Imagine that a (white male) nominee for the federal bench, under a Republican, were confronted with the following quote from his past:
"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."
To the nearest second, how long would that nominee’s judicial career last?
Then assume that the nominee had recently ruled that when a city refused to certify the results of a promotional exam – because all the top scoring applicants were black and that offended the city’s express desire for "diversity" in a heavily minority police department – since no one was hired, no one suffered a loss, and, hence, the black plaintiffs were not the victims of discrimination.
Oh, the outraged lecture appearing on BlueJersey!! Senators Leahy and Menendez fulminating at the unconscionably racist attitudes demonstrated by the nominee’s decision!! Senator Kennedy, dragged from his sickbed to repeat the calumnies he spewed against Robert Bork.
Then contemplate the ringing endorsement of Sonia Sotomayor from the salons of the Left and sigh: "empathy" ends when the victims are white males, and standards of discourse don’t apply to certifiable "minorities".
President Obama clearly applied affirmative action principles to this nomination, proposing to elevate a Hispanic woman to the high Court, based less upon her achievements than her identity. (If she were a he and his parents hailed from England, there exists precisely zero chance of a nomination) But, with Sotomayor, the President gets a threefer: a woman, a Hispanic, and a dedicated non-interpretivist, who considers adjudication politics by other means.
Her actual published statement reads:
"Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am . . . not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, . . . there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."
That paragraph, alone, suffices to preclude her service on a Municipal Court, let alone the highest Court in the land. The assertion that a judge’s ethnic identity, sex, or life experiences would affect her decisions is the complete antithesis of the rule of law this judge purports to support.
Demonstrating the Orwellian depths to which the Left has sunk in its never ending assault on the language, The Times writes:
"She has listened attentively to, and often ruled in favor of, people who have been discriminated against …"
Unless the folks who have been discriminated against happen to be white males, in which case Heronor’s vaunted "empathy" exits, stage left.
Of course, The Times’ patience for actual jurisprudence is remarkably thin. It follows its endorsement of this nomination with a condemnation of the California Supremes for that Court’s refusal to declare its own state’s constitution unconstitutional. Neither the mere language of the constitution, nor the unambiguous vote of the electorate, The Times huffs, should preclude the judiciary from arriving at politically-correct results.
The difficulty is that Judge Sotomayor apparently feels the same way.
We see the baleful results of judicial legislation every day, right here in NJ. Virtually all of our most serious economic problems – high taxes, idiotic land use, an ocean of debt – are the product, in whole or in part, of wholly inexcusable judicial decisions. Robinson and Abbott created a wholly fictitious right to "equal" educational spending, for students in a few judicially favored districts. As a result of Mount Laurel, our landscape features thousands of tasteful condo complexes on lands which once featured ugly forests, barren meadows, or smelly farms. Thirty years from now, our grandchildren will be paying off debts McGreevey unconstitutionally incurred, because the Court, despite declaring his budget illegal, gave him a mulligan: "You can violate the constitution just this once …" (Wink, wink, nod, nod)
Indeed, Democrats control the Legislature because the Court not only can’t read, it can’t count, ignoring the clear constitutional language against dividing municipalities into more than two legislative districts.
And we want to bring these judicial disasters to Washington … why?
The fundamental (judicial) difference between political conservatives and political liberals rests on the belief of the latter that only results matter and that the "right" result is that constitutionally compelled. So, if freely available abortion represents a desirable policy goal, it must, perforce, be constitutionally required. So, too, all the stirring oratory and lofty rhetoric about civil rights, equality, etc., gets shelved when those shafted because of skin color happen to be white males. Like their reaction to this nomination, leftist judicial analysis starts with reviewing the sex, ethnicity and race of the litigants. No white males need apply.
Were honesty or consistency traits to which the left attached any importance, this nomination would collapse in amid a shower of indignant outrage, voiced by precisely the same folks who praise it. Only a certified "minority" is permitted to hold obviously nonsensical, profoundly destructive views. As with all affirmative action hires, the standards applied to this nominee differ from those which apply to white males. Had a man of Irish ancestry asserted that his sex or ethnicity would color his decisions, he would be – promptly and properly – cashiered.
Justice O’Connor had it right. Anyone who permits something as irrelevant as her sex, ethnicity, or "empathy" to color her judicial decisions is patently unqualified to serve. Judge Sotomayor, apparently, not only fails to understand this basic concept, she unabashedly rejects it. In a better world, in which judges were chosen for their devotion to the law rather than based upon their stated desire to rewrite or ignore it, such a nomination would never be made and, if foolishly advanced, would be soundly rejected.