Sotomayor Nomination Focus on Abortion Rights is MisguidedWritten by: Cameron Print This Article
Use of Our Content (Reposting and Quoting)
Mainstream media and political pundits are winding up their broken record players to interrogate Obama’s Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor with the inevitable and unending question: “What are your views on abortion?”
It’s time to get off this broken-down bandwagon. Her views on rights of due process, parental rights, 2nd amendment gun rights, freedom of speech, illegal government law enforcement tactics, and many other civil rights issues are far more pressing than her views on abortions. Yet abortion questions seem to be the the majority of the discussion on her qualifications for a seat on the US Supreme Court.
Second Amendment Issues
One of the few issues on this list which is getting some serious attention is the anti-Constitutional view of Sotomayor on gun control. She backed a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals decision that states and localities can abridge the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms as they see fit.
Earlier this year, President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee joined an opinion with the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Second Amendment rights do not apply to the states.
A 2004 opinion she joined also cited as precedent that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.”
Ken Blackwell, a senior fellow with the Family Research Council, called Obama’s nomination a “declaration of war against America’s gun owners.”
Such a line of attack could prove more effective than efforts to define Sotomayor as pro-abortion, efforts that essentially grasp at straws. Sotomayor’s record on that hot-button issue reveals instances in which she has ruled against an abortion rights group and in favor of anti-abortion protesters, making her hard to pigeonhole.
But Sotomayor’s position on gun control is far more crystallized.
Blackwell, who also ran unsuccessfully to head the Republican National Committee, told FOX News her position is “very, very disturbing.”
“That puts our Second Amendment freedoms at risk,” he said. “What she’s basically saying is that your hometown can decide to suppress your Second Amendment freedoms.”
US Founders Saw Need for Armed Populace
Obviously Sotomayor’s position on taking away the right to bear arms is of concern to those of us who believe that government and its law enforcement agencies are incompetent, corrupt, and trample the civil rights of American. Not only will they not defend us from criminals, they are all too often criminals themselves.
As a founder of the United States and former President who understood government tyranny, Thomas Jefferson had much to say about this:
(from Thomas Jefferson Quotes)
Every generation needs a new revolution.
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories.
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
Jefferson was very clear that unless the people have the means to oppose and if necessary overthrow an abusive government, the rise of government abuse is essentially guaranteed.
Sotomayor seems to be a judge who doesn’t believe in Jefferson’s wisdom. In this age of gender feminism, anti-family government agencies, and systematic violation of due process rights by such atrocities as the temporary restraining order, I for one am not comfortable with her positions expressed to date regardless of what she thinks regarding abortion. I’m tired of being afraid of the government and its persecution against citizens who “got in the way” by using lawless and abusive actions to torment or falsely prosecute or imprison them.
If you don’t know what I mean by government persecution, read about the case of Dr. Tim Emerson to see how the government can ruin a person’s life starting with actions that had no legal basis and building upon them until the person is crushed by the attacks.
Freedom of Speech
Sotomayor is apparently not an advocate of free speech, either. In the case Doninger v. Niehoff, Sotomayor backed the appeals decision that a high school student who referred to her school superintendent and other officials as “douche bags” on her personal blog could be banned from running for student government. She made this remark because they canceled a a “battle of the bands” event she had helped organize. The message is loud and clear to schools and student — speak your mind and you will be punished if the school doesn’t like it, even if it is done outside of the classroom and away from school.
Racism is OK?
Additionally worrisome is her apparent backing of racially motivated judicial decisions. I’m all for race-blind justice. As a parent of mixed-race children and one who grew up with friends of many ethnicities and nationalities and encourages my children to do the same, I’m disgusted by racism. But Sotomayor alarmingly seems to think that justice should be based upon race:
(from SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor)
Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
One of her appeals court decisions was the Ricci case in New York involving firemen who were passed over for promotions in what they claim was a racially discriminatory action. The lead plaintiff was dyslexic yet studied hard and scored 6th place out of 77 exams given. Not enough “minority” members passed the exam. So the department promoted nobody. Effectively he and many others who got passing scores were denied promotion based upon their races not being acceptable. The appeals court decision was brief and cited no Constitutional law. It is up for review by the current Supreme Court, with a decision due soon. It is widely thought the Supreme Court will overturn the decision. Essentially, Sotomayor backed racial reverse discrimination as all but one of the firemen (the one exception was Hispanic) were white.
Sotomayor sits on the appellate court that decided against Frank Ricci, one of the more significant affirmative action cases before the Supreme Court in decades. The case evokes issues of discrimination. It highlights whether we can see white men as victims, a half-century after affirmative action was first implemented.
It was Obama who emphasized empathy as he discussed the makeup of his ideal Supreme Court nominee. And it was also Obama, in his acclaimed race speech during the presidential campaign, who noted that when whites hear “that an African-American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed … resentment builds over time.”
That resentment is captured by the Ricci case. Ricci has brought affirmative action back into the political debate at a time of towering firsts. It’s these same firsts that bring culturally uncomfortable questions forward of affirmative action’s role in the era of Obama.
In the near term, however, Sotomayor is compelled to reckon with the issue. Obama once said, in explaining his opposition to Chief Justice John Roberts, that he had no issue with Roberts’ rulings on 95 percent of cases but “what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult.”
A few cases can consume the public debate over high court nominees. So it is with Sotomayor in the case of Frank Ricci, a story that has provoked deeper questions of race and how far we have come.
Appeals Decisions Frequently Overturned
Then consider that Sotomayor’s judicial record is one of being frequently reversed by the Supreme Court. Other federal judges sometimes chose to criticize her reasoning as having little relevancy to the law. Take a look at Sotomayor’s resume, record on notable cases for more information on her less than stellar track record.
Sotomayor Is Poor Choice for US Supreme Court
The Supreme Court should not be populated with anti-free-speech racist anti-Constitutional judges or anybody remotely resembling them. Sotomayor should be rejected. A better choice can be found. It would be nice to see more racial and gender diversity on the court, if only to show that the court is representative of the population and there is no racial favoritism. But it should not come at the expense of the law and good of the nation.
Being ridiculously extreme to make my point, I’d be happy with a nine-headed rainbow colored winged extra-terrestrial dragon named Bertha who speaks English as a second language as the whole US Supreme Court if she’d make decisions that hold the US Constitution and American law in high regard and protect the civil rights of Americans against increasing encroachment by government and overly powerful special interest groups. Unfortunately, she’s busy being experimented upon in Area 51 until they knock love of freedom, respect for civil rights, and any semblance of common sense and decency out of her. But if they get done soon, maybe Obama will still be able to nominate her.
Somewhat more seriously, I can’t help but wish that there was a way to reincarnate Thomas Jefferson and put him on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, even the relentless march of technology won’t accomplish that, forcing us to try to pick the honorable from the heathens in the US courts in the hope that our Supreme Court won’t end up further disfigured by a poor choice for justice.