Sotomayor Speech Revelations No Surprise

I’ve received a lot of e-mails this morning regarding the widely-reported revelation that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor had repeated, on several occasions, her divisive statement regarding female Hispanic judges being able to come to better conclusions than their white male counterparts many different times, during many different speeches over the years.

Honestly, I’m not surprised at all that such news came out. In fact, while sitting in the airport en route to Chicago a week ago today, I wrote that I “would not be surprised if, in the coming days and weeks, we learned that the very same sentiment, if not the exact same statement, was repeated time and time again to many, many people.” Because I know people like her, and I see people like her every time I look at the First Family in the White House.

What concerns me is the phrase that begins an Associated Press report released yesterday evening about the files delivered to Capitol Hill:

Sonia Sotomayor told the Senate on Thursday that the White House never questioned her about cases or issues she might have to decide as a Supreme Court justice, a disclosure gleaned from reams of documents that reveal she has spoken repeatedly about how her gender and Latina heritage affect her judging.

Now, I know that prospective Supreme Court Justices are supposed to avoid confrontations or conversations with any and all elected officials about specific cases or issues pending before the Supreme Court, and report any such conversations which have taken place, but that the AP felt it necessary to put in such a statement anyway, I think, only underscores that Sonia Sotomayor has been chosen–and will be confirmed–for her perspective on diversity and race rather than her competence and demeanor on the bench.

I’ve said before, in the remarks following the America’s Right ‘Identity Politics Pop Quiz (have you taken it yet?), that Sotomayor was chosen by Obama because he sees himself and his wife in her, and knows how she will likely come down on the bench without even being able to ask. Incidentially, that’s why I also do not share the opinion put forth by Rush Limbaugh and some concerned liberals that she is actually a closet pro-lifer — if she were, knowing why the president selected her, she would not have been selected for the vacant seat.

Alas, even though her remarkable life story is a bit tainted by a chip on the shoulder, and even though it is increasingly obvious that she takes that chip with her to the bench, Sonia Sotomayor will likely be confirmed as an Associate Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. After all, when the Senate Majority Leader admits that he has neither read a single opinion nor does he plan to, it is apparent that, for the Democrats, selecting a candidate for a life term on the bench at the highest court on the land has less to do with judging, and more to do with diversity, political correctness, policy-making, and politics.



  1. sharon says:

    I have a feeling she will not get the nod from congress… just going out on a limb.. Who would be the next pick?

  2. Gail B says:

    What bothers me the most about Sotomayor is this, taken from a Human Events email newsletter:

    "President Obama's gun prohibitionist agenda has fallen on deaf ears on Capitol Hill," said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

    "But now he is picking judicial nominees that will almost certainly legislate from the bench," he continued. "Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has already ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. We've learned that Sotomayor's nomination is supported by ACORN, the publicly-funded anti-gun group that supported a Jersey City gun control ordinance that was struck down by the court. (End quote)


  3. thunderprince says:

    According to Andy Martin, Sotomayor is a deeply closeted lesbian. If this is the case then it needs to be made public because it brings with it a definite bias for gay marriage alongwith all her other bias'

  4. Anonymous says:

    Incidentially, that's why I also do not share the opinion put forth by Rush Limbaugh and some concerned liberals that she is actually a closet pro-lifer

    He doesn't believe it either. He's playing mind games.

  5. Anonymous says:

    The political tanks are rolling through the streets of America, just as Hitler's did in Germany in the '30's and the China's did in Bejing a few years ago when the protesters got out of control.

    But what to do about it? Are we as helpless as the one, lone, Chinese, protester clearly was in that now-famous photograph?

  6. Anonymous says:

    You are right, Anonymous, Rush is playing games…with the MSM hanging on his every word and running to report it before he gets off the air, he is trying to plant'doubt' in their minds. I agree with Jeff though, Obama knows where she stands. She is supposed to rule based on the law and justice is supposed to be blind so she should be a judge first and a Latina second…it should not matter what your background is…but, we are under the Obama law now so everything has 'changed'.

  7. Bodenzee says:

    Here's an excerpt from "The Snowe Report" that my RINO senator just sent:

    "Judge Sotomayor is being asked to serve for life on the highest Court in the land, with the ability to shape American society for decades to come. It is my job, as a U.S. Senator, to ensure that she – or anyone who is nominated to the Supreme Court – is properly qualified for this monumental task. I feel it extremely important that the Senate execute a thorough vetting of her record prior to a vote; failing to do so would be a disservice to our constitutional duties."

    Too bad she didn't feel as obligated to vet Obama.

  8. Rix says:

    Just how much clearer should I spell it? THEY DO NOT CARE WHAT WE THINK unless and until our opinions result in action that directly affects their well-being. Not tea parties. Not peaceful protests. Not blog rants. ACTIONS.

  9. Jeff Wahlen says:

    “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

    Now, Sonia, would she also reach a better conclusion than a black male who hasn't lived that life? Or a horse, donkey, or burro which hasn't lived that life?

    Not only is she a biased racist, but a sexist as well.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Now that we're placing such great value on "identity politics", starting with Obama, the bi-racial who is considered "black", and now a "Latina" Supreme Court justice, who will the next "first" be to overide all commonly acccepted criteria for qualification?

    Let's see; we need to run through the list of those who will bring the "richness' of their experience to the job of president and/or Supreme Court associate judge, which would, of necessity, include all of the here-to-fore unincluded genders, ethnic groups, sexual orientation, races, occupations, etc, etc. A few that come to mind might be:

    Native Americans
    Race car drivers
    Deep-sea divers
    NFL quarterbacks
    Great-grandfathers (that would be me)
    Oh, and let us not forget pimps and drug dealers.

    And on and on it goes. It may be a long time before a well-qualified white male of European descent ever makes another inaugural or acceptance speech in D.C.

    Old Bob

  11. Anonymous says:


    Before I get crucified for combining many worthy "identities" with totally unworthy ones in my random list, please note that I included myself in the list.

    I was just trying to say that there are a lot of categories of persons whose "life experiences" would bring some experiential "richness" (whatever that may mean") to the role and who are "underrepresented" in high political and judicial positions.

    No offense intended.

    Old Bob

  12. CAPTAIN ACTION says:

    I salute Rix!

Speak Your Mind