Senate Makes Historic Confirmation of First Openly-Biased Justice

68-31

Yet another reason why it's so important to restore the Senate to its original Constitutional role. Identity politics is touching every aspect of our government, with the debate being over superficial characteristics such as race or gender instead of more important intellectual arguments. American's don't even care about whether our judges, Presidents, or Congressmen will uphold the Constitution, because their race and gender trumps all.

I'm convinced that America cannot survive what is being done, and I'm further convinced that it's not the politicians' fault. The politicians would be powerless if the people did not keep giving them this power. And Americans have absolutely no interest in fixing the system.

America: it was nice while it lasted.

Gag Me

Let's repeal the 17th Amendment and get rid of these nausea-inducing, pathetic, ignorant, self-righteous hypocrites.

The Sotomayor Show Trials

The three-ring circus has begun. Hot Air has streaming video.

It's important to consider why the Constitution required Senate confirmation (or "advise and consent"). Originally, as most of the readers of this blog know, the Senate was considered the calm, sane counterpoint to the hot-blooded House. Having a Senate one step removed from the public opinion allowed its members to engage in more thoughtful, less pandering behavior. As it is now, Senators must appeal to the lowest common denominator in society, which is why this has become more "show trial" than Constitutional process. Byron York points out the ease with which an agenda is hidden from public scrutiny.

Republicans and Democrats have already reached the agreement that she will be confirmed, barring any major shift in public opinion. The party system that the 17th Amendment established shifted government into back room deals, where policy is made in shadowy, smoke-filled rooms while the public is distracted by the bright lights and loud noises of a common street magician's act.

Sotomayor's confirmation hearings are merely a show trial, designed to give the parties more ammunition in the war for public opinion. The pandering to different groups pits Americans against each other, as each believes his race, her gender, his class, her ethnicity, every individual's identity group is under attack. Everything is reduced to the lowest common denominator in the struggle to win the next election. And what is lost in all this?

Our freedom. Our freedom is worth less to our government than our votes are.

If we seek to have a government more interested in our individual freedom than pandering, we must repeal the 17th Amendment.

Supreme Court Throws Out Sotomayor Ruling

"Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them."

Justices Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens signed onto Ginsburg's dissent, which she read aloud in court Monday.

Kennedy's opinion made only passing reference to the work of Sotomayor and the other two judges on the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals who upheld a lower court ruling in favor of New Haven.

But the appellate judges have been criticized for producing a cursory opinion that failed to deal with "indisputably complex and far from well-settled" questions, in the words of another appeals court judge, Sotomayor mentor Jose Cabranes.

"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal," Cabranes said, in a dissent from the full 2nd Circuit's decision not to hear the case.

Apparently, the dissenters are claiming that the Court should not be controlled by empathy. The question of empathy, though, is what group gets empathy. Some people think Latinas should get more sympathy, but the Court today agrees to provide equal empathy for all, otherwise known as equality of law. Justice is blind to group identity, and the Supreme Court today upheld that truth.

Sotomayor may just lose because of this.

Since We're on The Subject...

Sonia Sotomayor was reversed by the Supreme Court in 3 of her 5 opinions:

With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision.

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

"Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

But opponents have an uphill battle.

Ms. Sotomayor's nomination is a direct affront to the ideal that we are a nation of laws. The "empathy" standard itself violates the concept of equal justice. The only way to stop her from being confirmed is to turn public opinion against her so that Senators won't vote for her. If we didn't have a 17th Amendment, Senators would be held accountable by state legislatures which would demand that they only support candidates who would maintain decentralization of power. Until the 17th Amendment is repealed, judicial nominations will continue to be circus events, filled with political posturing and absolutely certain to result greater and greater politicization of what is supposed to be an impartial and objective judiciary.

Skin Deep

Greg Gutfield takes on Obama's ability to hide behind race in order to make his critics look like racists.






My question is, what happened to all those Democrats who criticized McCain for attempting to appeal to female voters by choosing a female running mate? Was that just partisan criticism?