What’s her take on Cheerios?
Published 10:17 am Friday, May 29, 2009
Hear ye, hear ye. A Supreme Court nominee has been announced.
There’s nothing like a new Supreme Court nominee to dredge up the best or worst in us.
Advance now special interest groups pushing their agendas upon favorable rulings of their issues. If not the agreeable, then let the battle begin.
Aren’t these justices supposed to rule on the constitutionality of the law, and not personal agendas of self-interest groups? We would hope so.
The nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, a 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals judge, a 54-year-old Hispanic New Yorker who rose to prominence from the housing projects of the Bronx, is now in the hot box.
Has she paid all her taxes?
Did she hire a Hispanic maid to clean her house?
Does she owe any wage and hour taxes to the government?
No sooner had President Obama announced her nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy due to the scheduled retirement of Justice David Souter, than the pundits began dissecting her thoughts, her pronouncements and court rulings, and whether or not she enjoys Cheerios for breakfast.
Now get this. The first TV panel I witnesses on Wednesday night was dissecting comments she made at the University of California at Berkely law school several years ago. The pundits investigated the statement as possibly being “racist.”
Come on, I thought. Have we nothing better consider?
As Abe Cohen said long ago to Sen. Joseph McCarthy, “have you no decency, Senator. Haven’t you done enough?”
Here’s what she said that started the racists discussion, brought to the fore than none other than our own Georgian, Newt Gingrich.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
That is what she said. You decide. Is it racist?
Ole Newt brought it up, commenting, “New racism is no better than old racism.”
The panel fairly decided that it was a discussion without substance, and decided to move on to something more substantial.
Between now and the confirmation hearings, everyone’s agenda will be pushed against everyone else’s agenda. What really distressed me last week, was the possible name of another lady judge out West who was being considered.
Withing hours of the rumor, Web sites popped up from the fundamental right wing agendaites of our nation, publicly humiliating this lady with outrageous charges against her character and her court decisions, rulings that were so far out liberal, they said, that the poor lady might be considered a security risk.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, Republican from Alabama, and the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, which will hold the nomination hearings, said of the nomination, “We must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views.”
Researching Sen. Sessions viewpoints and his votes in the Senate, he has a 100 percent pro-life voting record. He voted “no” to expand research to more embroynic stem cell lines; he voted “no” on a $100 million appropriation to reduce teen pregnancy by education and contraceptions, he voted “yes” on banning partial birth abortions, “yes” on prohibiting teens from crossing state lines for an abortion.
One might assume that Sen. Sessions has a personal agenda due to his solid views on the abortion issue. Would he support the nominee if the nominee stated she would follow the rule of law on any abortion decision, rather than follow personal views of herself or anyone on the judiciary committee including Sen. Sessions.
It’s going to be interesting to see how this boils out.
To return to a more normal manner in selecting public officials, perhaps we should consider the popular election of Supreme Court justices.
Special interest groups then could buy their judges.