Stop White House Threats on Sotomayor Opponents

Is it possible? Are the White House and Mainstream Media issuing "veiled" warnings... telling conservatives to BACK OFF and SHUT UP or suffer the consequences when it comes to the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court?, in an article titled, "White House to Sonia Sotomayor critics: Be 'careful,'" made that implication:

"White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate."

The American Spectator, on its Internet blog, went even further in response to a story published by CNN, "GOP walks fine line in opposing Sotomayor."

"Meanwhile the network at the same time has issued an unveiled threat to Republicans that if they oppose Sotomayor, then CNN will target them."

President Obama has made it very clear that he wants to ramrod the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor through the Senate, and the White House is attempting to dismiss some of Judge Sotomayor's more controversial comments - saying she "misspoke" or is being taken "out of context."

But as Wendy Long with The Judicial Confirmation Network points out, that's simply not the case:

"The White House is actively trying to dismiss this body of extra-judicial writing, suggesting that the few quotes receiving the most publicity are isolated, off-hand remarks. But a full reading of her articles indicates that the most controversial of the quotes are not the product of inadvertence but represent a carefully crafted view of the courts as engines of social and political change - in short, wrought out of a devotion to judicial activism."

National Review's Rich Lowry apparently agrees and in an article titled, "How Sotomayor Misspoke," actually examines Judge Sotomayor's more controversial statements IN CONTEXT. While Lowry takes a rather tongue-in-cheek approach, it is clear that Sotomayor's more controversial statements are, in fact, TOTALLY IN CONTEXT.

Is it reasonable to demand that Senators actually fulfill their constitutional duty and give nominees to the High Court a complete and thoughtful examination? The answer is yes.

Is it reasonable to ask our Senators to say no if a nominee appears to be ill-suited to sit on the High Court (which is becoming more and more apparent in the case of Judge Sotomayor)? The answer is yes.

Should Senators allow themselves to be bullied and silenced by the Administration or a hostile media? I think not.

Yes, conservatives in the Senate CAN stop the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Contrary to what you may be hearing from the liberal media, stopping this nomination does not have to be a "long shot." It would only take a handful of Republicans who have the courage and the backbone to do the right thing.

But first, let's make one thing clear. Obama could have chosen any number of liberals to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the High Court. He could have chosen someone who, like Justice Souter, was simply left-of-center... a garden variety liberal... but he didn't.

Obama selected Judge Sotomayor because she's an extreme leftist... because he knows she will likely allow her liberal political biases to affect her decision making on the Court... because he knows she's already disposed to "legislate" a leftist agenda from the bench.

But more than that, Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor to send a message to conservatives in the Senate, and the subtext of the message could not be clearer: I dare you to do anything to oppose or stop this nomination.

And how conservatives react to Obama's nomination will set the tone for everything to come over the next four years. If Obama can place Judge Sotomayor on the Supreme Court for a lifetime appointment without too much resistance, he'll know that he can do anything.

If conservatives don't draw a line in the sand and take the fight to Obama over this nomination, Obama will know that he will be able to steamroll his extreme agenda of government-backed corporate takeovers, socialized health care, wealth redistribution and the advancement of so-called "social justice" down the throats of the American people virtually unopposed.

Conservatives in the Senate must be made to understand what is really at stake here. They must be made to understand exactly WHY they must fight.

And you can help us take that message to them right here and right now.

It Will Only Take Seven Republican Senators to Prevent Judicial Activism on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seven Republicans in the Senate -- if they have the guts to do the right thing -- can stop the Sotomayor confirmation dead in its tracks.

Senate Judiciary Committee Rule IV states, "... debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority." [Emphasis Mine]

That means if the seven senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn and Tom Coburn) stand together, they can prevent Judge Sotomayor's confirmation from being rammed though the Senate by the liberal majority.

If you believe the liberal media, Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is a done deal.

But nothing could be further from the truth. The confirmation needs at least one Republican vote to advance out of the Judiciary Committee.

Keep that simple point in mind as you watch these senators jockey and maneuver and pontificate and tell you that stopping this nomination is a "long shot."

You've already heard statements from Members of the Senate that they want to be "fair." And, the process should be. But in total and complete "fairness," there are already plenty of reasons why Judge Sotomayor should give us all pause.

And, while we are on the subject of "fairness," were liberals like Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy "fair" when it came to Judge Robert Bork or Justice Clarence Thomas? What about Miguel Estrada, whose confirmation was denied a fair up-or-down vote because "he is Latino?" Was that fair?

Of course not.

Judge Sotomayor... Judicial Activism is No Laughing Matter.

When Justice David Souter announced that he was retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term, President Obama didn't waste any time announcing to the American people just what type of person he was planning to nominate to the Court.

Obama told the American people that he considered "empathy" a prerequisite for his nominee. Let's be perfectly clear: "empathy" is nothing more than code for "judicial activism" -- the favoring of certain classes of litigants over others in the judicial decision-making process.

And, if Judge Sotomayor's public statements are any indication of how she will judge on the Supreme Court, it appears that President Obama has found his gal.

By now, you've probably seen videos of Judge Sotomayor saying that the appellate courts are where "policies are made."

Sotomajor went on to say:

"And I know -- I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know. O.K. I know. I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm -- you know."

But what no one seems to be pointing out is that Sotomayor was playing to this crowd of Duke University law students and moved them to laughter and as she concluded her statement, she smirked... she actually smirked.

That telling wink-wink-nudge-nudge moment, caught forever on video... her smirk... the laughter. Sotomayor is not just a left-wing activist judge who is willing to occasionally legislate from the bench.

She's proud of her judicial activism; so much so, that she wears it on her sleeve and has no problem yukking it up with young impressionable law students when discussing the matter -- even when the cameras are rolling.

Of course, Sotomayor's liberal defenders might say it was just nervous laughter but judicial activism is no laughing matter... not coming from a judge... not under any circumstances.

The law is supposed to be blind. Judges must be impartial in their decision-making in order for justice to prevail. The Courts are NOT where "policy is made."

If Judge Sotomayor wants to "make policy," then she should run for Congress, not serve a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

"Life Experiences" and "Racial Preferences" Have No Place On The Supreme Court.

What would you think if a white man, who let's say also happened to be a judge, said the following:

"I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not, reach a better conclusion than an Hispanic woman who hasn't lived that life."

If such a statement sounds racially insensitive to you, then how is Judge Sotomayor's statement at the University of California, Berkely in 2002 any different?

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

And that's not all. In 2002, Judge Sotomayor stated: "... I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

Isn't there supposed to be equal justice under the law? In a society that aspires to colorblindness and the rule of law rather than the rule of men, Judge Sotomayor's public statements are breathtaking and call into question her ability to apply the law impartially.

And consider that Sotomayor, in Ricci v. DeStefano upheld the policy of a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotion for firefighters.

In 2003, the City of New Haven, Connecticut implemented a policy whereby promotions within the fire department would be based primarily on the results of a written test. The City of New Haven even contracted an outside consulting firm to design a test that would be totally job-related (in other words, the city wanted to ensure its promotion practices were "race-neutral").

When no African-Americans scored high enough on the tests to be promoted, the city threw out the results of the test and denied Ricci and other firefighters their promotions.

And, as you may have guessed, Judge Sotomayor sided with the City of New Haven.

Judicial Corruption In The Name Of Enforced Diversity?

But there's a lot more to this story.

Apparently, Judge Sotomayor stands accused of engaging in some unsavory "shenanigans" on the Ricci case.

Ed Whelan with National Review Online sheds some further light on the decision:

"[T]he Second Circuit's narrow 7-6 denial of en banc rehearing in Ricci was accompanied by a remarkable dissent, written by Clinton appointee Jose Cabranes and joined by his five dissenting colleagues, that exposed some apparent shenanigans by the three panel members and the district judge. ... One of those panel members was Sonia Sotomayor."

Whelan continues:

"Judge Cabranes's account indicates that Sotomayor and her colleagues engaged in an extraordinary effort to bury the firefighters' claims: In a case in which the parties 'submitted briefs of eighty-six pages each and a six-volume joint appendix of over 1,800 pages,' in which two amicus briefs were filed, and in which oral argument 'lasted over an hour (an unusually long argument in the practice of our Circuit),' the panel 'affirmed the District Court's ruling in a summary order containing a single substantive paragraph' -- which gives the reader virtually no sense of what the case is about. Four months later, just three days before Cabranes issued his opinion (and in an apparent attempt to preempt it), 'the panel withdrew its summary order and published a per curiam opinion that contained the same operative text as the summary order, with the addition of a citation to the District Court's opinion in the Westlaw and LexisNexis databases.'"

Moreover, Judge Cabranes also accused Sotomayor of "ignoring the constitutional claims at the core of the case."

"Burying" a plaintiff's claims... "ignoring the constitutional claims"... issuing a "summary order containing a single substantive paragraph" ... ?

Does someone who stands accused of engaging in such an extraordinary level of judicial activism in disregard of clear precedent and stands accused of going to pains to cover it up, deserve to sit on the High Court?

Former presidential candidate, Gary Bauer perhaps said it best:

"The American people deserve to know whether once again we are putting someone on our highest court who thinks her job is to remake America to reflect her left-wing prejudices."

Yours In Freedom,

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

received by e-mail from
Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314

Thu, 4 Jun 2009 2:39 pm