The Liberal Mind and the selection of Judge Sotomayor

The reaction of the liberals to Sonia Sotomayor's nomination was a stark reminder of how the liberal mind works. To the lib mind the following is all that matters: if confirmed, Sotomayor would be the first Hispanic (and female to boot) on the Supreme Court. Feels really good doesn't it? All attempts to ascertain whether or not she would be an effective justice are viewed as racist and sexist at a minimum.

Sotomayor born of Puerto Rican descent grew up in the projects of the South Bronx. At age eight she learned how to inject herself with insulin for her diabetes. Her father died when she was nine, and her mother (a nurse) worked two jobs to raise her. She loved Nancy Drew Mysteries and Perry Mason. She graduated summa cum laude from Princeton. Sotomayor went on to graduate from Yale Law School. After law school she became a state prosecutor, federal judge and eventually a federal appellate court justice. Clearly she is the epitome of the American Dream come true. She is exceptionally qualified to grace the covers of Time and Newsweek magazines as an example for all. If you ask her what lead to her success she undoubtedly would respond to the effect that hard work, dedication and tenacity has brought her success. You will never find proponents of the welfare state, such as herself and Obama, say that the welfare state has made me what I am today. They didn't need it but apparently they think we do.

If the true aim of the democrats is the feel good goal of having a Hispanic on the court they would not have attacked, and attempted to destroy Miguel Estrada (another American Dream come true) when he was nominated for the court. Diversity is not the purpose of her nomination. The empathy they speak of is another word for judicial activism. Her propensity toward judicial activism is the reason she was selected. Many of the controversial plans the libs have for the nation would not succeed if left either to an enactment of congress or to the vote of the American people. The failed proposal of amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens is a prime example of how congress was forced to back down when the American People spoke. Proposition 8 in California is another example of the people speaking with their vote.

Judicial activism is the course chosen by the lib. Abortion as an alternative form of contraception came about through this process. It is not something the voters would have approved, nor is it likely that congress would have enacted it either if the members intended to retain their seats. It could only be accomplished through judicial fiat. Several friends have asked me that if Obama and the Democrat Congress are shown to be in error, will not future administrations and congresses reverse and correct them? This is the exact reason why they present these issues to the courts in the guise of civil or human rights, and ask activist judges to find them constitutionally guaranteed. Since the constitution is the supreme law of the land the policies will stand over the long term. Future presidents and congresses cannot alter the policy. The Supreme Court in a future ruling or a constitutional amendment would be the only remedy. When activist judges create law from the bench, we no longer have a system of checks and balances, as the three branches are no longer co-equal. The court stands above the other two branches and the American people.

How effective of a justice will Sotomayor be? The seven cases that she has ruled on that were reviewed by the Supreme Court are as follows: one pending, two upheld, four reversed. Over fifty percent of the time the Supreme Court has ruled her judgments to be in error. Good thing she is not a surgeon with a record like that. As a Supreme Court Justice the worst she could do is irreparable damage to the nation with her activism. No big deal, especially with the trade off of her being the first Hispanic on the court, and a woman to boot.

A. C. Smithson