Why every Republican must oppose Sotomayor

It's not just one incident. Or two. Or three. It's a consistent pattern of disregard for the most basic tenets of jurisprudence.

Sotomayor's infamous 'Wise Latina' remark

During a 2001 lecture, Sotomayor opined "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."

Consider the reverse of that comment, say, if it had been uttered by a white male: "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

And I'm confused: is there a pecking order of the races? What happens if a Latina woman confronts an African-American male? Whose experience wins out?

Perhaps she could draw a chart for me explaining the stratification of the races and genders.

As for taking the remark out of context: it was reported that she has uttered similar phrases on multiple occasions.

Sotomayor's comments violate the ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct

BiW observes that, in his opinion, Sotomayor's comments are not just overtly and breathtakingly racist, but they also violate the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct:

Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor... A judiciary of integrity is one in which judges are known for their probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. An independent judiciary is one free of inappropriate outside influences.

How would you, as an Asian man, feel if you were pitted against a Latina woman in Sotomayor's court?

'Would Judge Sotomayor Qualify as a Juror?'

Andy McCarthy notes that Sotomayor's comments might cause her problems as a potential juror.

In every trial... judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively — without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused.

McCarthy goes on to ask whether we should consider a justice who could not qualify for jury service in many venues.

Activist Judge Sotomayor

Notwithstanding the racial and gender preferences endemic in her remarks:

...she believes appellate courts are "where policy is made." This link goes to a short clip of Sotomayor flaunting her huge brain and careful reasoning... Which hardly inspires the confidence of people bringing cases before her, as they will (quite reasonably) believe that she will use any opportunity to use cases to shape policy in a leftward direction, rather than judge their cases fairly and according to established law. Thus eroding the public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Which according to the Code, is a major no-no.

Not to mention a teensy weensy violation of our form of government. At least, that is, if we're trying to maintain even a semblance of fidelity to the constitution.

Reprimanded in Reverse Discrimination Case

Judge Sotomayor's record in racially charged cases is a problematic one.

Frank Ricci is a dyslexic Connecticut firefighter who quit a second job in order to study up to 13 hours a day and paid someone to read his textbooks onto tape in preparation for the New Haven Fire Department's exam for promotion to lieutenant or captain. Though he received the sixth-highest score out of 77 applicants vying for eight vacancies, the city decided to deny him [and 16 other whites and one Hispanic their] earned promotion[s] because no black applicants passed, even though the exam had been carefully constructed to ensure race neutrality.

Sotomayor issued a highly unual opinion (called "per curiam"), which adopted the district court's ruling without explanation.

A fellow Clinton appointee, Judge Jose Cabranes, was disturbed by Sotomayor's ruling and wrote, "The core issue presented by this case -- the scope of a municipal employer's authority to disregard examination results based solely on the race of the successful applicants -- is not addressed by any precedent of the Supreme Court or our Circuit. … What is not arguable … is … that this Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal."

If you still doubt that she would base judicial decisions on her personal feelings and experiences, David Limbaugh reminds us that in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she claimed that it is perfectly acceptable for judges to consider their "experiences as women and people of color" in arriving at decisions.

She also said, for example: "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see."

"My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas in which I am unfamiliar," she said. "I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."

Executive Summary: Sotomayor Is Unfit

Republicans must stand firm in refusing to allow Sotomayor to pass out of committee.

Her consistently injudicious behavior would be unacceptable had it had been exhibited by a white male candidate. It is unacceptable in any nominee for the highest court.

As for impacting the Hispanic vote?

Many Hispanics still remember the outrageous Borking of Miguel Estrada by Democrats.

There was no good reason for opposing Estrada, other than the fact that he was Hispanic. The Democrats themselves said so. In stonewalling Estrada, an 11-7-2001 memo to Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) stated:

"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

Put simply, the Democrats blocked Estrada because he was Hispanic and for no other reason.

The current crop of Democrat leaders are racially divisive ideologues, plain and simple. And Sotomayor must be blocked because she is simply unfit; so unfit, in fact, that she would be booted off most jury pools.

Republicans must stand united and strong in opposing this biased nominee. They must fight Obama tooth and nail on this nomination. She is unacceptable.



Here is the contact information for the Senate Judiciary Commitee. Please call every Republican on the list and politely remind them of Sotomayor's outrageous behavior. Ask them to be as tough on her as Democrats were on Miguel Estrada. Keep her in committee and off the highest court in the land.