Sotomayor Pt. 3: Joe Biden screws up by telling the truth....

There is only one cardinal sin in American politics - NEVER ACCIDENTALLY TELL THE TRUTH.

Joe Biden does not understand this concept - to the benefit of the American people and the U.S. Constitution:

Vice President Joe Biden may have crossed the line when he assured national law enforcement groups Monday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor "has your back."

The remark quickly stirred criticism in the legal world, since Biden was making a pledge that a fair and objective justice would not necessarily be able to keep.

Biden made the remark at an assembly of eight law enforcement groups after he detailed Sotomayor's tough-on-crime record in the courtroom.

"There's a part of her record that seems to be, up to now, been flying under the radar a bit. And that's her tough stance on criminals and her unyielding commitment to finding justice for the victims of crime," Biden said.

He then repeatedly said, "She gets it," and sought to assure the law enforcement groups that she would be on their side.

"So you all are on the front lines. But as you do your job, know that Judge Sotomayor has your back as well," Biden said. "And throughout this nomination process, I know you'll have her back."

Yes, she will have your back - even if you beat up a stranded motorists and a jury finds you negligent.

As I said before, Sotomayor is not a liberal. Sotomayor is a center-left statist.

A liberal, like judge Souter, at least believes that individuals deserve protection from abusive police tactics, although he does not believe that they should be protected from local governments run amuck.

In any case, I'm glad Joe Biden is telling us the truth about Sotomayor.

Sotomayor Pt.2: Destroying the Bill of Rights One Decision At a Time

In a previous post, I explained that Judge Sotomayor is a statist who does not believe in the existence of individual or natural rights.

Today in the Atlantic we find more evidence that Sotomayor is in favor of, not states' rights, but the States's Rights - meaning the right of government to repress dissent.

For example, Sotomayor opposes people speaking out against corrupt government officials or speaking in favor of opposition candidates. She also favors abusive police tactics, presumably so long as they do not disenfranchise any politically correct interest groups.

A very smart young senator once gave a powerful speech opposing the appointment of a justice who used "formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak."

The senator's point is good one; we should be weary of those who seem to consitstently back the strong against the weak. For example, we should be weary of a judge who opposes both the 1st and 2nd amendments, sides with corrupt school administrators and favors police officers who beat up on stranded motorists.

It's too bad that that idealistic young senator didn't hold such a high standard when it came time for him to make an appointment to the bench.

Sotomayor: Voted Change, Got More of Same.....

Let me start out by saying that I do not believe that Judge Sotomayor is a racist.

I also do not believe she is an impressive pick by Obama.

Barrack Obama was elected to bring Change. Sotomayor does not represent Change - she represents more of the same statist, center-left identity politics that we've been dealing with in America for the past 60 years.

Like most center-left statists*, Sotomayor does not believe in individual rights. In Sotomayor's America, rights belong to politically constructed groups rather than to individuals. Had Obama wished to bring about Change, he would have nominated a justice who believed that the law should treat each person as an individual, as opposed to viewing each person only as a cog in the wheel of a politically correct interest group. For example, had Obama wished to create Change, he might have done what George W. Bush did - appoint a justice who believes that the Constitution protects the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority and the caprice of oppressive local governments.

Unsurprising, Sotomayor does not care when citizens have their rights violated by the state, so long as it is done in a politically correct manner - which is to say so long as the status quo which has existed since the Johnson administration is preserved.

Also, had Obama wished to bring about Change, he might have considered someone who holds 21st century views on affirmative action. After all, the President has professed a belief in a 21st century view of affirmative action:

In an interview last May on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos, he was asked whether his own daughters should someday receive preferences in college admissions. His response was unexpected: "I think that my daughters should probably be treated by any admissions officer as folks who are pretty advantaged." He added, "I think that we should take into account white kids who have been disadvantaged and have grown up in poverty and shown themselves to have what it takes to succeed."

But rather than go for Change, Obama decided to pick someone who holds a very mid 20th century view of affirmative action. I would imagine that Sotomayor types her opinions on an electric typewriter rather than using MS Office, because all her other beliefs and habits appear to be stuck somewhere around 1965.

The unfortunate reality is that Sotomayor will be confirmed by the Senate. Crazy justices were just one of the reasons that I qualified my endorsement of Obama for president by recommending people vote for Republicans in the House and Senate. I continue to hope we get a divided government soon. In the meantime, I endorse Charles Krauthammer's suggestion that:

When the hearings begin, Republicans should call Frank Ricci as their first witness. Democrats want justice rooted in empathy? Let Ricci tell his story and let the American people judge whether his promotion should have been denied because of his skin color in a procedure Sotomayor joined in calling "facially race-neutral."

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Vote Democratic and you get mainstream liberalism: A judicially mandated racial spoils system and a jurisprudence of empathy that hinges on which litigant is less "advantaged."

A teaching moment, as liberals like to say. Clarifying and politically potent. Seize it.

* Sotomayor is NOT a liberal. To be liberal is to believe in liberty - Sotomayor does NOT believe in liberty - she believes in the preservation of status quo that has existed since the 1960s.