Removing the blindfold

President Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Her against-the-odds life story is compelling. At 54 Sonia would follow the legacy of Sandra Day O’Connor the first woman to reach the highest bench. If the Senate confirms her, Sotomayor would make another gender step forward with Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

APTOPIX Obama Supreme Court

Wouldn’t it be awesome to add ethnic diversity to the court? Great idea. On September 11, 2005 another USA tragedy, Sen. Arlen Specter helped Democrats “disqualify” Hispanic Alberto Gonzales declaring that it was “a little too soon” after Gonzales’ appointment as Attorney General for him to be appointed to the Supreme Court without new hearings. Hispanic ethnic diversity here is significant, but what are they “hearing” and seeing?

Apparently President Obama’s Audacity of Hope is mingled with Sonia Sotomayor’s audacity in a 2001 “cultural diversity lecture” at the University of California where she unsheathed her opinion “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences…our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.…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.” Being a good jurist is about coming to court without bias and evaluating lower court decisions strictly in light of the US Constitution. Hope dashed!

It is clearly disqualifying when Sotomayor to the giggling delight of her legal students and colleagues reveals her own core when she lectures, “…court of appeals is where policy is made, 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. I’m — you know….” Yes, even a simple Southern patriot knows this documents the liberal agenda and activist rulings she would likely make.

It’s apparent that Sonia Sotomayor (pronounced soh-toh-my-YOR’) agrees with President Obama that the court should be guided by the ideological agenda he has for the USA to make this country something different. Supreme Court decisions are not infrequently divided by 5-4 majorities with the decision between conservative and liberal-leaning justices split 4-4, with Justice Kennedy providing the decisive vote. Sotomayor is slated to replace Justice Souter who often sided with the “liberals.” One might say the court remains “fair and balanced.” I think a more apt description is the patriot’s 4 limbs being roped to 4 horses and USA justice being “drawn and quartered.”

My photo is at the top of my blog. Just above are 3 parallel lines. Click them and select your desire to receive an email when there is a new post or to follow one post. Thank you!

Advertisements
Standard

One thought on “Removing the blindfold

  1. Patrick says:

    I would add the observation: Since we need humans to make a judgment call as to the legality and morality of a situation, we need the best, brightest, most honest, above reproach people of any size, shape, color, religion, gender, who are full of wisdom and discernment. The person confirmed should have a life that evidences morality and has long demonstrated restraint, selflessness, and humility. If the word morality flags you, consider that we all have morals of some sort and from some origin. Our basic human morals tell us it’s ok to safely exceed the speed limit to rush someone to the hospital, to protect the weak, to feed the hungry, and shelter the homeless. These too are “self-evident” to most decent humans.

    The best human religion and philosophy of the world teaches humility, honor, respect, honesty, service, sacrifice, and to obey the laws of the land. The law is for us – we are not for it. We are its creator. We are its sustainer. We decide when it comes to life, when it adapts, and when it dies. The law is to help us. It’s a policy manual of sorts. And though policy is in place to establish common rules and expectations, it must always be subject to application or enforcement. Just as an honest, good manager will accommodate an employee with understanding and forgiveness, the judge must also have and exercise proper grace and humanity toward those accused or harmed.

    Some may argue that judges should only enforce the law. That’s understandable – and I would agree and join them if the laws themselves were perfect and always perfectly applied. But as long as imperfect people are making and voting on the laws we will always need other imperfect people to bring balance to the law through its Just Application.

    The system is broken because we are broken – all of us. But some, again self-evident here, are more broken than others: those who defy the common decency of man, the basic moral of love, service, sacrifice, humility, kindness, grace, gentleness, patience, and so on. These are qualities we see often in the leaders we respect the most. From all nations, religions, colors, genders, sizes, shapes, abilities, and backgrounds we see the common essentials that must exist in those that we place in judgment over us. It would please me greatly to see diversity on the bench and I hope that those that find themselves there are the greatest servants and most noble of all.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s