Iowa Defense Alliance

An alliance of Iowans determined to defend traditional Iowa values.

Sonia Sotomayor:Unacceptable

judge-sonia-sotomayorAs many of you are no doubt aware, President Obama has made his choice for the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Souter. In July of 2007 at a Planned Parenthood gathering Obama indicated that when he was elected his Supreme Court nominees would be chosen by qualifications other than adherence to the Constitution of the United States. He claimed that he wanted Justices that were empathetic to the plight of single mothers, empathetic to the plight of minorities in America. This brings us to his first nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. American’s should rejoice the selection of a Latino woman for a position on the Supreme Court. But at the same time they should combat her potential confirmation with all their might.

There is plenty to fear if this woman is confirmed to fill Justice Souter’s vacated seat on the bench. According to the research conducted by Jeffrey Rosen for his article in The New Republic it would appear that there are quite a few of Judge Sotomayor’s colleagues that are critical of her judicial skills. For instance fellow Judge Jose Cabranes remarks about a ruling on a case in which Sotomayor took part in that the ruling makes “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” This should cause rational, intelligent human beings ask the question, if she didn’t rule on the issues relevant to the case what did she base her ruling on? Check out the article at The New Republic to see some of the other comments from her colleagues and clerks. I found it quite enlightening.

Furthermore comments made by Judge Sotomayor herself should constitute enough evidence to disqualify her from service on the United States Supreme Court. Most people have already heard or read this, but I feel that it is important enough to be reiterated. In a speech in 2001 at the University of California at Berkley Judge Sotomayor stated “I would hope that a wise Latina women with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male that hasn’t lived that life.” First of all, the nationality and gender of a judge should not affect his/her rulings. This comment made by Sotomayor indicates that she believes otherwise. Let me once again make this clear, the laws of our land do not change based on the justices gender or nationality. In addition to this her comments indicate that she believes that a Latino woman is superior to a white man. Clearly this belief paints her as not just a racist, but a sexist as well.

It should be fairly easy to defeat the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, but unfortunately there are too many Senators in Washington DC that let the party do the thinking for them. I am afraid that Sotomayor’s confirmation is all too likely to happen, but that doesn’t mean that we should not try. Contact your Senator’s to tell them that Judge Sotomayor is an unsatisfactory nominee for the Supreme Court. Tell them that you want Obama to appoint someone that understands the limits of the judicial branch of government.


May 30, 2009 - Posted by Al Bregar | Abregar, Politics | , , ,

16 Comments »

  1. Anyone can take part in this history in order to say NO to the Fascists, racists and the extremist…
    Thanks for the support and the solidarity from the members of the civil society.

    THE ART TO DISTRY A PERSON!

    Premised that Miss Rossi or Mr. Bianchi had both 27 years exactly as me in 1990 and was engaged for the affirmation of plans of their life like all the human beings after waiting or study years in order to find a job, but suddenly something gone rung, not for reasons of natural calamity, war, scarcity, political repression… like that happening to the refugees and the displeased ones that suddenly collapses the sky on them and lean and lose all! In this case the cause could be justified, but if

    Comment by lemin | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  2. I refuse to celebrate reverse racism. Someone should never be chosen for a job just because of their gender or race. People should be chosen because they are the best for the job not because they fill a quota of women or minorities.

    I bet there are many white males out there who can testify why someone not of their race or gender got a promotion over them. People should be rewarded on the job they do and not on how they were born.

    Comment by jamie | May 30, 2009 | Reply

  3. We poor white males have it tough, don’t we? We hardly get represented in the courts these days.

    Remember when the Repub Senator praised a Nixon nominee for the Supreme Court saying that mediocre folks deserved to be on the court, too?

    If there’s room for mediocrity in the form of white male nominee Harrold Carswell, there’s surely no reason to complain about Sotomayor.

    Comment by Jerry | May 31, 2009 | Reply

    • Jerry, You have a knack for twisting our comments. No where in this post is there an argument stating that white males are underrepresented. Instead the argument is that Sotomayor’s comments are indicative of an unacceptable mindset. Through her comments we can clearly surmise that Sotomayor believes that Latino women are superior to white males. This type of thinking is unacceptable regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity.

      Comment by abregar | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  4. See also–
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/31/rosen/index.html

    Rosen’s New Republic article was based on anonymous sources. Gossip.

    Comment by Jerry | May 31, 2009 | Reply

    • I will concede that some of the comments referenced by Rosen were from anonymous sources, but you discount the fact that just as many that were not anonymous. For instance as I pointed out in my post Sotomayors fellow judge, Jose Cabranes remarked about one of her rulings. And then there was another colleague of hers, Ralph Winters, that remarked about a misstatement of in one of her cases that may have misled people.

      The bottom line is that this woman is unacceptable for many legitimate reasons. To pretend otherwise is asinine.

      Comment by abregar | May 31, 2009 | Reply

  5. Once again you sure have a knack for trivializing the momentous and complicating the obvious Jerry. Do you think a wise Latina women with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male that hasn’t lived that life?I could say the same about a latina woman. But if i did then i would be racist. Reverse racism isn’t good either. For her to make that comment would depend on the case she is making a judgement on. A white male would have different views on different type of cases as well. It all depends on the type of case. Her comment that the courts are where policy is made. I thought the judges are to decide court cases based on the laws not make laws. And if the supreme court rules the law is unconstitutional then its up to congress to make a new laws. Hell if thats the case then we dont need congress around at all to make laws we will just have courts do it. I don’t think you would want courts making laws when you can’t be 100% unbiased and uninfluenced by activists or lobbyists.

    Comment by Woodrow | June 1, 2009 | Reply

    • Courts make laws all the time. It’s known as “case law.” Most of law school is about studying case law.

      Legislators write lots of bills badly. Many of them are near-idiots when it comes to scholarly pursuits like law. It’s inevitable that courts have to parse the language of the statute to make sense of it. In the process, the courts make law (policy).

      Other cases arise when laws have not yet been written but one party sues another. What’s a court to do? They decide the case and thus they make new case law.

      Comment by Jerry | June 1, 2009 | Reply

      • So, when Sotomayor admitted to Duke University during a speech that judges are unable to make law she was lying.

        Comment by Iowans Rock | June 1, 2009 | Reply

        • Why appeals courts actually do make policy:
          http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/01/sotomayor_was_right_appellate_judges_do_make_policy/?ref=fpd

          Comment by Jerry | June 2, 2009 | Reply

          • Nice article Jerry, but it doesn’t address what was being discussed on this thread. You stated that the courts can make law. IR brought up Sotomayor’s comment that courts cannot make law. She then asked if this made Sotomayor a liar to which you responded with an article about policy. Like I said a nicely written article but irrelevant to this thread.

            Comment by abregar | June 2, 2009 | Reply

  6. Didn’t President Bush attempt to appoint a Latino to a Federal Court and the Democrats shot him down because they didn’t want a Republican to appoint the first Latino?

    Comment by DannyBoy | June 1, 2009 | Reply

  7. Riddle me this Batman – if your house is on fire who do you want showing up to put it out, a white fireman who passed all the test in the firemans code or a hispanic or black fireman who got their job through affirmitive action. Remember sotomayor will be making these decisions.

    Comment by iowanforabetteriowa | June 2, 2009 | Reply

    • That will be good. Many voices make wise choices. We don’t want straight white men making all the decisions.

      Comment by Jerry | June 2, 2009 | Reply

      • I would rather have a straight white man making decisions based upon the law and the constitution than a Latino woman making decisions based on her “experiences.”

        Supreme Court Justices are supposed to make decisions based on existing law and the constitution, not their pasts.

        Comment by abregar | June 2, 2009 | Reply

      • So based on your comments here you are okay with racism as long as it is not being perpetrated by a white man.

        I will reiterate once again what you have failed to respond to. Racism is unacceptable regardless the source.

        Comment by abregar | June 2, 2009 | Reply


Leave a comment

« Previous | Next »