May 27, 2009
Nominee: Bully On The Bench
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's nominee for US Supreme Court is described by Law Clerks on the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals as being "not so smart" and is "a bully on the bench" according to people who have worked with her.One former Second Circuit clerk for another judge went so far as to say "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue."During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?"Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees. It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor, several former clerks complained, rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.Competent but overtly racist and decidedly activistSome former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court.The City of New Haven, CT - a cesspool of politically-correct elected officials who are, collectively, Traitors to America and who deserve to be assassinated -- administered a written test for promotions in the City Fire Department.When the test results came back, only White firefighters passed the test; Blacks and Hispanics all failed. The Blacks and Hispanics threw a temper tantrum and the politically-correct charlatans on the City Council THREW OUT the test results!The White firefighters who passed, sued for reverse discrimination. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion.This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee on the Second Circuit, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." (The extent of Sotomayor's involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, as an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.”In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.“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 . . . . ."Her remarks, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, were not the only instance in which she has publicly described her view of judging.This month, for example, a video surfaced of Judge Sotomayor asserting in 2005 that a “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds: “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.”Judge Sotomayor has given several speeches about the importance of diversity. But her 2001 remarks at Berkeley, which were published by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, went further, asserting that judges’ identities will affect legal outcomes.“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”Her remarks came in the context of reflecting her own life experiences as a Hispanic female judge and on how the increasing diversity on the federal bench “will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.COMMENTARY: This woman is absolutely unqualified to be on the bench in any capacity, never mind the U.S. Supreme Court. Her own law clerks say she isn't smart enough, she cannot delve into the issues of cases. Her own Judicial Colleagues have to tell her to shut up and let the lawyers argue a case. She makes no secret of the fact that she feels courts are where policy is made rather than by elected Legislatures and, she overtly claims that her gender and race causes her to come to different legal conclusions.For years, I have stated on my radio show that the reason Third World countries remain that way is because the occupants of those countries are genetically incapable of doing better. For that, I have been slammed as a racist.This Judge now admits that her race will affect the way she Judges things and will affect the development of the law. This absolutely confirms in every regard, my assessment about genetic capability for which I have been vilified.If we allow Third-World Judges to interpret our First (New) World ideals, America will devolve into a third world country just like the cesspools that heathen such a Sotomayor came from.