Sonia Sotomayor’s absolutely revolting racism

Justice SotomayorYesterday, Sonia Sotomayor announced that she is absolutely horrified that the 14th Amendment can be used to prevent state government from engaging in race-based discrimination. Some may be a little confused by her argument, given that the 14th Amendment explicitly states that ” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In ordinary parlance, that means that all laws must apply equally to all American citizens, regardless of anything that distinguishes one citizen from another (such as race, color, creed, sex, etc.).

For sensible people who believe that all humans are created equal, the 14th Amendment is a good rule. But it’s not good enough for Ms. Sotomayor (and yes, I mean “Ms.” because, really, after what she just did, it seems so wrong to give her the honorific “justice”). What did Sotomayor do? She abandoned legal reasoning in favor of ill-informed, racist navel-gazing, and she used the most august court in the land for her platform in feminist, racist idiocy. (I say “feminist” because, even though the case was about race, Ms. Sotomayor promised from the beginning that, rather than following the law, she’d offer ruminations from a “wise Latina.” So all her stuff is a “girl thing,” you know?)

Anyway, in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Sonia (I’m so disgusted by her right now, I don’t even feel like using the generic honorific of “Ms”), wrote a 52 page pile of touchy feely goop about the fact that minorities are inferior beings. Moreover, she felt so strongly about innate minority inadequacies that she felt compelled to read all 52 pages from the bench — clearly, part of the punishment she wished to impose on dead, or still living, evil white males the world over.

I’m not trying to be mean, or anything, but the woman is a walking, talking argument against affirmative action, which advances women, minorities, and other non-white, non-straight, non-Asian, non-Jewish people simply because they weren’t born white, straight, Asian, or Jewish.   Here’s the heart of Sonia’s insanely racist (and non-legal, non-factual, highly navel-based) rant. Sonia starts by attacking the US’s bad history:

For much of its history, our Nation has denied to many of its citizens the right to participate meaningfully and equally in its politics. This is a history we strive to put behind us. But it is a history that still informs the society we live in, and so it is one we must address with candor. Because the political-process doctrine is best understood against the backdrop of this history, I will briefly trace its course.

She’s right, of course. Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, East Asian, etc., all faced horrific discrimination. Peculiarly enough, once the discrimination ended as to these disparate groups, all were able, without any further effort on the government’s part, to ascend to the halls of wealth and power. Sonny’s problem (yeah, I’m at the point where even calling her by the pretty name “Sonia” irks me) is that she firmly believes that what worked for every other minority — just to be left alone — won’t work for blacks and Hispanics.

Before Sonny gets to her conclusion that blacks and Hispanics are inherent deficient (her thoughts, not mine), she takes us on an endlessly boring journey of efforts to discriminate which have all been done away with. Even as she tries to paint America as racially evil, she inadvertently keeps pointing to its self-correct mechanisms.

I sort of fell asleep somewhere when reading her tripe, but when I awoke, I found her claiming that there’s nothing in the 14th amendment that prohibits discriminating on the basis of race, because America’s educational institutions are improved by racial discrimination. No, really. That’s what she said:

Rather, race-sensitive admissions policies further a compelling state interest in achieving a diverse student body precisely because they increase minority enrollment, which necessarily benefits minority groups. In other words, constitutionally permissible race-sensitive admissions policies can both serve the compelling interest of obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body, and inure to the benefit of racial minorities.

The above stunning quotation is followed by a lot more soporific stuff. Considering how plagued I am by insomnia, I really should have a copy of Sonny’s dissent by my bedside. It makes for exhausting reading. The only downside, of course, would be the inevitable nightmares flowing from her racially carved up universe.

So, anyway…. Blah, blah, blah. And then this, the moment at which she states that the only way to make effective the 14th Amendments constitutional guarantee not to discriminate is to . . . wait for it . . . discriminate:

That view [that the 14th amendment means that the law applies equally to everybody] drains the Fourteenth Amendment of one of its core teachings. Contrary to today’s decision, protecting the right to meaningful participation in the political process must mean more than simply removing barriers to participation. It must mean vigilantly policing the political process to ensure that the majority does not use other methods to prevent minority groups from partaking in that process on equal footing. Why?

Did she just end that deconstructionist, magical thinking rant by asking “Why?” Well, I’ve got the answer, so you can ignore Sonny’s new-Age, victim-based, PC bibble-babble version of an answer. The obvious reason Sonny believes that the government must discriminate, world without end, on behalf of blacks and Hispanics is that, in her mind, these two racial groups are congenitally incapable of partaking in the political process without Mommy and Daddy government holding their hands. Unlike all other minorities who pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps, her posse can’t do it. And if that isn’t the most vile racism you ever heard — a Supreme Court justice saying that blacks and Hispanics are defective and will always need government help just to get back — I don’t know what is.

I’m now bored with Sonny. Sonny is pathetically burdened by an unpleasant reality:  she got into college and law school and government work and the Supreme Court thanks to affirmative action.  She had neither the brains nor the self-discipline to make it on her own (unlike the legions of Jews, Italians, Irish, Asian, and East Asian immigrant kids who looked at their often squalid surroundings and made the decision to be the best and, without either government discrimination or aid, rose to the heights.  This painful knowledge goes some way to explaining her embarrassingly self-referential opinion. She knows that she’s inadequate and, rather than admitting to her own mental infirmities, makes herself feel better by telling the American people that all blacks and Hispanics are just as mentally deficient as she is.

Let me say this again: for every other group in America that suffered government sponsored discrimination, after the government stopped discriminating (either against or for them) that group was able to achieve social, economic, and political success within one generation. Sonny is too scared to give blacks and Hispanics that same chance. In order to justify in her own eyes the unfair advantage she got at every stage in her career, she wants to ensure that no black or Hispanic ever has to compete on a level playing field.

Part of Sonny’s decision is her racism, a disdain for blacks and Hispanics that would fit comfortably on a KKK Imperial Wizard’s lips. And the other part of it is her fear that, if they succeed, she’ll have to acknowledge the failure that lies under all the undeserved accolades and professional advancements that came her way.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. says

    As a non-lawyer, non law school grad, non Constitutional scholar that might be the worst drivel I have read. To be fair to Sotomayor her decision is better than Robert’s Obamacare decision (it’s a reasonable tax. It could be unreasonable in the future but I’ll pass the buck. What am I anyway? Chief Justice of The Supreme Court?).
    I could not believe it when I read it. She disagreed with the decision of the majority on affirmative action. Not normally a big deal but her real decision was to place affirmative action outside of legal limits. Whether you agree or disagree with a law is not the point of a judiciary. It is whether the application is harmful or illegal. If students were wronged by the application of affirmative action as a judge she can not say I want a blanket use of affirmative action…too bad, so sad. Your job is to make a legal point that someone was wronged  in their own view but the law in this case is applied such and such. I don’t think she was being ignorant or self-hating. I believe she willfully regards America as having blanket obligations to her and who she deems important. She has no problem assuming the role of a legislator. She just wants to do it in robes and have the last word.
    The same goes for Ruth Ginsburg. Ruth looks so dessicated now that I’m not sure she is responsible for what she does. Maybe we should add water and see if she reconstitutes into her real form.

  2. says

    See, the Conspiracy of Lawyers works this way.
     
    You get a lawyer, he gets 70-90% of lawsuit damages, and the victim gets what is left, minus legal expenses. Then when that lawyer wants to get promoted, they become a judge, and do the judging. Then when the law is not enough, they get on a different track, the political branch, where they get to write the laws.
     
    So lawyers, they interpret the laws, they determine what the laws apply to and when, and they write what the laws mean. Lawfare. Lawcracy. That’s America right there.

  3. Danny Lemieux says

    Sotomayor is so obviously unqualified for the Supreme Court, she is a walking poster child for everything that is wrong with affirmative action. 
    What is so absolutely disgusting is how unqualified she is next to legal heavyweights like Clarence Thomas (approved) and GW’s DC Court of Appeals nominee Miguel Estrada (rejected), both of whom were absolutely vilified as unqualified by the same Left that lauded Sotomayor. 

  4. JohnC says

    Sotomayor has said she believes she got into Princeton and Yale Law because of affirmative action, disclosing once that “my test scores were not comparable to that of my colleagues at Princeton or Yale.”
     
    So, she has basically admitted she has no business being where she is. But it’s cool because it’s recompense for some unknown past discrimination by whites against people who looked like her.

  5. lee says

    I’ve rather suspected that people who need all the extra breaks they could get, defend them vociferously–like So-so. And people who didn’t need them at all, and realize how damaging they can be, despise them–like Clarence Thomas.

  6. Caped Crusader says

    This entire civics panorama of civil rights, affirmative action, these rights, and those rights, and some other thought up rights, never has been, is not now, and never will be about a level playing field or equal access to participate in the American experience, but instead is to give any certain group who can think up any weird reason why they are aggrieved at the group as a whole, special rights, privileges, and guaranteed access now and forevermore to participate in anything they wish, anytime they desire, whether they are worthy of that right or not.

  7. Charles Martel says

    “If an infinite amount of monkeys given an infinite amount of time could produce Shakespeare one flying monkey could write a better opinion than Ruth Ginsberg.”
     
    I would give anything to watch that desiccated Marxist prune read what you wrote here, raymondjelli.

  8. Spartacus says

    Mrs. Bookworm:  Rejoice!
     
    Not to nitpick an otherwise lucid and entertaining post, but I do have one quibble, which should actually bring you joy and hope for the future.  The Supreme Court, with Ms. Sotomayor as poster child, has not reached a new low of racist bigotry; it has historically been a vile cesspool of racist bigotry, and actually may be on somewhat of an upward trajectory toward milder vileness.
     
    Historically:
    1) In Dred Scott v. Sanford, the Court returned Mr. Scott to slavery by declaring him an unperson, with no standing before the Court
    2) In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Court upheld Louisiana’s right to mandate segregation on private property
    3) In Korematsu v. United States, the Court yawned, rolled its eyes, and said, “Um, yeah… what-ever!” to the Fifth Amendment violations involved in FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans
     
    That tidy little list comes from Mark Levin’s Men In Black, but the real gems in that book concern the justices themselves.  Most are just well-documented cases of justices who lingered on the Court long after their cognitive abilities ceased lingering with them, but several were not so innocent, including:
    1) James McReynolds
    McReynolds, appointed by Woodrow Wilson in 1914, was a notorious anti-Semite.  He said he didn’t want the Court “plagued with another Jew.”  There is no official photograph for the Court for 1924 because McReynolds refused to stand next to Justice Lewis Brandeis, the Court’s first Jewish justice.  He would leave the room whenever Brandeis would speak in conference.  He was also openly hostile toward the second Jewish justice, Benjamin Cardozo.  “He often held a brief or record in front of his face when Cardozo delivered an opinion from the bench on opinion day.”
     
    A McReynolds law clerk, John Knox, also wrote that the justice disapproved of the fact that Knox had been polite to McReynolds’s African American servants, Harry and Mary.  McReynolds told him:
     
    I realize that you are a Northerner who has never been educated or reared in the South, but I want you to know that you are becoming much too friendly with Harry.  You seem to forget that he is a negro and you are a graduate of the Harvard Law School.  And yet for days now, it has been obvious to me that you are, well, treating Harry and Mary like equals.  Really, a law clerk to a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States should have some feeling about his position and not wish to associate with colored servants the way you are doing…  I do wish that you would think of my wishes in this matter in your future relations with darkies.
    2) Hugo Black.  Former KKK member appointed by FDR.  (Funny… I didn’t think the Klan would admit someone with the name “Black.”)
     
    You are absolutely correct about Ms. Sotomayor, her attitudes, and her abilities.  But rejoice!  There’s been worse!
     

    • says

      The Old South was controlled almost entirely socially, philosophically, morally, and economically by the Democrats.
       
      Nobody back then got a choice about what their beliefs were, since the tools needed to suppress an Eich or Condoleeza were a lot more powerful back then and effective.

          • Charles Martel says

            Ymarsakar, it is kind of pathetic. Whoever’s paying him should be aware that they’re getting an Asperger syndrome warrior.
             
            From Wiki, Zacky’s Bible: “Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development (emphasis mine).
             

  9. jj says

    Sotomayor is a horse’s ass of course, and a racist, but in this she does nothing more than follow the well-established path the Court has always taken.  Just to take the obvious specimen, she is far from being the racist that FDR appointee, former Imperial Grand Exalted Lizard Hugo L. Black was – and she has yet to do the damage he did.
     
    Black was appointed in 1937, just in time to join a Court that had suddenly found a new use for the Bill of Rights, and begun the wholesale disavowing of its own precedents by the shiny new process of ‘incorporation’ of the Constitution rather than ‘interpretation’ thereof.  The Court got into the business of ‘adjusting’ – one might say ‘ignoring’ the intent of the Framers.  They did this largely in reaction to FDR’s threat to pack the Court.
     
    The key case came in 1941, United States v. Darby which upheld the federal minimum wage.  In that one the Court offered up the claim that the Tenth Amendment “states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered.  There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the Amendment.”   The second sentence is true, as Edmund Randolph and the other Federalist leaders had vowed during the ratification  process that congress would have only the powers it was ‘expressly delegated,’ and the Tenth Amendment was only a restatement of this principle.  However – that did not and does not answer the objection that nowhere in the Constitution was congress ‘expressly delegated’ power  to undertake the extensive regulation of the economy – and ultimately, the way we’ve gone, of virtually every other conceivable area of human endeavor that the Court allowed it to take after 1937.  (Roberts would have been right at home on this Court.)  Put simply: just because the Tenth Amendment principle that virtually all power was reserved to the states was implicit and understood before the Tenth Amendment was adopted does not mean the Tenth Amendment principle should never be applied!  (Ho, ho, ho – and good luck with that one…)
     
    So, with the Court now having left the business of enforcing authentically Constitutional limitations on congress’s economic and social powers, and having overturned its own unconstitutional – though mostly socially desirable – limitations on state economic regulation, what was the Court to do with itself?  It would – and did – become the defender of the Bill of Rights provisions and protector of ‘discrete and insular’ (meaning racial, at that time) minorities.  In the old rulings that the Court disavowed beginning in 1937 it had created a doctrine – ‘freedom of contract’ – found nowhere in the Constitution, and it had cheerfully used that entirely spurious doctrine to justify invalidating just about any state policy the justices disliked.
     
    They did this via the new wholly spurious doctrine previously mentioned: ‘incorporation.’  It is unrelated to either the Constitution’s language or history, and exists to justify invalidating myriad types of state social policy.  What is it?  It’s nothing more than the Court’s subterfuge to get around the plain, simple, and obvious fact that the Bill of Rights was created for  no other purpose than to limit the powers of the federal government alone.  (Affirmed unanimously by the Marshall Court in 1883.)
     
    The 1883 decision (Barron v. Baltimore) was good law, according to incorporators, when the Fourteenth Amendment was allegedly ratified.  (Some question, there.)  The Fourteenth Amendment made the Bill of Rights (or at least the Court’s favorite bits thereof) enforceable by federal courts against the states.  Now, this was nuts on its face, and you might suppose that if a majority of justices set out to enforce something, like the Incorporation Doctrine, that children can plainly see is at odds with historical truth, they’d be laughed out of, as it were, court.  By the legal profession if no one else understood what just happened.  Ho, ho, ho – good luck with that one.
     
    And this brings us to former Imperial Grand Exalted Lizard Black, leading proponent of the Incorporation Doctrine by which the Court applied various provisions of the Bill of Rights against the states, impossible as that sounds, thereby turning the federal system created by the ratifiers of the Constitution and the Bill squarely on its head.  Upside-down.  Back-asswards.
     
    And what did he accomplish?  He fixed it so the Ku Klux Klan separated church from state.  In the 1940 case Cantwell v. Connecticut the Court took the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment and turned it squarely upside-down too.  The purpose of the Free Exercise clause was to keep the federal government from interfering in religious matters and laws in the states.  (Let us recall, as most of us don’t, that many of the states that ratified the Constitution had (gasp!) established official religions within their borders.  That particular bit of history isn’t much taught, these days.)  But now, using the handy Incorporation Doctrine and the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that by arresting Mr. Cantwell, Connecticut had violated his First Amendment rights.  And the Free Exercise became forevermore a vehicle for federal judges to stick their excessively long noses into overseeing state policies affecting religion!   Just as the Klan wished.
     
    How?  Imperial Granbd Exalted Lizard Black was a product of the 20th century Klan (born in 1886 he was only 14 when the century turned) and the 20th century Klan had added a few fillips to its traditional nineteenth century racism.  The 20th century Klan fully endorsed the nineteenth century racism, but added anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism to its repertoire as well.  The most important issue of the time for anti-Catholics was opposing any sort of support for parochial (meaning Catholic) schools.
     
    Black asserted that not only did the Establishment Clause apply to state and local governments (which it didn’t, but nobody ever said he was smart), but it also erected, in language found nowhere in the Constitution, the good old ‘wall of separation’ between church and state.  After several paragraphs of BS extolling the early settlers of this country escaping their bondage; transplanted practices of the old world; the history of revolutionary Virginia; the Anglican establishment therein; the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom; and some more horse manure, he concluded: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.'”
     
    Remarkable ignorance – which has not stopped it being quoted more endlessly than any other phrase in English.  Except maybe “Ow!  Gimme Novocaine!”  The First Amendment, as anyone who can read knows,  does not say that there shall be no establishment of religion IN THE STATES.  And the first congress pointedly rejected Madison’s proposal to address the establishment of religion.  (I’ll point it out a third time: several states had, when they ratified, established religions.  Nobody cared.)  The First Amendment is quite simple, and says what it says – no ‘penumbras,’ no ‘emanations,’ no funny smells from behind the outhouse.  It says congress will not establish a religion for the United States, nor will it interfere with the religious policy of individual states.  Period.
     
    And the broadest, most insane possible reading of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment can in no way be construed as inviting the Supreme Court, Imperial Grand Exalted Lizard Black, or the Klan to supervise the religious policies of states, counties, cities, towns, villages, or school boards.  Yet, thanks to the Ku Klux Klan’s influence on the Court, it’s done it time and time and time and time again – with full liberal approval.  Only most liberals have no idea where the non-existent ‘wall of separation’ came from, or the asshole who propounded it.
     
    So I’ll just say that compared to Black, and his deep hatred of everybody, Sotomayor’s an amateur.  An idiot, to be sure, and certainly someone who shouldn’t be allowed in the Court building: but a toddler in this field.
     

  10. Charles Martel says

    A masterful takedown, jj. I’d say, though, that even though Sotomayor is one clumsy toddler compared to the racist Black, a toddler in the right place at the right time can do some serious damage.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply