Not only did Sotomayor ignore the cast-iron cinch of an argument for the white firemen plaintiffs in Ricci v. DeStefano that came before her three-judge appeals panel, but with her two colleagues engaged in unethical deception, in seeking to “bury” the case with “a one-paragraph, unpublished, summary order with no mention of … the ‘questions of exceptional importance’ raised in the appeal,” in an attempt to hide this fundamental constitutional case from the Supreme Court. And they would have succeeded, had Judge Jose A. Cabranes, a colleague from the full Second Circuit, not publicly dissented.
Sotomayor has repeatedly lied, in insisting that it has been “proven” that all mental and professional tests—on which she admittedly performed mediocrely—are “culturally biased.” “… my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”
That would be an Asian cultural bias.
As Larry Auster and others have pointed out (from here to here), Sotomayor has also repeatedly engaged in deception during her sworn testimony before the Senate this week, in misrepresenting her repeated racist (“wise Latina woman”) and unethical statements (about making policy from the bench). All the training in the world from David Axelrod, et al., couldn’t help her there. What has saved her, however, has been the cowardice of the Living Dead Party. If there were any men left in the Senate, they would have announced that Sotomayor’s racism disqualified her from the bench.
Any judge worth his salt would be ashamed to use his ethnicity as a “qualification” for the bench, because it would be a confession that he was an unqualified, incompetent interpreter of the law. Yet Sotomayor revels in her ethnicity.
At every step of the way, Sotomayor has benefited not from her ability, but from affirmative action, in other words, from racism. Indeed, she has bragged, “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby.”
She has agitated for Hispanics’ “right” to be admitted to “highly selective” universities, despite demonstrably inferior test scores, and to be hired as professors despite a lack of scholarship, based on nothing more than their ethnicity, and for “Hispanic” litigants’ (who, since she assumes they do not know English, sounds like a euphemism for illegal aliens) “right” to have Hispanic judges preside over their court cases, i.e., take their side against non-Hispanics and American institutions. Thus would Sotomayor reduce all public life to a rigged ethnic spoils system, thereby throwing generations of valid mental and professional testing and scholarship, the merit principle, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and 1964 Civil Rights Act out the window.
Is there a single positive reason why this woman should be sitting on the bench in traffic court? To ask the question is to answer it.
But Sotomayor is not only unqualified to serve as a traffic court judge. As former U.S. attorney—but please don’t hold it against him—Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, Sotomayor is unqualified even to serve as a juror in the lowest level court.
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.
McCarthy then asks,
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?
Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
For what job, then, is this self-proclaimed “wise Latina woman” qualified? If she were a man with a strong back, I’d say digging ditches. But that’s not an option, though it would be fit punishment.
What do we do with racist, treasonous, incompetent “persons of color” who are good for nothing? Why, we make them President!
Award-winning, New York-based freelancer Nicholas Stix founded A Different Drummer magazine (1989-93). Stix has written for Die Suedwest Presse, New York Daily News, New York Post, Newsday, Middle American News, Toogood Reports, Insight, Chronicles, the American Enterprise, Campus Reports, VDARE, the Weekly Standard, Front Page Magazine, Ideas on Liberty, National Review Online and the Illinois Leader. His column also appears at Men's News Daily, MichNews, Intellectual Conservative, Enter Stage Right and OpinioNet. Stix has studied at colleges and universities on two continents, and earned a couple of sheepskins, but he asks that the reader not hold that against him. His day jobs have included washing pots, building Daimler-Benzes on the assembly-line, tackling shoplifters and teaching college, but his favorite job was changing his son's diapers.