Share your Feelings on the Sotomayor Nomination
From Tracey Miller, our legislative action guru (Thank you, Tracey!):
Use the link to send an opinion piece to the major newspapers about the nomination of Sotomayor.
Organizing for America (BO’s site) asked all of its people to write letters of support for Sonia Sotmayor today. We must do our part to counter that effort.
To learn about Judge Sotomayor’s record and beliefs, click for
What Judge Sotomayor said about how her being a Latina woman will affect her decisions as a judge:
“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.”
Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!
She has gone even further to say, “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences… our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
These are actual quotes from Judge Sotomayor, spoken at a symposium sponsored by the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal in October 2001. And as if that wasn’t enough to prove her ethnic-based (and gender-based) bias on the bench, that’s not all she said:
“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions… enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”
Remember, this is the same woman who, when speaking at Duke Law School, made it clear that she believes it is a judge’s role to “legislate from the bench”: responding to a question on the pros and cons of different types of judicial clerkships, she stated that the court “is where policy is made!” She tried to correct her slip, by joking that “I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know, I know.” But, she already made herself clear: She believes JUDGES MAKE LAW!
In a 1996 article she co-wrote for the Suffolk University Law Review, she said,
“Our society would be strait-jacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions.“
It gets worse: According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of La Raza (“the Race”). The National Council of La Raza was the group that was willing to compromise our national security by promoting driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
As noted this week in The Hill, “these statements raise concerns about whether Sotomayor, who was raised under modest circumstances in the Bronx, would serve as a neutral arbiter in a case pitting a wealthy white male against a less wealthy man or woman of color.”
To understand the judicial temperament Judge Sotomayer would bring to the Supreme Court, just look at one of her most controversial decisions — Ricci v. DeStefano. Sotomayor approved of the city of New Haven’s racial quota system and its decision to deny 18 firefighters their earned promotions — based on their skin color. This even provoked her own colleague, Judge Jose Cabranes (a fellow Clinton appointee) to object to the issued opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case!”
When judges make decisions based not on the application of law but on their personal biases about an issue at hand, the independence and authority of the judiciary is compromised.
Concerns about Sotomayor’s activist view of the law grew so great that, despite the fact that President George H.W. Bush appointed her to the district court in 1991, 29 United States Senators voted against her nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.