By Rick Saunders
Mr. Obama has nominated to the United States Supreme Court a judge from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Sonia Sotomayor, to replace the retiring Justice Souter.
Whew. Got through that sentence without incident . . . so far. Hope it passes muster with White House Press Secretary Gibbs and his boss, given the not-so-veiled journalistic fatwa that he issued the other day. You didn’t hear? Really? Yeah, when asked at his press conference by a reporter to comment on what former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had to say about Judge Sotomayor, Gibbs replied: “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”
This, of course, was told to a group of journalists already in the president and White House’s pocket. So, yeah, that should set the stage for a thorough and necessary examination of Sotomayor. Islamists have sharia law; Americans have Gibbslaw. All that was missing from Wednesday’s press briefing was a rock wall and AK-47 behind the podium.
That being said, let us review.
First, the caveat seems unambiguously calculated to intimidate anyone–from burger-flippers to U.S. Senators–who might be thinking of candidly addressing some of the more controversial aspects of Judge Sotomayor’s candidacy. Granted, Mr. Gingrich’s comments might be seen as being a mite “over the top”–suggesting that Judge Sotomayor was exhibiting the traits of a racist–but given some of her admitted statements about race and suggestions of the superiority of the reasoning of a “Latina woman” over that of a “white male,” some might be inclined to cut Newt some slack. But not Gibbs. And not New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, who said that Republicans should oppose Sotomayor “at their own risk.”
Second, the raw arrogance and fait accompli attitude of the Obama regime and its operatives has sprinted past outrageous and now romps around in the sublime. And it’s getting old. The warning issued by Gibbs didn’t even try to mask the charade now unfolding: the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, normally called to “advise and consent” on Supreme Court nominees, actually will mean nothing (other than, of course, giving lip service to that pesky requirement of the Constitution). Gibbs called it like it is: what is going on is an “impending confirmation,” not a hearing. C’mon, who’s kidding who here? Just like the Obama campaign was measuring the drapes for the Oval Office at the close of the summer of 2008, the White House is now likely measuring the robes for Sonia Sotomayor.
Now, perhaps what he meant to say was the “expected” confirmation. Given the penchant for the Democrat Obots in the Senate to simply “follow orders,” it seems highly likely. And, by the way, if you think that the Senate’s actions denying Obama funds (for now) to close Guantanamo was not orchestrated and choreographed like a segment of Dancing With the Stars, you should check the New York Times classifieds for ads offering the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
But I digress. In fact, the chances of Sotomayor not being confirmed appear to be, on a scale of one to ten, approximately Kelvin. She could proudly repeat to the Judiciary Committee that her opinions and views as a “Latina” (rhymes with “patina”) woman are superior to those of any and all white males (except maybe Joe Biden), including Justices Roberts, Scalia and Alito (it is unclear how she’d handle Thomas), and she would likely still get confirmed. Such is the building momentum of the train.
Why? Because what is happening is the political analogue of that really colloquial adage explaining the reason that a dog licks itself: because it can.
Under the Obama regime, it matters not if Sotomayor believed that public “policy” is made by judges rather than legislators. As long as she “really, really believed it . . . as part of her Latina heritage,” then that would be okay. Her explanation at the hearing, of course, will then likely be that she was “just kidding . . . sheesh, all you humorless Republicans should just lighten up . . . kick back . . . grab a cerveza.”
Nor would it matter that she is or was a member of the National Council of La Raza, an organization with links to the radical group Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan or “MEChA.” That outfit has, among other things, advocated for the recapture and secession of the better part of the American Southwest and its re-formation as “Aztlan,” the mythical homeland of the Aztecs. La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.” Heck, even the folks at ACORN might learn something from the organizers at NCLR.
In a prior post, the timeless quote from Lord Acton–appropriate again here–was cited: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” While that is the most frequently quoted portion of what was said, it is not the complete quote. The added observation Acton made, after the word “absolutely” is: “Great men are almost always bad men.” Add to that thought Arizona Sen. John McCain’s new favorite phrase, “elections have consequences,” and then think of what dogs do–because they can–and you’ll start getting the picture.
Rick Saunders is a freelance writer who splits his time between endeavors in southern California and the American southwest. He began writing for America’s Right in December 2008.