Sotomayor — Obama’s Nominee Spouts Biased Views on Race and Gender

By S.E. Cupp
Conservative Commentator/Author, “Why You’re Wrong About the Right”

There’s that ubiquitous word again — “historic.” It seems to follow Barack Obama wherever he goes…

After telling the world that he would choose someone with “empathy,” Obama has announced that Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman, is his choice to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. Women and Hispanics the nation over, rejoice. There may soon be someone on the bench who will put you first. Literally.


When a person suggests that white men are less qualified for a job than Latina women, we call that racism and sexism. Apparently Sotomayor – and President Obama – call that “empathy.”


Sorry, white guys. Ms. Sotomayor is, quite simply, not your gal. For one thing, she doesn’t think you’re anatomically or ethnically qualified to do her job as well as she is.

In 2001 she told a crowd at the University of California, Berkeley, “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 who hasn’t lived that life.” White guys, blame the ups and downs of the genetic lottery.

She also doesn’t think it’s possible – or even a valid exercise – to attempt to transcend race and gender as a judge. “I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.” If you thought electing Obama meant living in a post-race America, think again. And ladies, get those bras out – it is officially 1969.

Finally, she’s hoping women and minorities win more and more prestigious judicial appointments. As for the women and men of color already populating the benches around the country, she says, “Those figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.” Hit the back of the line, white guys.

But to all the forgotten, pasty, sun-deprived, uterus-less men of America, there’s good news yet. It’s not white guys that a worldview such as this hurts most –- it’s women and minorities.

What Sotomayor and other political activists are saying when they advocate for women and minorities to be placed in positions of power –- even if they’ve earned it, and especially if they’ve earned it –- is that gender and skin color are more important than intellect, compassion, reason and experience. This is the exact opposite of what we try to teach our children about the world.

Sotomayor worked her way out of the Bronx projects, past a diabetes diagnosis, and through Princeton and Yale to become the youngest judge in the Southern district of New York. And yet, the country shouldn’t aspire to put more candidates like that on the bench, but instead to appoint more women and minorities? What incentive, then, does a Hispanic woman have to even bother going to school, when the bona fides that matter most are the ones she’s born with?

Both the women’s liberation movement and the civil rights movement sought to transcend sexual and race politics. The idea was to stop judging people on the color of their skin, or their gender, and instead on their actions and their accomplishments. When Sotomayor or any other activist chooses to promote her gender or ethnicity as some kind of currency, it is telling the world that not only does her ethnicity and her gender make her different, but she thinks it actually makes her better.

The hypocrisy of liberal identity politics, of course, is evident any time an empty seat requires a political appointment. Obama’s vacancy meant, for the left, that a black candidate should fill his seat – and Roland Burris did. Hillary Clinton’s vacancy meant, for the left, that a woman should fill her seat – and Kirsten Gillibrand did. On the left, voters are told they should want someone who looks like they do to represent them.

But when conservatives, and particularly Christian conservatives, vote their faith – say, by electing George W. Bush or supporting Sarah Palin or Mike Huckabee – it is nothing less than bigotry, a lack of sophistication and, somehow, an injustice to the voting process. Voting on skin color or ethnicity is valid when there’s a “D” after the name, but voting on values is not if there’s an “R” after it.

Ms. Sotomayor has a reputation for being combative and temperamental, and has drawn criticism from her former clerks and colleagues. And Senate Republicans are sure to go after her liberal record. She’s hardly the kind of centrist or crowd-pleasing appointment that Obama has thus far seemed to prefer, a gesture that the far-left is sure to appreciate as a long-overdue acknowledgment of their existence. She is, in short, poised to bring President Obama the thing he is always least prepared for –- resistance — even if an eventual confirmation is a given.

Whether Sonia Sotomayor is “historic” or not shouldn’t really matter. Nor should her ethnicity or gender. When a person suggests that white men are less qualified for a job than Latina women, we call that racism and sexism. Apparently Sotomayor – and President Obama – call that “empathy.”

Well, well, well. So we have a Supreme Court nominee that has stated in speeches and decisions such things as, although the federal law may allow gun ownership, each state can legally undermine it and thus, over ruling the Constitution. Or, in a Duke University speech in 2005, “The court of appeals is where policy is made.”. As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court. Another interesting point is, “Sotomayor has a record of being rebuffed by the high court. Of the six decisions she was a part of that came before the high court, five were reversed. In the sixth, the court disagreed with Sotomayor’s reasoning.” Other interesting points are…….

— In one case reversed by the Supreme Court, Sotomayor and the majority on the appeals court ruled that an inmate could sue a private corporation for injuries he suffered in a halfway house run by that company. Though the company operated the house on behalf of the Bureau of Prisons, Sotomayor argued that the company was not shielded from liability. The Supreme Court reversed the appeals court decision in 2001.

— In another case, Sotomayor dissented in a 2006 opinion that rejected a challenge to a New York law denying convicted felons the right to vote. She argued in her own dissenting opinion that the state law “disqualifies a group of people from voting.”

— Sotomayor, in 2003, also wrote an opinion that reversed a district court decision that a Muslim inmate’s rights were not violated when he was denied a holiday feast. Sotomayor argued that the inmate’s First Amendment rights were violated because the feast was important to his religion.

— In 1999, Sotomayor dissented in a decision to dismiss a case in which a black student claimed his school discriminated against him by transferring him mid-year from first grade to kindergarten. Sotomayor argued that the “lone black child” in the class was not given an “equal chance.”

— In 2007, Sotomayor wrote an opinion holding that the Environmental Protection Agency could not perform a cost-benefit analysis to determine the “best technology available.” She wrote it could only consider cost as a factor in more limited ways. This decision, too, was overturned by the Supreme Court.

— In 1993, Sotomayor threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant — prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an “abomination” that the defendant did not deserve.

However, there are decisions that do not fit the mold that the above ones suggest. “

In 2002, she ruled against an abortion rights group that claimed the so-called “Mexico City Policy” — which prohibited U.S. funding from going to foreign groups performing or supporting abortion services — was a violation of the First Amendment and other rights.

The government is “free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position,” she held.

In another 2004 case, Sotomayor’s opinion ruled in favor of anti-abortion protesters who claimed a town had improperly trained officers who allegedly used excessive force in arresting them. Plus she has sided against minority plaintiffs who brought discrimination cases to her court.”

Thanks to Fox News for the quotes used in my response.

The most un-nerving part about this is the fact that race and gender DOES matter to the Left. In other words, the official Obama-Nation policy is…………..”White Males Need Not Apply”! Remember…..its all about gettin’ whitey back!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: