Sotomayor and the White House’s ‘Journalistic Fatwa’

By Rick Saunders
America’s Right

Where to start? Must measure the words carefully . . . exceedingly carefully . . . definitely, definitely very carefully. Here goes:

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.



  1. Linda says:

    This is so sickening . . . obviously more railroading in the making. Despite her judicial record, this woman is no more fit to be a Supreme Court Justice than my dog. Can’t wait to see her repeat the oath of office with her fingers crossed as she does so because the oath is diametrically opposed to not only her beliefs, but also her past actions.

    More despicable (yet obvious) wool being pulled over the American public’s eyes to advance an agenda.

  2. Gail B says:

    It just surprises me that Obama(?) didn’t appoint the head of ACORN as Secretary of the Interior.

    Sotomayor is really the last person — well, maybe next-to-the-last person — that I would liked to have seen appointed for one of the highest judicial positions in the land. I mean, wouldn’t one EXPECT to see a person of intense judicial experience and RESPECT FOR THE CONSTITUTION be named?

    She’s probably in by a liberal landslide, but at least the population will know what she is.

    Loved Michelle Malkin’s comment: Something to the effect that, if you took a shot of whiskey every time you heard someone say “her life story,” you’d be out by lunchtime!

    Life story has nothing to do with qualifications. It has to do with whether one will uphold and defend the Constitution.

  3. Gail B says:

    Just where does Gibbs get off saying, “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.”?

    Who is he to “think?”
    “Exceedingly careful” or _what_, exactly?

    What happened to “freedom of speech?”

    Verify: lygarb (lying in garbage?)

  4. Dee says:

    Gail I totally agree, however, it appears that with this administration the Constitution if nothing more than scratch paper or to be more blunt, toilet paper. How many more days do we have to put up with this?

  5. sharon says:

    I find it so sad that the republicans on the hill are falling into the trap of labeling people and grouping people – hence “the republicans are going to lose the hispanic voter” that is what democrats do, and the republicans are falling for this BS…

  6. Anonymous says:

    Has anybody noticed that we have an awful lot of wackos running countries these days – either the dangerously delusional type like we have or others who appear to be tossing around nuclear bombs and missiles like some kind of play toys?

    What conservatives ought to introduce to the public is the question of why Democrats only like particular Hispanics – why only Puerto Rican and not the others who have been nominated who weren’t Puerto Rican and who were hammered in a “not so empathetic” way? And just see how united the Hispanic vote really is!

  7. T.I.M. says:

    Looks like the White House will need one more prop for press conferences. Along with the Tele-Prompter, they need full access to a reversible bicycle.

  8. Anonymous says:

    The Constitution means nothing to Obama and his regime. It is just another portion of America that he is redefining. This man and his cronies is a menace and disgrace. We need to oust them all!!

  9. Wayne_from_Jeremiah_Films says:

    I wonder if somebody is going to write a book with some title like “the hunting of a president” about blogs and the current administration.

    I’ve linked to your post with your careful selection of words from Fisking the White House Blog. If I recall my lessons correctly David won.


    Guess it would be too much to ask to put a HOT Latina in the office.

Speak Your Mind