Obama 's Historic Supreme Court Nominee: A racially biased woman on a mission

Once again, our wise and elegant president has made history. One May 1, 2009, Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced his retirement from the post after nearly 19 years of service. When Justice Souter leaves the court at the end of this term, it will be President Obama's job to fill the seat and he has already taken the first step in doing so. Today, the president announced his nomination for the successor to the open seat, Sonia Sotomayor. If confirmed by the Senate, Sotomayor will be the first Latina and the third woman to serve on the Supreme Court.

In the increasingly PC (politically correct) United States, its almost like we have to promote minorities on the basis of racial and gender equality alone. What happened to the true equality of opportunity? The equality my father meant when he said, "When you grow up, if you work hard enough, you can be whatever you want," no longer exists. Sotomayor once said, “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.” If you cannot see the blatant racism in that statement, you are looking through a prism more clouded than Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman” glasses.

Now before you go off and call me a racist for objecting to the nomination of the first Latina Supreme Court justice, you have to look at the record of Judge Sotomayor. As a judge on the second circuit court of appeals, Sotomayor has taken several stances that could easily be considered racially motivated.

In one case, Ricci v. DeStefano, a group of firefighters were suing for reverse racial discrimination. The city announced months in advance that they would give a test and the highest scorers would receive a substantial raise. When the results were tallied the city decided to throw out the test because "too many whites" were in the top scoring bracket and the group of firefighters who would receive the raises were not racially diverse enough. Because of this, they city decided that nobody would receive the performance based raise. As you can imagine, the firefighters hired an attorney and sued the city. As a high profile case, it eventually landed in front of Judge Sotomayor herself. Instead of hearing the case, and making a ruling, she merely dismissed it. In response to Sotomayor's lack of respect for true equality, another judge on the court of appeals wrote:

"This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
-Judge Jose Cabranes

This case has since been picked up by the U.S. Supreme Court and is expecting a ruling by the end of June. Based on Sotomayor's past actions though, there is no doubt that she would not see any importance in even looking into this case.

This is not an isolated incident either. Since being a member of the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 6 of Sotomayor's rulings have gone on to the Supreme Court. Of the six, five of her decisions were overturned. In the sixth case, the courts strongly disagreed with Sotomayor's reasoning. Is this really the best choice for the open Justice seat?

The answer is easy. No, Sonia Sotomayor is in no way the best choice to take over for David Souter. Any reasonable human being who values the liberties America was founded one would argue that the best man for the job should get the job, especially when dealing with the highest court in the United States department of Justice. I feel that the President has severely dropped the ball on this rare opportunity he has to nominate his first Supreme Court Justice.

While I think the President has made a horrible mistake, he thinks he has not. In fact, Obama may have just killed 3 or 4 birds with one stone. Not only has he taken the first steps towards filling the seat, but he has also thrown a bone to the Hispanic community, the women of the country, and the hardcore progressives who are trying to drag him even further to the left. I can just see it now, “This should get George Sorros and Keith Olberman to shut up for a while.”

The one thing you cannot argue is that President Obama has a monumentally flawed view of the role a Supreme Court Justice. When asked about his idea of a nominee earlier in the month, the President said this:

"I’m looking for someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or a footnote in a case book. It is about how our laws affect the daily realities in people’s lives. I hope [they] will see the quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles is an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Empathy? Hopes and Struggles?

Since when did our laws have an empathy clause? In short, they never have and they never should. The founding fathers would have never wanted such a thing, and I’m sure if every American knew what this actually meant, the country as a whole would object to it as well.

Empathy should have no place in the Supreme Court as a tool to define a case or make a ruling. After all, how would you feel if you were the victim of a crime, yet the judge sided with the defendant based on the allegation that the defendant had lived a rough life?

Every Supreme Court Justice must take the oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Not only does the oath neglect to mention being sympathetic, but It actually hold the Justice to a promise of “[administering] justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich.” Taken directly from the oath, how can Obama make a call to show empathy for ones hopes and struggles? You can guarantee that if I get a DUI, I would “hope” to get off with a warning, but does that make it the proper course of action? If I were a minority, Sonia Sotomayor might argue yes.

Finally, I would like to redirect you to the picture of the statue at the top which is the symbol of the U.S. Supreme Court. When you first looked at the picture, there is a good chance you overlooked one of the most important details of the statue. That important detail is that the female statue is wearing a blindfold across her eyes to symbolize the importance of equality in justice no matter who the issue involves. It doesn’t matter if you are black or white, male or female, equality granted by the constitution is guaranteed for all. Justice is, and should be, blind to race ethnicity and gender. If the Senate confirms Obama’s nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, they should also commission a sculptor to chip away the statue’s blindfold and replace it with wide eyes.