We could not have asked for a more perfect example of how liberal racial identity politics have tainted the court system and how the left views the role it should play. The thought processes of the author, Eugene Robinson, have to be read to be believed.
The whole point of Sotomayor’s much-maligned “wise Latina” speech was that everyone has a unique personal history — and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects.
This seems self-evident to me. I don’t see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.
We’re sorry, but the concept of the Supreme Court is to verify and decide upon cases based SOLELY on constitutional validity. Not foreign law either, but what the United States Constitution dictates. The cause of concern for Sonya Sotomayor’s comments regarding Hispanic females and Caucasian males is that she’s revealing that her decision making will likely be filtered through her racial preferences before constitutional objectivity is even considered.
Perhaps Byron York’s take on Sotomayor’s judicial prudence is valuable to present as well.
Sotomayor’s professions of fidelity to the law and impartiality are the core of the argument that she has the right temperament and approach to serve on the Supreme Court. Yet her opening words just served to underscore the difference between what she says to win confirmation and what she has told friendly audiences over the years. “She wants us just to accept on its face that she has always followed the law,” the GOP aide says, “but the things she’s said outside the court run contrary to that.”
Eugene Robinson’s quote shows a distinct lack of thought process. The “basic principle of diversity” sounds like the post-modern gibberish that it is.
Judge Sotomayor’s record of overturned decisions speaks for itself. She is grossly unqualified to be on a jury, much less be a judge. But, then again, that’s the objective of diversity: qualification based on race or sex, not merit.