender-sensitive "justice." In her speech, she rejects neutral application of the law to the facts, but instead supports some idea that a minority or female judge's"richness of life experiences" will ensure that they necessarily will not reach the same conclusion as a white male judge. In fact, she seems to indicate that female Hispanic judges would be the wisest of all. I assume she draws this conclusion from our rich history of famous and oft-quoted Latina judges.

Sotomayor also said that appeals courts are there to "make policy." Not judge the cases presented to them on the record -- make policy.

Sonia Sotomayor was hand-picked by Barak Obama to do on the Supreme Court what Barak Obama was disappointed that the Civil Rights movements of the 50s and 60s did not do -- press for equal outcomes instead of equal opportunity. They are both anti-Constitutionalist radicals cut from the same cloth.

If the GOP cannot muster a solid opposition to this anti-Equal Protection radical, there is little use left for the GOP.