Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the High Court. As expected, she is a deeply flawed candidate who has made outrageous comments concerning race and judicial activism. The mainstream media has either not reported or downplayed her controversial statements. Instead, the media is focusing on the most trivial and irrelevant topics of ‘her compelling life story’.
Sotomayor has revealed on more than one occasion that she is a judicial activist and is therefore wholly inadequate to sit on any court, yet alone the highest court in the land. The New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor made the following comment: “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.” Aside from her statement being tinged with racism, what difference should it make whether you are a white male or a Latina female if your job is to impartially apply the law?
Sotomayor later said: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Sotomayor readily admits that she, as a judge, is influenced by “gender and national origins.” That fact alone should disqualify her from the bench. Additionally, a high rate of her decisions are overturned, giving further evidence that she is a liberal activist.
She manifestly has no respect for the proper role of a judge or Supreme Court justice. It cannot be made more clear than to think of a judge as a referee who applies the rules of the game (law). It should not make a scintilla of difference what her sex or race is as a referee. But radicals like Sotomayor do not think of themselves as referees who apply the rules evenly. She believes a judge should be changing and/or making the rules of the game.
There is a video of her admitting this, saying that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” In a moment of truth she let it slip and added: “And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it …” But the problem is she just did, and she did so in a contemptuous way. In backpedaling and trying to retract her own words, you can hear people in the room laughing, as though the corruption of the judicial branch should not be taken seriously.
Sotomayor, like other activist judges, appears to have more of a social philosophy than a judicial one. Historical context or original intent is done away with in favor of personal preferences and social engineering.
With a judge like Sotomayor, the Constitution is an amorphous ‘living’ document. If it is constantly ‘evolving’ with the times, then by definition it cannot be the same thing it was before. Where it once had authority and meaning, it will no longer. Thomas Jefferson called the judiciary “the despotic branch”, and warned that the Constitution would become “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
This is precisely what is wrong with make-it-up-as-you-go-along liberal judges. A non-living Constitution is the only sensible one to have, because it binds people to a set of rules with a fixed meaning. As Jonah Goldberg writes, this is important because it “ensures that future generations will be protected from judges or politicians who’d like to rule arbitrarily…We all like to believe that we have some say about what this country will be like for our children and grandchildren. A ‘living Constitution’ denies us our voice in this regard because it basically holds that whatever decisions we make…can be thrown out by any five dyspeptic justices on the Supreme Court. In other words, the justices who claim the Constitution is a wild card didn’t take their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in good faith because they couldn’t know what they were swearing to.”
A Supreme Court justice is supposed to interpret the Constitution in a dispassionate and agenda-free manner. Liberals on the other hand want activist judges, who will ignore or twist the Constitution to produce the outcomes they desire. For the Left, the only job of a judge or Supreme Court justice is to create equality or ’social justice’. They will admit as much, as Democratic Senator Herb Kohl remarked: “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . ” The Left has always been a product of postmodernism and the French Revolution. Therefore, the greatest evil is not injustice or even murder, but inequality.
A country cannot function with a legal system based on feelings or empathy. If a judge can rule in favor or against someone based on what creates ’social justice’, regardless of law, the system crumbles into a third world kangaroo court. America has spent decades trying to get away from the tyrannical notions of other countries, where who you are determines what kind of justice you get. Unfortunately Judge Sonia Sotomayor represents that kind of judicial tyranny, because who you are will influence her decisions. There is a good reason why Lady Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold. But with activist judges like Sotomayor the scales will tip in the direction of her personal preferences, now that the blindfold is removed.
Powered by FireStats
Obama tyranny government and his elected officals are a disgrace to the american way of life. They trample over the laws of the land and put citizens under slavery and world order.of mad insane government. We must protect interest and sovereighty by state soverieghty to restore justice and law of order of the land. Hopefully americans won’t be asleep, but be on guard and be prepared for what is to come to our country. Americans you love your country, take it back from this type of tyranny government. Protect the constition and the 1st and 2nd amend.
Clearly the above comment is from a racist white male who does not understand the meaning of the word tyranny. Tyranny is taking African Americans from their homelands, shipping them in chains in inhumane conditions in which many died, and enslaving them, calling them property and not giving them rights, that is tyranny, that is slavery you xenophobic bigot. Sonia Sotomayor may be a judicial activist but isn’t a judicial activist, someone who will act independent of law, who will keep law constitutional favorable to someone who upholds laws that are unconstitutional…..I suppose you agree with the Plessy v Ferguson case that segregation is constitutional?That is why you are racist…thank God for a judicial activist who questioned the law, who deemed the law unconstitutional in Brown v Board of Education Topeka and who made the laws consistent with the 14th amendment and equal protection clause. Without activism and social progression there would still be slavery and segregation, open your minds.
When it comes to prejudice who could forget the Rebublican Supreme court justice who refused a recount of Florida’s votes in the 2000 election which allowed Bush to win, despite permitting recounts prior to that…..that’s prejudice..and imagine how differently the course of history would look with the disgrace that was Bush…but being a xenophobic bigot i suppose you would be grateful for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq…wake up.
cicada moon,
Calm down please. You are clearly a very confused and ignorant person. 21st century judicial activism has nothing to do with enslaving Africans 200 years ago. And no, a judicial activist is someone who legislates from the bench according to his or her personal preferences. That is why it is wrong. Some make the false arguments that without a ‘living’ constitution (judicial activism), slavery would still be allowed and women wouldn’t be able to vote. This is nonsense as these issues were addressed in the 13th, 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments.
Yes, Plessy v Ferguson was a bad decision. But you have to understand the historical context in which it occurred, which was not long after the Civil War. There is such a thing as bad precedent (including Roe v Wade), which is why it was challenged and struck down, but reversing bad precedent is not judicial activism.
By the way, you can thank the Democrats for racial segregation and Jim Crow, because it was a solidly Democratic South that defended black segregation. And it was the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by a larger percentage than Republicans.
As far as the 2000 election, before the U. S. Supreme Court intervened, a team of professors from Harvard, Berkeley, Cornell and Northwestern universities did their own detailed statistical analysis and concluded that Bush would likely win by a larger margin than before the recount. Subsequent reviews show, indeed, that the recounts Al Gore requested increased Bush’s margin of victory. Democrats love recounts because it buys them time to steal elections with fraudulent votes (see ACORN) as happened with Franken and Coleman.
You quite obviously have trouble focusing your thoughts to engage in critical thinking, since the topic is Sotomayor and judicial activism, and somehow you end up with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Since the only reason you brought up Iraq was to employ childish “xenophobic bigot” name-calling, I’ll end the dialogue here.
i wasn’t suggesting judicial activism did have anything to do with slavery, i was merely recounting what the word tyranny actually consists of and what slavery actually means because Robert Davis wrote ‘They trample over the laws of the land and put citizens under slavery and world order.of mad insane government’ referring to the Obama government. He continues to say ‘Americans you love your country, take it back from this type of tyranny government.’ What a load of crap…
I’m studying American Politics so maybe you need to take my ‘ignorance’ up with my lecturer. I appreciate that i got abit worked up and should refrain from name calling but will not apologise for being passionate and standing up to what i consider a racist view of the Obama government from the aforementioned Davis. Speaking of Bush’s failings one cant help but mention the Iraq war but admittedly i did go off track talking about Bush in the first place. Thank you for your corrections on Jim Crow laws and democrats role…seeings how i am not American and my only knowledge comes from books and lecture notes i cannot claim to really know but in conclusion i will not apologise for what i see as racist comments from Davis.
cicada moon,
I apologize, since your misunderstandings are clearly the fault of your professors.
Yes, Davis is using hyperbole to make a point about the tendency of socialistic governments becoming tyrannical. There is ample historical evidence for this. Racism means to believe in the inherent superiority or inferiority of a particular race, and I see nothing in his comment to suggest that. He is attacking growing government power under Obama, but how is that racist? If he were a white president with the same policies and agendas, many would still be against him. Skin color does not harm a nation, but the wrong politics certainly can.
It is a fact that Constitutional rights are being infringed upon under the Obama administration. A couple of examples with the First Amendment to our Bill of Rights are so-called “Hate Crimes” laws and the FCC’s (Federal Communications Commission) efforts to make dramatic changes to radio broadcasting, which will greatly reduce Christian and conservative talk radio. So yes, there is evidence to back up the claim that government is ‘trampling the laws of the land.’ I can give other examples, but let me briefly address Iraq.
I can guarantee that whatever is being told about Bush and Iraq in your school is missing a lot of information. Just so there is no misunderstanding, I am very critical of Bush with his domestic policies, and think he did a bad job in many regards. Having said that, were you told for instance, that the majority of Democrats supported the initial invasion and voted overwhelmingly to authorize the use of force? Did they tell you that major intelligence agencies around the world, not just ours, believed Saddam had WMD? In the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, one of the conclusions offered with “high confidence” was that “Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.” The intelligence agencies of Britain, Germany, Russia, China, Israel and France all agreed with this assessment. Did they tell you that UN resolution 1441 said that Saddam needed to fully declare his weapons program, and open his country to unlimited inspections or face “serious consequences,” which is understood as diplomatic talk for war? Given Iraq’s continued violation of military agreements, its sponsorship of terrorism, its admitted chemical and biological weapons program, and the fact that America was hit with the most devastating attack in its history, there was little choice other than forced regime change given the circumstances. One could make a good faith argument that other means should have been pursued, but if you want to be fair to the topic, you have to admit that an equally good faith argument could be made for war. Bush was in a very bad position with Iraq in a post-9/11 world. If he did nothing, or pursued diplomatic means, and America was hit with another devastating terrorist attack, he would be blamed. If he does follow through on the UN’s threat of force, and problems develop, then he’d also be blamed. Politics are often very messy, and present only choices between bad and worse alternatives. Also, for the record, the Democrats were largely supportive of the war until things didn’t go that smoothly; only then did they turn on Bush for their own political gain. Yes, Iraq did have many problems and unfortunate casualties (what war doesn’t?), but they now have a democratically elected government, with decreasing violence and increasing stability.
I understand your passion as I also attended a university and believed much the same as you did. But as I grow older, I have come to understand that professors are people too, with their own biases and agendas. In my own readings and study, I’ve learned that much of what we are told at University is extremely one-sided, and creates certain opinions in the students. They come away believing many things that are slightly wrong, outright false, or so taken out of historical context that they draw the wrong conclusions.
I appreciate your situation, just please be careful by not believing everything your professors tell you. In order to come to better understandings we need to have the whole story, not just half. Thanks for the comments and good luck with your studies.
Both the left and the right have complained louder and louder over the past 10 years about activist judges. It is plain that the only definition of an activist judge that stands the test of time is one that says that an judicial activist judge is a judge that decides something opposite to the way the critic would decide. But that’s not a definition that means anything decisive. The next best definition involves judges that “legislate” from the bench - i.e. overturn a law passed by a legislature.
Of course, calling Congressional legislation into question is not necessarily a bad thing. If a law is unconstitutional, the court has a responsibility to strike it down. But a marked pattern of invalidating Congressional laws certainly seems like one reasonable definition of judicial activism.
Since the Supreme Court assumed its 2005 composition in 1994, and it has upheld or struck down 64 Congressional laws or provisions. That legislation has concerned Social Security, church and state, and campaign finance, among many other issues. An examination of the court’s decisions in these cases, and looking at how each justice voted, regardless of whether he or she concurred with the majority or dissented reveals that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below. By this measure, accepted by huge swaths of Democrats, Republicans, liberals and conservatives, Thomas, Rehnquist and Scalia were among the most activist judges on the Supreme Court of 2005:
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
You can look it up.
Yurij Trytjak,
Thanks for the comments, but I have to disagree. You said a “judicial activist judge is a judge that decides something opposite to the way the critic would decide.” If that is true, then there is no point in having a Constitution, because you are then saying there is no right or wrong way to interpret it. Clearly that is not what the founders had in mind, and they would be appalled at the idea of a “living” Constitution. There is a good reason why Thomas Jefferson called the judiciary “the despotic branch”, and warned that the Constitution would become “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”
To legislate from the bench does not only mean to overturn a law passed by legislature, but it can also mean to uphold an unconstitutional one as well. The fact liberal justices have a much smaller opposition rate only proves my point. If they just rubber stamp whatever laws are passed, then what’s the point of having the judicial branch?
“But a marked pattern of invalidating Congressional laws certainly seems like one reasonable definition of judicial activism.” That is an unreasonable definition, unless your definition automatically assumes that the majority of laws passed are Constitutional. Instead, the pattern suggests lawmakers who don’t respect the Constitution in thinking they can pass whatever they please. That is a huge problem. Just because a law is passed in no way confers Constitutionality.
There was once a bill proposed that would have required every proposed law to cite where in the Constitution the federal government is granted the authority to do whatever the bill wants. Guess what – it was hugely defeated. Why? Isn’t it a good idea to force lawmakers to prove that a law they propose has the right to even exist? Or should they be able to arbitrarily make up whatever they want? The fact the bill was defeated speaks volumes of the majority of lawmakers who have little understanding, and even less respect for the Constitution. Thankfully then, we see a high rate of invalidations by the best justices on the court.
It is not judicial activism to strike down laws because they violate the Constitution. Invalidating laws passed by Congress is perfectly acceptable and necessary when those laws are unconstitutional, which is the whole point of having the judicial branch. You even acknowledge this, but you seem to be against excessive invalidations. To me, this points to a problem with Congress, not justices who do their job correctly in both the historical context and spirit of the High Court. All historical evidence supports an originalist interpretation of the founding documents, and it is the only one that makes any rational sense. If there is no set of rules or principles by which to decide what laws are permissible and which not, then there is no point to having a Constitution. Laws will be whatever the political whims are at the time. Rights can be taken away at any time for any reason.