With all the national coverage focussed on Obama's Supreme Court nominee, you'd think this was a big deal...well, it is.Voices from the far left and right are filling the airwaves and in print with prophesies of limitations on civil liberties and activism from the bench. I really don't think this will be the case.
If the far left sees Sotomayer as a questionable defender of liberal ideals and the wing nuts on the far right are calling her names [racist being one of them] then I think she's off to a very good start.So let me mention that, for those who are paying attention, the highest court in the land is in no radical threat as I see it. So what's with all the chatter from these fringe opinionists? I say they are just doing what come naturally and getting paid for it handsomely.
Judges are bound to interpret the laws being challenged, not rewrite the core meanings of our Constitution. With over 3,000 opinions to sort through over her decades long resume, we are sure to see cases where someone may say "See, here's one example of activism!" or "See, she legislates from the bench!" It's all subject to interpretation and if you're looking for this red flag professionally, you'll grab whatever examples you can to make your point.
Sonia Sotomayer is sure to emerge from the nominating process as our next Supreme Court Justice and President Obama will have his first long term influence on the law of the land. However, the circumstances may be quite different if the opportunity comes again, for the Judge he replaces may not be of the left-of-center ilk like Souter.As you can see, I focus less on her American Dream story when it comes to the merits of her appointment, her race and gender should be of no consequence. But you know we dont live in that sort of world when 24 hour news channels need to fill air-time and advertising space. Sure I like a good heart tug story like everyone else, but the top court is no place for melodrama. I'm just happy that her qualifications exceed question and we dont have another Harriet Miers circus moment on our hands.
3 comments:
Sonia is no Harriet Miers, that's for sure.
I also have much faith in the process and think she will do just fine through the nomination. But remember, those dissenting voices from the fringe can sometimes bring up issues of concern that we all have to look at...I said sometimes.
We have to wade through the hours of ridiculous rhetoric and hurtful attacks before something of value is spoken. But without it, we would be just like so many other countries with fewer freedoms.
Ms. Sotomayer has made speeches where she displays a belief that the court makes policy, not the role envisioned for the court by the constitution.
Unless there is some smoking gun out there, and I don't believe there is, Ms. Sotomayer will be confirmed. We will then be able to judge her on her work and see if indeed an Hispanic women with her wealth of life experiences makes better decisions than a white male as Ms. Sotomayer has stated .
None of this matters at all in terms of the fact this country's federal Constitution has been gutted by Federal Courts for several years now and the Supreme Court doesn't even perform its basic role as in Article 3 Sec. 2 as the court of first resort or initiation in Constitutional matters--the entire procedure used is in itself Unconstitutional by definition. We live in a nation that is living more a fairy tale in law--forget American Dream.
As for this individual, since the law means next to nothing anymore save for the usual social policy disagreements(abortion, right to die, discrimination,Gay rights, Nazi rights, White Supremacist rights, Aliens from Mars' rights, etc), the Supreme Court then deigns to hypocritically apply these against Constitutional principles it otherwises actively and regularly thwarts and flaunts.
As for the individual nominated, if her story doesn't mean anything, then there is in essence no story here really. Of course it means something, and I am "hopefully assuming" she is no actual judicial bitch as is let us say Marilyn Milian of The People's Court(this is also saying something). The story about her, that is that she contrasted her experience in life with that of a white male, is also very little of a real story either, except that, quite positively one would think, that this allows her to understand the experience of the common person, which Obama pointed out in his interview on the subject with Brian Williams and makes perfect sense as to that particular thing.
I do wonder if she happens to be Catholic and this may reflect an anti-abortion stance, which would then give the stupid protestors outside Kingston Hospital regularly more "reason" to continue their PARTICULAR message. Always an emotionally charged issue, another doctor who performs those was recently killed in the nation's heartland inside a church. This may seem a gratuitous swipe again at the Catholic church by those of that ilk who know me and hate me so well in this community(the feeling is mutual for a very very good reason), but I feel that the power the Roman Catholic church has exericsed on the issue of abortion alone has not helped the overall situation with regard to the violence and seeming acceptability of murdering or otherwise harming physicians who perform abortions.
With regard to whether abortion should be legal, a very straight reading of the U.S. Constitution, which I always advocate except for those items clearly established as belonging exclusively or mainly to the time this federal foundational document was written,would lead me to believe that since the Founders upheld LIFE--in addition to LIBERTY and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS as foundational values under this document--the taking of a life without its consent would constitute a foundational breach of same.
This is simply another example of how little we value the foundational principles or strive to follow same whether expressed controverting these foundational principles as they are controverted regularly by the judiciary throughout the nation, and as such could be considered merely one other part of a larger tapestry of rebellion that in law constitutes at least a second American Revolution--if not a third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, tenth, twentieth, or hundredth.
Post a Comment