Democrats are calling Sotomayor the “whole package”, and trying to defend her against the legitimate criticisms surrounding her. Most of the problems with Sotomayor involve her statements about courts making policy, and racially-charged speech given back in 2001, leading to the logical conclusion that her views are incompatible with the idea of equal justice.

Democrats, the big media, and liberal bloggers have been trying to spin away Sotomayor’s comments or accuse her critics of taking her words “out of context.”  The problem is that there is no other context to view her words. She quite frankly expressed the belief that one person can arrive at a better conclusion (judgment) based solely on race and/or gender compared to another.

She also did not “misspeak” her words, as her speech was prepared in advance and published later in a law journal.

Obama says he is sure Sotomayor would “restate” her views, which means keep the same idea, but say it differently. That changes nothing. It’s been reported that she was Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court for quite some time, suggesting that the president was well aware of her views, which are entirely consistent with his views.

Here is the ‘missing context’ from her speech:

“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 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.”

Imagine for a moment if a white male judge had made a similar claim about reaching a better conclusion compared to a Latina woman. His career would be over faster than he could remove his robes. But if the racist comments flow the other direction, Sotomayor, Obama, and the Democrats aren’t troubled by it in the least.

A richness of life experiences may make for an interesting movie, but they have no place in applying the law in an impartial manner. It is quite obvious that the added parts of her speech change nothing, and in fact, provide more evidence that she truly believes certain race-gender combinations are superior to others. With this mindset she can inject her personal prejudices into rulings and base them on something other than the law.

Which brings us to the now infamous case of the New Haven firefighters who were discriminated against based solely on their race. The firefighters were denied promotions by the city when it was discovered that no blacks had scored high enough on the exams to also qualify for promotion. The white men (and one Hispanic) appealed their case, but Sotomayor dismissed it because the exams did not produce enough “diversity” (as though that was the purpose). Her ruling even troubled a fellow member of her own court, Judge Cabranes, who criticized her single-paragraph dismissal. The Supreme Court thought the case was important enough to hear, but not Sotomayor, who ironically may be on that very court in the near future. Apparently that wonderful “empathy” we heard so much about does not apply to certain groups with a judge like Sotomayor.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say anything about ‘diversity’. Once that idea infects the legal system there is no limit to the injustice that can result. Notions of  ‘diversity’ and ‘affirmative action’ are fundamentally at odds with concepts of justice and rule of law.

If judges can arbitrarily substitute their “life experiences” for the law, then the law becomes meaningless at best or totally corrupted at worst. This is what is meant by judicial tyranny.

Judge Sotomayor’s philosophy goes entirely against the foundation of the legal system, which is supposed to dispense justice blindly, which is to say equally to all. If your background, gender, or race influences you so much that you cannot apply the law equally, then you have no business being a judge, yet alone a Supreme Court justice.