Obama’s inevitable hypocrisy on Justice Sotomayor

Flashback a few years ago to the Justice Alito and Justice Roberts confirmation discussions and you’ll see where this is going. Seems that way back when, then-Senator Obama argued that though Justice Alito has impeccable credentials, he’s voting against him anyway, the same with Justice Roberts. Furthermore, Senator Obama supported blocking Justice Alito from confirmation.

The Associated Report highlighted this hypocrisy:

With the Senate returning next week from recess, Obama said he hopes it begins the confirmation process without delay and he expects his nominee to be on the bench when the Supreme Court begins its new term in October.

In the interim, Obama said he expects “rigorous evaluation” of his nominee but added: “What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past.”

Funny, Obama didn’t have a problem with the “ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process” back when he supported blocking Justice Alito:

As a senator, Obama supported a failed attempt by Democrats to stall President George W. Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court.

Chicago Tribune also reported from 2006:

Jan. 30–WASHINGTON — Sen. Barack Obama said he would vote Monday to filibuster Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, but he conceded the effort would be futile and criticized Democrats for failing to persuade Americans to take notice of the court’s changing ideological face.

Then again, this is what we should come to expect from the left. Their terribly extreme, activist Judges are “mainstream” while constructionist judges who believe in the rule of law, like Roberts and Alito, are “extremists.” I thought the law was supposed to judge cases based on the written law, not based on the justice’s upbringing and Latino heritage.

Come to think about it, I don’t remember Alito or Roberts stating that they, as white men, would make better decisions than a Latina woman due to their upbringing.

In fact, what disgusts me about Justice Sotomayor is not her politics, nor is it even her racially motivated statements. What disgusts me about Sotomayor is her blatant disregard for the role of the federal judiciary. She doesn’t believe the legislature makes the laws, she believes the courts should. She is the very type of judicial activism we should keep off the court, at any level. Many judges will not admit it, they will just practice it when given the opportunity.

Then comes Sotomayor who not only practices it, she declares it as fact.

That is particularly troubling to me that she believes the law derives from the unelected courts. I will await the real “explanation” of these statements as I’m sure she was just drunk at the time or was misquoted, taken out of context or we just don’t understand what she means. She couldn’t possibly be mean exactly what she said, now could she?

So tell me, President Obama, why was it OK to use “ideological brinksmanship” trying to block Justice Alito, who made no racially-motivated statements, but now we’re supposed to ask no questions and simply accept your flawed nominee?


Seems that Sotomayor’s chip on her shoulder wasn’t a one time deal, as Greg Sargent reports:

I’ve just obtained a speech that Sonia Sotomayor gave in 1994, in which she made a comment virtually identical to the “wise Latina” one from 2001 that has generated so much controversy.

And though the 1994 speech was disclosed to Republican Senators as part of her confirmation for Court of Appeals in 1998, there’s no sign that anyone objected to it in any way.

The revelation raises fresh questions as to why the 2001 comments generated the controversy they did, and suggests that the comments are not as controversial as her critics claim.

A copy of the 1994 speech was included with the questionnaire she submitted for the 1998 confirmation. A Sotomayor supporter sent both to me.

Here’s what she said in the 1994 speech:

“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

That’s virtually identical to the comments from 2001 that have generated days and days of controversy.

Hmmm… Seems Sotomayor has a history of poorly choosing her words to put forth the notion that she, as a woman and/or a Latina woman, will inevitably make “wiser” decisions than a man and/or white man.