Sotomayor is No Sarah Palin

Many of the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee talked about Sonia Sotomayor with something approaching awe, reminding us about her "brilliance." Many of said Democrats and their media friends would not use the term "brilliant" in describing Sarah Palin, who in fact is very bright and a fast learner.

My own view of Sotomayor is that she's the woman who graduated "summa cum laude" from Princeton . . . but has no idea how to pronounce . . . summa cum laude.

Sonia Sotomayor wildly mispronounced the common legal term "sui generis." She thought the first word had one syllable -- it has two -- and the second word had two syllables -- it has three. Latina, yes. Latin? Nope. Then she kept saying "eminent" when she meant "imminent." She also talked about her "story of knowledge," when she meant "store of knowledge."

Since Sarah has resigned her day job, maybe Obama could get her out of his hair by appointing her (instead of Sonia S.) to the Supreme Court? We could do worse. We ARE doing worse.

Obama, Sotomayor: Slobbering Love Affair

Sonia Sotomayor graduated "summa cum laude" (highest honors) with a degree in political science from Princeton University. Apparently, poli sci at Princeton, as at many big-time universities, is an easy major, one that doesn't demand a great command of the English language.

On Sunday and Monday, I'll be writing more about Sonia Sotomayor's intellectual limitations, which are many. The other day I was taking notes during the first two days of the Sotomayor hearings. Her comments were legalistic and jargon-ridden to the point of being incomprehensible. When Senator Coburn asked her if we Americans "have a right to self-defense in our own homes," she gave an incoherent answer.

Even worse, she regularly misused common English words. In answering (sort of) Coburn's question she use the word "eminent" (standing out above others) several times when she meant "imminent." (about-to-happen). If she's ever ruled on the concept of "eminent domain," goodness knows what the decision sounded like.

Also, when she was talking about an individual's "store of knowledge" (itself a redundant phrase) she called it "story of knowledge." It was an absurd blunder. I doubt she won any spellingbees at Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx.

(Marnie Delano of New York State pointed out to me that Sotomayor badly mispronounced the Latin phrase "sui generis," meaning originally "of its own kind" and now generally meaning individual or unique. Sotomayor pronounced it "soo jen-riss," whereas the correct form is "soo-eye gen-er-iss.")

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been slobbering (and shedding tears) over Ms. Sotomayor and her supposed "brilliance." Sotomayor once described herself as the "poster girl for Affirmative Action." In her case, truer words were never spoken.

She's not a "wise Latina." She's an unwise one. She wouldn't even be a good candidate for the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Oh yes, she's a certain to get confirmed. Her confirmation is imminent, although there's nothing eminent about her.America now is the country where every girl, even stupid ones, can grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Sotomayor's Offensive "Latina" References

Sonia Sotomayor's most offensive comments -- and she's made -- plenty deal with her self-portrayal as a "Latina" whose Latina-ness somehow makes her superior to those less fortunate creatures known as "white males." She has made a career out of emphasizing her Puerto Rican roots. If they are truly so important to her, then why isn't she a candidate for the Puerto Rican Supreme Court. If she's not an American first, then why on earth is she seeking a lifetimes appointment in a country with more than its share of "lesser breeds without the law" (Kipling), such as Whites, Blacks, and Asians of both genders?

There is a lot more at stake for this country than whether the Republicans win in 2010 and even 2012. We won't win anything unless America finally decides what it wants to be when it grows up.

Republicans alone -- remember Arlen Specter, remember Olympia Snowe? -- are not enough. I remember a month ago when Senatorial Campaign head John Cornyn was backing Arlen Specter, then a Republican, because, well, "we generally support incumbents, blah, blah, blah." I thought at the time, John does not get it all all, does he? Then he rushed to support Charlie Crist, an Arlen-Specter in waiting.

If Republicans are just a grumpier, better tanned version of the Democrats, who needs them? If Sarah Palin were just a younger, more attractive version of McCain, which of us would be supporting her?

We have to be Americans; I prefer Audie Murphy and Katharine Jenerette and Sarah Palin types. The Republican Party will endure (remember the Whigs? Or the Federalists? Or The Bull Moose Party?) as long as it helps us support American values and great candidates (no, not "incumbents"). Arlen Specter's main problem wasn't that he was a less-than-stellar Republican; rather, it was that he was not -- and is not -- much of an American.

Those of us who believe in the real America, may end up going down -- heck, that's not unprecedented. But perhaps it would be better if we went down with guns blazing . . . rather than trolling for Hispanic voters more comfortable with waving Mexican flags than singing "God Bless America."

I just looked up one of my favorite quotes from James Madison, one of those "Founding Fathers" Sotomayor claimed to respect the other day. Gee, I wonder how she would like this quote from the man known as "the father of the Constitution":

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce.... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." (Madison, The Federalist, Number 45.)

The other day at a congressional hearing, Michelle Bachmann kept grilling Geithner about what was the constitutional authority for all the handouts, bailouts, and takeovers the government was doing. Geithner's response was to look at her as if she were from another planet.

SONIA SOTOMAYOR: Obama's Bad Choice

Exquisitely Awful Picture of Two Unpleasant Human Beings, Obama and Sotomayor

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn't lived that life." (Sonia Sotomayor at Univ. of Cal., Berkeley, 2001).

The big problem is that Sonia Sotomayor may even believe her own B-S. In roughly 30 words, she managed to be both racist and sexist. One striking fact is that she devalues the experience of everyone who is NOT Latina (or even Latino?). She is making the outrageous claim that her experience is more valuable -- richer -- than yours -- unless you happen to be a female Latina who grew up in the South Bronx. What arrogance! What narcissism! Yes, if a white male said anything similar, he would be hooted at, scorned, and disgraced. But because Sotomayor is a Latina -- although certainly not a wise one -- she may get away with it. Because of her ethnicity and gender, she will be held to lower standards than you. In four short months of the Obama presidency, America has become almost unrecognizable.

About Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, Stuart Taylor wrote the following in the National Journal: "Do we want a new justice who comes close to stereotyping white males as (on average) inferior beings?"

Barack Hussein Obama wants such a Justice. Sonia Sotomayor obviously does . . . but does America really want to go down that road of identity politics? We shall see.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, falsely claimed today (May 26) that she believes deeply in "the rule of law." As you learn more about this woman, you'll find that for her the "rule of law" is a term that means the rule of law-flouting liberal activist judges.

Barack Obama clearly believes that Sotomayor possesses the quality he believes most important in a judge: empathy. However, in her case, empathy apparently is synonymous with bias in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. From her public statements and rulings, she seems to believe that people should receive unequal protection under the law.

Specifically, in the case of the New Haven, CT, firefighters, Sotomayor was one of those ruling that Caucasian firemen (and one Hispanic) somehow had an unfair advantage when it came to promotion. However, on any objective basis, they had no such advantage.

Many lawyers who have argued cases before Sotomayor believe she lacks a judicial temperament. In fact, some make the case that she's a bad-tempered individual.

Consider the comments made by lawyers in The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, as outlined in one of Jeffrey Rosen's articles in the liberal New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478

• "She is a terror on the bench."


• "She is very outspoken."


• "She can be difficult."


• "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."


• "She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."


• "She abuses lawyers."


• "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."


• "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

Those are descriptions of a narcissist or an egomaniac, or both. Is that the kind of person we really want on the Supreme Court?

SCOTUS: Obama Naming DIANE WOOD

Bulletin: Information is leaking out of Washington, DC that next week Barack Obama will name Judge Diane Wood, age 58, of Chicago (and the 7th US Court of Appeals) as his choice to replace David Souter on the US Supreme Court. This is single-source information, but it's from a very reliable individual.

Obama's political guru and senior adviser, David Axelrod, reportedly has "cleared" the choice with George Soros' Moveon.org, a group that favored another candidate (Hispanic Sonia Sotomayor). Also, Diane Wood is a major favorite of the National Organization of Women (NOW).

She is notable for favoring the view of the Constitution as a "living document" (or "evolving document") which for strict constructionists means she sees it as something open to liberal "interpretations" by activist judges. Apparently, she disagrees ith the Oklahoma legislator who recently observed, "The Constitution either means what it says, or it means nothing at all."

Wood apparently was chosen over other candidates (incuding Sotomayor, Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford, and Elena Kagan, former Dean at Obama's alma mater, Harvard) because of her "real world experience." Specifically, she is a divorced mother of three with a legal background not confined to the academic world. Apparently, no male candidates received any serious consideration.

Obama interviewed Judge Wood last week.

Stay tuned for much more information on Judge Diane Wood.

Key articles by Diane Wood below:

"‘Original Intent’ Versus ‘Evolution’," The Scrivener 7 (Summer 2005) (also published in Green Bag Almanac & Reader 267, 2007.

"Our 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century World," 80 New York University Law Review, 1079, 2005.

Obama proclaimed that a key quality for his appointee would be "empathy" (for the downtrodden). As you'll see from Ed Whelan's National Review Online articles (there are five) below, Judge Wood's empathy is clearly selective -- and don't apply to people with orthodos Christian beliefs:

Supreme Court Candidate Diane P. Wood—Part 5 [Ed Whelan]

I’ve just read two speeches turned into law-review articles by Judge Diane Wood, “Reflections on the Judicial Oath” (8 Green Bag 2d 177 (2005)) and “Our 18th Century Constitution in the 21st Century World (80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1079 (2005).) There is a lot wrong with both articles, but for now I’ll limit myself to a few points:

1. Wood gives no sign that she recognizes any meaningful bounds on the role of the Supreme Court. In her view, “the text of the Constitution tends to reflect broad principles, not specific prescriptions,” and “broad language may legitimately be interpreted broadly [by the Supreme Court], in a manner informed by evolving notions of a decent society.” (80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1098.) Among the matters that Wood doesn’t address is how it is that the Court has the authority to override democratic enactments based on its own reading of language whose meaning is, in relevant respects, indeterminate.

2. Wood believes that it’s proper for the Supreme Court to revise the meaning of constitutional provisions to reflect contemporary international and foreign practices. Commenting on the Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, she states that “the Court appropriately chose to enrich its understanding of the issue by reviewing international practice, acknowledging implicitly that the American people are indeed part of the broader human community and at least presumptively share its core values.” (80 N.Y.U. L. Rev. at 1101.)

3. Wood evidently believes that the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the Establishment Clause and that a Supreme Court ruling permitting that phrase would “announce that the United States is a nation that has adopted monotheism as its official state dogma.” But perhaps I’m misreading her opaque and seemingly incoherent text, so I set forth the full paragraph here:

Last [of three cases involving “displays of patriotism”] is Newdow, in which Mr. Newdow tried unsuccessfully to raise the question whether the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. The Court ducked the issue. Ordinarily, that would be the end of the matter for now. And perhaps it will be here too, assuming that the Congress does not pass the legislation that has cleared the House that would strip the Supreme Court of jurisdiction to hear any case involving the Pledge. No matter what happens, however, it seems clear that no amount of pressure will cause the Court to announce that the United States is a nation that has adopted monotheism as its official state dogma.

(8 Green Bag 2d at 181.)

4. Wood strongly signals, in her discussion of Loving v. Virginia, that she believes that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage: “The right not to have the State prescribe a set of acceptable spouses, in the absence of the kind of powerful reason it would have for incest laws or laws designed to protect children, is implicit in the concept of liberty.” (8 Green Bag 2d at 184.)

(For more on Wood, see my [Whelan's] Parts 1, 2, 3, and 4 and this post on Jeffrey Rosen’s praise for Wood.)

Steve adds: The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution, but at the very least, it informs us about the thinking of the Founding Fathers. In the Declaration, Jefferson says that we are "endowed by the Creator [singular] with certain inalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Jefferson certainly didn't believe that by saying so he was "establishing" a specific religious denomination's views (note to Judge Wood: monotheism is NOT a religion) as what she calls "the official state dogma."

For those still reading, I'd like to say one more thing. I'm sure Barack Obama, like many other liberals, believes Diane Wood is possessed of "intellectual firepower." In fact, as Ed Whelan observes, most of her thinking is incoherent and inflamed by political bias.

She has no business beingon the Supreme Court. She has no business being on the Court she currently serves. She's a simpleton.