You have mis-represented Judge Sotomayor's and President Obama's meaning of empathy. It is not a bias against the rule of law, or the Constitution. Empathy does not equate to "lawlessness" as you state. Empathy informs not direct the litigator/judge in deciding cases. Again, you attempt to instill fear rather than fact into the issue. The fact that Judge Sotomayor was nominated by Geo. H.W. Bush and confirmed, and nominated, confirmed and promoted by Pres. Clinton highlights the bi-partisan nature of this nominee. She is more qualified (by way of a varied experience) than any currently on the Supreme Court at their nomination. Since the Senate votes are there for her confirmation, I would be interested on how you will attempt to derail Judge Sotomayor. Will you assault her ethnicity, gender, background, statements taken out of context? You will, this I am sure, aid and abet the Republican/conservative party in becoming more marginalized than it already is. You will open the door wider for Republican moderates to leave, alianate more Independents, and ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans). You will assure the demise of the Republican/conservative party in America.
Your statement does not address the issue of her political leanings and how they have effected her rulings. I do not care about gender, ethnicity, or any other physical factors. I am interested in her rulings. That the first President Bush nominated her is almost irrelevent because she could be overturned on appeal. As a member of the Supreme Court, she cannot be overturned. I do not think she will make a very good Justice, but I am very willing to hear her explanations of some of her rulings and public statements. Additionally, she should be given all the attention that someone like Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas got when they were nominated to the Supreme Court.
Affirmative Action is what it is....RACISM. Bottom line is she shouldnt even be where she is today. She didnt meet the standards then and she doesnt meet the standards now. AA only puts unqualified people in positions they have no business being in.
wow. that guy who made the second comment down, really knows to make a point, really has a firm command of the language, and knows how to put someone in their place. Makes me shake just reading it.
First off, I greatly appreciate what your organization does. I just wanted to throw that out there since this is my first comment.
Now, about Judge Sotomayor;
Her speech today clarified her own position and I think spoke a lot of her beliefs. She's a firm believer in the Constitution and in the guidance of the founding fathers.
On CSPAN a few days ago, they were discussing possible nominations, and this issue came up. That it's the LAW that should matter, and not a person's feelings.
The person being interviewed, as well as myself, believe The President's intention with the statement on empathy is being taken out of context by many Republicans, as well as I see by the head of this organization.
The entire process and purpose of judges is their interpretation of the law and how they see the world and the people in front of them, as they pertain to the legal matter at hand.
An excellent example was how in a previous Supreme Court hearing, people were looking at things one way, but then the female Justice spoke up and put the situation in a scenario dealing with a pregnant woman, something that the others had not thought of. It was by that EMPATHY in which the Justice was able to search her own experiences and beliefs and thoughts, to bring out an example which made the others realize the issue they were talking about WAS in fact illegal.
That is what he meant by EMPATHY. Being able to look not just through a cookie cutter that others look through, but how the law deals with ALL TYPES of people, not just a few.
"Empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
"Bias: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
"Or: used to connect alternative terms for the same thing."
As Mr. Fitton has used it, the conjunction "or" between "empathy" and "bias" suggests these words have the same meaning. Obviously, they do not. Most humans -- even judges -- have the capacity for empathy. In fact, those who lack empathy are by definition mentally ill, e.g. psychopaths, people with narcissistic personality disorders, etc.
So, either Judicial Watch believes the country would be best served by Supreme Court justices who are psychopaths OR Mr. Fitton's statement is specious (in this case "or" is used to "connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives"). The latter seems more likely as whoever wrote Mr. Fitton's statement was clever enough to use "color" in the sense of "bias," and evoke the specter of racial politics in the U.S. Supreme Court without stating it explicitly.
Tue, 05/26/2009 - 2:03pm — James Martello, Jr. (not verified)
This woman doesn't even rise to the level of a Souter, and that is about as poor a choice as it comes.
Democrats are raving over the fact that she had support from George H.W. Bush. Considering his other appointments, is that really a plus?
Now that we know President Obama wants a SCOTUS who will have empathy when judging from the bench, it is about time we interview some of Pres. Obama's former law students where he taught constitutional law. Does Obama even know the constitution? And his students, is that how they believe too?
I was an Obama delegate to the Texas Democratic Party Convention during the 2008 Campaign and I am a lawyer. I am dismayed that President Obama has appointed a judge for the Supreme Court who apparently is racially-biased. How has it turned out in America that Judge Sotomayer can make a public statement that "A Latino woman would be a better judge than a white male" or words to that effect, and get away with such a racist remark? Similarly, is the inappropriate remark by Attorney General Eric Holder: "America is a nation of cowards on racial matters!" If a white male had made such remarks, I feel confident that it would raise such an outcry that a nominating president would probably be forced to withdraw his nomination. Why is there a difference?
I have always felt that a Supreme Court justice and the U.S.Attorney General should serve ALL Americans, not just special interest groups, or members of the majority or the minority. I am disappointed in the President's emphasis on race during his administration when during the campaign his position was that he was to be a president of ALL the people.
Would you please comment back to me on this point and raise this as an issue over the confirmation of Judge Sotomayer during congressional hearings on Judge Sotomayer nomination to the Supreme Court?
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Wed, 05/27/2009 - 1:32pm — A Tennessee Farmer (not verified)
Where in the Constitution [ART, III et seq] is the power to make policy granted to SCOTUS?Does such an admitted act constitute "good behavior" or is it judicial misconduct, abuse of judicial authority such as to call for the resignation of a judge?
Where in the Constitution is a SCt justice granted the power to "control the direction of society" [Kennedy}?
Where in the Constitution , Bill of Rights , are..." the penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees"..? Point them out to me and references to them in Madison's notes.
Where in the Constitution [ ART. II] is the power granted to POTUS to fire an officer of a private corporation?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the executive, legislative or judicial branches to seize the assests of any private corporation [AIG], own,establish or sieze any private corporation and run it,to establish any health care program?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the fedearal government to give away tax revenues to private corporations, private citizens or "community organizing entities?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to SCOTUS to:
The Supreme Court has failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution”
The Warren court was insufficiently radical
The courts have failed to enforce redistributive change
The legislature is the more effective forum for bringing about economic justice and the redistribution of wealth.
The American Constitution is outdated and flawed
The courts have failed to enforce politically correct thought processes and economic equalization on the populace, and therefore the government must do so through legislation.
quoting OBAMA
Is it now time to follow the words of Lincoln [the real Lincoln not Obama Lincoln]:
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.
Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico [1]
At pages 439 and440
Mr. Chairman: January 12, 1848
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
For those who are bamboozled by the main stream media, do your homework before making statements how she was nominated in a bi-partisian fashion. The media spin is hogwash. Yes, Bush did appoint Sotomayer, but only after a deal was struck with the DEMS so they would not contest 3 out of 4 appointments as long as one was a DEM. Continue believing (blindly) what the media feeds you, and in 10 years, don't complain about how government is controlling your life. Just ask refuges from communist countries what kind of live you're in for.
Shouldn't justice be blind? Could Sotomayer's nomination be an effort to further class warfare? Or should we just continue to bury our collective heads in the sand and let tyranny run its course?
Fri, 05/29/2009 - 7:42pm — Matthew Pohl (not verified)
Dr. King must be spinning in his grave. As I recall, he wanted people to be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. We now have a president and a supreme court nominee who are there based on the color of their skin and whose characters are at least suspect if not totally lacking in substance. Hang in there, Matt
According to Mike, "The entire process and purpose of judges is their interpretation of the law and how they see the world and the people in front of them, as they pertain to the legal matter at hand."
I thought the purpose of judges is to interpret the law - period. In order for them to do that job properly, they need to understand the situation at the time the law was written and the intentions of those who wrote the law (as deduced by the writings and talks of the lawmakers themselves). For a judge to interject his/her own feelings into the case at hand, is to ignore the law and thereby make the court a court of feelings and not of law.
The law is the law. If enough people believe the law is wrong and should no longer apply, then they (the people, not the judges) need to change the law by the constitutionally prescribed methods. Anything else is simply lawlessness - the absence of law. For the law then becomes whatever the judge(s) in a particular court feel it should be in the case at hand. Another set of judges may feel differently in the next case.
Sun, 05/31/2009 - 3:20am — Eddie Willers (not verified)
The same left-wing partisans who crucified the brilliant jurist Miguel Estrada (the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court) are now enthusiastically supporting Sotomayor, whose record as a judge is far from impressive. The same megastatists and prevaricators who were involved in the nasty smears of justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings are now championing Obama's selection for the Supreme Court. Those who now posture as the friends of minority groups and make so much of Sonia Sotomayor being a Latina are the same people who viciously opposed black libertarian judge Janice Rogers Brown when she was picked by President Bush for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Sun, 05/31/2009 - 12:32pm — Leo Hylan (not verified)
Anyone who is a practicing trial lawyer(me) would not seriously dispute that Sotomayor's idiotic and frankly racist comments on "latina" versus "white male" wisdom would probably earn her a prompt suspension from any trial bench while an investigation was conducted on her possible biases.Her resignation from La Raza,if not already done,would be a minimum requirement to continue as a judge."Sensitivity training" would possibly be mandated(not my option but currently popular).In any state with elections for the bench,she would likely not be renominated or reelected if she didn't retire. Motions to recuse and endless appeals based on perceived bias would dog her every day.Her credibility as an impartial jurist would never recover.It amazes me that individual that probably could not sustain a position as misdemeanor and traffic judge is somehow now an ideal choice for the Supreme Court.Liberals must have a shallow talent pool.
Sun, 05/31/2009 - 1:27pm — Rev. Dr. Michael D.D. (not verified)
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court senorita: A case of unapologetic racism
By Paul Williams Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sure, President Obama’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is blatantly racist. Few dispute this fact, even members of the Hispanic community.
The smiling senorita was chosen simply because she is a Latina. If Sotomayor had been a lily-white Methodist from Minnesota, she would not have received the slightest chance for consideration.
Her gender also serves to affirm the patronizing nature of Obama’s appointment.
Strange to say, the mass media is applauding the president’s appointment not because of Sotomayor’s judicial acumen, let alone her rather abysmal courtroom record, but rather because of the fact that she is brown and from the Bronx barrio.
Few commentators note that 60% of Sotomayor’s rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court - - a fact, as Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, notes that should cause legislators to “pause and take a good look at her record.”
But a good look at her judicial record is secondary to the good look at her Puerto-Rican ancestry.
Sonia’s supporters, however, are quick to point out that she pulled herself up by the proverbial bootstraps - - that she went from a housing project to Princeton University.
Few note that Ms. Sotomayor received her education in the heyday of affirmative action - - a time when functional illiterates were entry to the hallowed halls of ivy for the sake of diversity - - a time when standardized test scores, including law board examinations, were adjusted to compensate for “cultural disadvantages.”
Race remains a concern in the Sotomayor appointment - - particularly because of her strong ties to La Raza, the Latino answer to the KKK.
As a member of the National Council of La Raza, Ms. Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
La Raza teaches that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.
These areas belong to the Latinos and Latinas and must be surrendered to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, come to constitute a majority, as in Los Angeles. Once this is achieved, the current borders of the United States will simply be obliterated.
But the “reconquista” won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”
Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”
And so, our new Supreme Court appointee and self-professed advocate of La Raza approves of the reformation of the United States, the creation of a separate Chicano country, and widespread ethnic cleansing.
This assertion may not raise conservative eyebrows, let alone Christian opposition to Sotomayor’s ascendancy to the Supreme Court, save for the fact that La Raza and other Latino activist groups have expressed widespread anti-Jewish sentiments and support for radical Islam. This finding is supported by articles in “The Voice of Aztlan” with such lurid titles as “That Shitty Little Country Israel,” “Pat Tillman Got What Was coming to Him,” and “Osama bin Laden: the ‘Pancho Villa’ of Islam.”
Intrepid columnist Michelle Malkin maintains that all Americans should be aware of the following fifteen facts regarding La Raza (“The Race”):
15. “The Race” supports the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
14.”The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students - - discounts are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.
13. “The Race” opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.
12. “The Race” calls for the immediate removal of fences along the Mexican border.
11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent federal officials from entering immigration information into a key national crime database.
10. “The Race” decried Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.
9. “The Race” initiated a lawsuit to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.
8. “The Race” condemned common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”
7. “The Race” has opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.
6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States.
5. “The Race” spawned and supported a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, including Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized MEChA as “the most anti-American groups in the country.”
4. “The Race” has conducted a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves.
3. “The Race” sponsors and supports militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”
2. “The Race” has honed the practice of the politically correct shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the politically correct elite’s unwillingness to call it what it is. Prominent historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’ — and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”
Sotomayor, let’s remember, is a leader of La Raza - - an individual who has shaped its policies, its ideology, and its racist demands.
“No one,” President Obama said today, “can oppose this appointment.”
I oppose it, and, if you are a red-blooded American, you should oppose it as well.
Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:49am — Gary Huggins (not verified)
If I as a private citizen being asked to serve on a jury, made the latino vs. white male comment, would be summarily disqualified.Such should be the fate of especially a SCOTUS judge.
Statement: Showing "empathy" as bias???
Reply: I cannot have empathy for any bozo who thinks this way. But I can be biased against them.
Statement: "This woman doesn't even rise to the level of a Souter."
Reply: It's still really hard for a non-white to rise to the level of racist whites.
Statement: Does Obama know the Constitution?
Reply: Duh! Obama was a professor of the Constitution for 10 years (wow, that was a really dumb question!)
Statement: Obama's racial bias is subtle.
Reply: He must have gotten it from his WHITE mama (lol).
Statement: La Raza thrives on ethnic supremacy.
Reply: Because we know that white folk don't do such a thing.
Statement: The Race” has conducted a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement.
Reply: And the rich, greedy whites who hire Mexicans for cheap labor and place profits before protecting the border don't have ANYTHING to do with it!!! They're all innocent!!!
Statement: Dr. King must be spinning in his grave.
Reply: Oh yeah, Dr. King, a BLACK man, is spinning in his grave because a BLACK man became president. That's really deep.
Statement: We now have a president and a supreme court nominee who are there based on the color of their skin.
Reply: And the last 43 presidents before Obama...didn't they become president by a WHITE majority (again, dumb statement). One more thing: the majority of people who voted for Obama were white, genius.
Statement: La Raza...the Latino answer to the KKK.
Reply: Oh yeah, because American history is replete with large numbers of Latino's hanging white folks down south. White folks better be careful underpaying illegal Mexican farm workers. They might join La Raza, put all their chump change together and hang y'all law-abidin' white folk what be hirin' dem.
Statement: La Raza...the Latino answer to the KKK.
Reply: La Raza is racist? Using the same "yardstick", let's discover other "racist" organizations:
1) United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg;
2) The National Organization of Italian American Women;
3) African American Planning Commission.
Barack Obama's pick for Supreme Court is a perfect pick period. On Staten Island right here in the family courts, there is a judge who practices identity politics before the law every day.
The parties to these matters are represented by 18B Law Panel Attorneys who do not effectively represent the best interests of their clients. 18B Law Panel Attorneys - Law Guardians who misrepresent children.
It is a de facto practice in this court, it is a systemic problem that begins with the the attorneys representing the litigant to [that] legal matter that bring about identity politics.
When a Judge acts in a manner which is unethical it is obvious. When an attorney acts in a manner that is unethical while wielding their license to practice in a court of law it is obvious.
It is not that the judicial system does not work, it is that the participants pervert the system to their own end.
All Attorneys need to remember what they take an oath and swear to do when receiving a license to practice.
"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God."
Mr. Fitton, with all due respect, your opinion about this jurist is erroneous. Do not preach and make accusations regarding a person when identity politics occur in other areas of the judicial system everyday. Mr. Fitton, I witnessed falsehood, have witnessed this committed, have seen it wittingly promoted, seen attorneys give aid and consent to same, delayed lucre and malice and conducted themselves within a court with NO fidelity to the courts and to their clients.
Affirmative Action is what it is....RACISM. Bottom line is she shouldnt even be where she is today. She didnt meet the standards then and she doesnt meet the standards now. AA only puts unqualified people in positions they have no business being in.
Sun, 06/21/2009 - 11:02pm — American (not verified)
Subscribe via RSS
Comments
Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court
You have mis-represented Judge Sotomayor's and President Obama's meaning of empathy. It is not a bias against the rule of law, or the Constitution. Empathy does not equate to "lawlessness" as you state. Empathy informs not direct the litigator/judge in deciding cases. Again, you attempt to instill fear rather than fact into the issue. The fact that Judge Sotomayor was nominated by Geo. H.W. Bush and confirmed, and nominated, confirmed and promoted by Pres. Clinton highlights the bi-partisan nature of this nominee. She is more qualified (by way of a varied experience) than any currently on the Supreme Court at their nomination. Since the Senate votes are there for her confirmation, I would be interested on how you will attempt to derail Judge Sotomayor. Will you assault her ethnicity, gender, background, statements taken out of context? You will, this I am sure, aid and abet the Republican/conservative party in becoming more marginalized than it already is. You will open the door wider for Republican moderates to leave, alianate more Independents, and ethnic groups (Latinos and African Americans). You will assure the demise of the Republican/conservative party in America.
Sotomayor
If there is no law, then lawless is a proper term.
Judge Sotomayoy
Your statement does not address the issue of her political leanings and how they have effected her rulings. I do not care about gender, ethnicity, or any other physical factors. I am interested in her rulings. That the first President Bush nominated her is almost irrelevent because she could be overturned on appeal. As a member of the Supreme Court, she cannot be overturned. I do not think she will make a very good Justice, but I am very willing to hear her explanations of some of her rulings and public statements. Additionally, she should be given all the attention that someone like Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas got when they were nominated to the Supreme Court.
!!!
Affirmative Action is what it is....RACISM. Bottom line is she shouldnt even be where she is today. She didnt meet the standards then and she doesnt meet the standards now. AA only puts unqualified people in positions they have no business being in.
You guys are idiots any way
You guys are idiots any way
"you guys..."
wow. that guy who made the second comment down, really knows to make a point, really has a firm command of the language, and knows how to put someone in their place. Makes me shake just reading it.
First off, I greatly
First off, I greatly appreciate what your organization does. I just wanted to throw that out there since this is my first comment.
Now, about Judge Sotomayor;
Her speech today clarified her own position and I think spoke a lot of her beliefs. She's a firm believer in the Constitution and in the guidance of the founding fathers.
On CSPAN a few days ago, they were discussing possible nominations, and this issue came up. That it's the LAW that should matter, and not a person's feelings.
The person being interviewed, as well as myself, believe The President's intention with the statement on empathy is being taken out of context by many Republicans, as well as I see by the head of this organization.
The entire process and purpose of judges is their interpretation of the law and how they see the world and the people in front of them, as they pertain to the legal matter at hand.
An excellent example was how in a previous Supreme Court hearing, people were looking at things one way, but then the female Justice spoke up and put the situation in a scenario dealing with a pregnant woman, something that the others had not thought of. It was by that EMPATHY in which the Justice was able to search her own experiences and beliefs and thoughts, to bring out an example which made the others realize the issue they were talking about WAS in fact illegal.
That is what he meant by EMPATHY. Being able to look not just through a cookie cutter that others look through, but how the law deals with ALL TYPES of people, not just a few.
Thank you for reading.
Thought Mr. Fitton could use
Thought Mr. Fitton could use these:
"Empathy: the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."
"Bias: a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice."
"Or: used to connect alternative terms for the same thing."
As Mr. Fitton has used it, the conjunction "or" between "empathy" and "bias" suggests these words have the same meaning. Obviously, they do not. Most humans -- even judges -- have the capacity for empathy. In fact, those who lack empathy are by definition mentally ill, e.g. psychopaths, people with narcissistic personality disorders, etc.
So, either Judicial Watch believes the country would be best served by Supreme Court justices who are psychopaths OR Mr. Fitton's statement is specious (in this case "or" is used to "connect words, phrases, or clauses representing alternatives"). The latter seems more likely as whoever wrote Mr. Fitton's statement was clever enough to use "color" in the sense of "bias," and evoke the specter of racial politics in the U.S. Supreme Court without stating it explicitly.
Saddened...but not shocked
This woman doesn't even rise to the level of a Souter, and that is about as poor a choice as it comes.
Democrats are raving over the fact that she had support from George H.W. Bush. Considering his other appointments, is that really a plus?
supreme selection
I saw you on tv today, i appreciate your comment on here as well. She should not be appointed.
Now that we know President
Now that we know President Obama wants a SCOTUS who will have empathy when judging from the bench, it is about time we interview some of Pres. Obama's former law students where he taught constitutional law. Does Obama even know the constitution? And his students, is that how they believe too?
Judge Sotomayer
JUDICIAL WATCH
Dear Mr. Fitton:
I was an Obama delegate to the Texas Democratic Party Convention during the 2008 Campaign and I am a lawyer. I am dismayed that President Obama has appointed a judge for the Supreme Court who apparently is racially-biased. How has it turned out in America that Judge Sotomayer can make a public statement that "A Latino woman would be a better judge than a white male" or words to that effect, and get away with such a racist remark? Similarly, is the inappropriate remark by Attorney General Eric Holder: "America is a nation of cowards on racial matters!" If a white male had made such remarks, I feel confident that it would raise such an outcry that a nominating president would probably be forced to withdraw his nomination. Why is there a difference?
I have always felt that a Supreme Court justice and the U.S.Attorney General should serve ALL Americans, not just special interest groups, or members of the majority or the minority. I am disappointed in the President's emphasis on race during his administration when during the campaign his position was that he was to be a president of ALL the people.
Would you please comment back to me on this point and raise this as an issue over the confirmation of Judge Sotomayer during congressional hearings on Judge Sotomayer nomination to the Supreme Court?
Thank you for your attention to this request.
Supreme Court
Where in the Constitution [ART, III et seq] is the power to make policy granted to SCOTUS?Does such an admitted act constitute "good behavior" or is it judicial misconduct, abuse of judicial authority such as to call for the resignation of a judge?
Where in the Constitution is a SCt justice granted the power to "control the direction of society" [Kennedy}?
Where in the Constitution , Bill of Rights , are..." the penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees"..? Point them out to me and references to them in Madison's notes.
Where in the Constitution [ ART. II] is the power granted to POTUS to fire an officer of a private corporation?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the executive, legislative or judicial branches to seize the assests of any private corporation [AIG], own,establish or sieze any private corporation and run it,to establish any health care program?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to the fedearal government to give away tax revenues to private corporations, private citizens or "community organizing entities?
Where in the Constitution is the power granted to SCOTUS to:
The Supreme Court has failed to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the constitution”
The Warren court was insufficiently radical
The courts have failed to enforce redistributive change
The legislature is the more effective forum for bringing about economic justice and the redistribution of wealth.
The American Constitution is outdated and flawed
The courts have failed to enforce politically correct thought processes and economic equalization on the populace, and therefore the government must do so through legislation.
quoting OBAMA
Is it now time to follow the words of Lincoln [the real Lincoln not Obama Lincoln]:
Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 1.
Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865.
Speech in United States House of Representatives: The War with Mexico [1]
At pages 439 and440
Mr. Chairman: January 12, 1848
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable,---a most sacred right---a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the teritory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.
????
I am not surprised. Obama's
I am not surprised. Obama's racial bias is subtle, but certainly is present.
No Misrepresentation
For those who are bamboozled by the main stream media, do your homework before making statements how she was nominated in a bi-partisian fashion. The media spin is hogwash. Yes, Bush did appoint Sotomayer, but only after a deal was struck with the DEMS so they would not contest 3 out of 4 appointments as long as one was a DEM. Continue believing (blindly) what the media feeds you, and in 10 years, don't complain about how government is controlling your life. Just ask refuges from communist countries what kind of live you're in for.
judicial filibuster
please clarify, does judicial watch now say that a us senate filibuster to stop obama liberal judge confirmations is constitutional ????
I wonder if the left will
I wonder if the left will want a judge that shows empathy when it's a conservative.
Sotomayer
Shouldn't justice be blind? Could Sotomayer's nomination be an effort to further class warfare? Or should we just continue to bury our collective heads in the sand and let tyranny run its course?
Sotomayor
Dr. King must be spinning in his grave. As I recall, he wanted people to be judged by their character and not by the color of their skin. We now have a president and a supreme court nominee who are there based on the color of their skin and whose characters are at least suspect if not totally lacking in substance. Hang in there, Matt
"First off, I greatly" by Mike on 5/26
According to Mike, "The entire process and purpose of judges is their interpretation of the law and how they see the world and the people in front of them, as they pertain to the legal matter at hand."
I thought the purpose of judges is to interpret the law - period. In order for them to do that job properly, they need to understand the situation at the time the law was written and the intentions of those who wrote the law (as deduced by the writings and talks of the lawmakers themselves). For a judge to interject his/her own feelings into the case at hand, is to ignore the law and thereby make the court a court of feelings and not of law.
The law is the law. If enough people believe the law is wrong and should no longer apply, then they (the people, not the judges) need to change the law by the constitutionally prescribed methods. Anything else is simply lawlessness - the absence of law. For the law then becomes whatever the judge(s) in a particular court feel it should be in the case at hand. Another set of judges may feel differently in the next case.
On the Sotomayor nomination and the left's hypocrisy
The same left-wing partisans who crucified the brilliant jurist Miguel Estrada (the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court) are now enthusiastically supporting Sotomayor, whose record as a judge is far from impressive. The same megastatists and prevaricators who were involved in the nasty smears of justice Clarence Thomas during his confirmation hearings are now championing Obama's selection for the Supreme Court. Those who now posture as the friends of minority groups and make so much of Sonia Sotomayor being a Latina are the same people who viciously opposed black libertarian judge Janice Rogers Brown when she was picked by President Bush for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Justice Sotomayor and her knee-jerk defenders
Anyone who is a practicing trial lawyer(me) would not seriously dispute that Sotomayor's idiotic and frankly racist comments on "latina" versus "white male" wisdom would probably earn her a prompt suspension from any trial bench while an investigation was conducted on her possible biases.Her resignation from La Raza,if not already done,would be a minimum requirement to continue as a judge."Sensitivity training" would possibly be mandated(not my option but currently popular).In any state with elections for the bench,she would likely not be renominated or reelected if she didn't retire. Motions to recuse and endless appeals based on perceived bias would dog her every day.Her credibility as an impartial jurist would never recover.It amazes me that individual that probably could not sustain a position as misdemeanor and traffic judge is somehow now an ideal choice for the Supreme Court.Liberals must have a shallow talent pool.
Strong ties to La Raza, the Latino answer to the KKK
I think the following article says it all.
Sonia Sotomayor Supreme Court senorita: A case of unapologetic racism
By Paul Williams Thursday, May 28, 2009
Sure, President Obama’s appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is blatantly racist. Few dispute this fact, even members of the Hispanic community.
The smiling senorita was chosen simply because she is a Latina. If Sotomayor had been a lily-white Methodist from Minnesota, she would not have received the slightest chance for consideration.
Her gender also serves to affirm the patronizing nature of Obama’s appointment.
Strange to say, the mass media is applauding the president’s appointment not because of Sotomayor’s judicial acumen, let alone her rather abysmal courtroom record, but rather because of the fact that she is brown and from the Bronx barrio.
Few commentators note that 60% of Sotomayor’s rulings were overturned by the Supreme Court - - a fact, as Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, notes that should cause legislators to “pause and take a good look at her record.”
But a good look at her judicial record is secondary to the good look at her Puerto-Rican ancestry.
Sonia’s supporters, however, are quick to point out that she pulled herself up by the proverbial bootstraps - - that she went from a housing project to Princeton University.
Few note that Ms. Sotomayor received her education in the heyday of affirmative action - - a time when functional illiterates were entry to the hallowed halls of ivy for the sake of diversity - - a time when standardized test scores, including law board examinations, were adjusted to compensate for “cultural disadvantages.”
Race remains a concern in the Sotomayor appointment - - particularly because of her strong ties to La Raza, the Latino answer to the KKK.
As a member of the National Council of La Raza, Ms. Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion as a judge than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
La Raza teaches that Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as “Aztlan” — a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.
These areas belong to the Latinos and Latinas and must be surrendered to “La Raza” once enough immigrants, legal or illegal, come to constitute a majority, as in Los Angeles. Once this is achieved, the current borders of the United States will simply be obliterated.
But the “reconquista” won’t end with territorial occupation and secession. The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of “Aztlan.”
Miguel Perez, a La Raza spokesman at Cal State-Northridge, has been quoted as saying: “The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled — opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power.”
And so, our new Supreme Court appointee and self-professed advocate of La Raza approves of the reformation of the United States, the creation of a separate Chicano country, and widespread ethnic cleansing.
This assertion may not raise conservative eyebrows, let alone Christian opposition to Sotomayor’s ascendancy to the Supreme Court, save for the fact that La Raza and other Latino activist groups have expressed widespread anti-Jewish sentiments and support for radical Islam. This finding is supported by articles in “The Voice of Aztlan” with such lurid titles as “That Shitty Little Country Israel,” “Pat Tillman Got What Was coming to Him,” and “Osama bin Laden: the ‘Pancho Villa’ of Islam.”
Intrepid columnist Michelle Malkin maintains that all Americans should be aware of the following fifteen facts regarding La Raza (“The Race”):
15. “The Race” supports the issuance of driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.
14.”The Race” demands in-state tuition discounts for illegal alien students - - discounts are not available to law-abiding U.S. citizens and law-abiding legal immigrants.
13. “The Race” opposes cooperative immigration enforcement efforts between local, state, and federal authorities.
12. “The Race” calls for the immediate removal of fences along the Mexican border.
11. “The Race” joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit attempt to prevent federal officials from entering immigration information into a key national crime database.
10. “The Race” decried Oklahoma’s tough immigration-enforcement-first laws, which cut off welfare to illegal aliens, put teeth in employer sanctions, and strengthened local-federal cooperation and information sharing.
9. “The Race” initiated a lawsuit to prevent Proposition 227, California’s bilingual education reform ballot initiative, from becoming law.
8. “The Race” condemned common-sense voter ID provisions as an “absolute disgrace.”
7. “The Race” has opposed post-9/11 national security measures at every turn.
6. Former “Race” president Raul Yzaguirre, Hillary Clinton’s Hispanic outreach adviser, said this: “U.S. English is to Hispanics as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.” He was referring to U.S. English, the nation’s oldest, largest citizens’ action group dedicated to preserving the unifying role of the English language in the United States.
5. “The Race” spawned and supported a poisonous subset of ideological satellites, including Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA). The late GOP Rep. Charlie Norwood rightly characterized MEChA as “the most anti-American groups in the country.”
4. “The Race” has conducted a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement leaders and has called for TV and cable news networks to keep immigration enforcement proponents off the airwaves.
3. “The Race” sponsors and supports militant ethnic nationalist charter schools subsidized by your public tax dollars (at least $8 million in federal education grants). The schools include Aztlan Academy in Tucson, Ariz., the Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Ariz., Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in St. Paul, Minn., and La Academia Semillas del Pueblo in Los Angeles, whose principal inveighed: “We don’t want to drink from a White water fountain, we have our own wells and our natural reservoirs and our way of collecting rain in our aqueducts. We don’t need a White water fountain . . . ultimately the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”
2. “The Race” has honed the practice of the politically correct shakedown at taxpayer expense, pushing relentlessly to lower home-loan standards for Hispanic borrowers, reaping millions in federal “mortgage counseling” grants, seeking special multimillion-dollar earmarks, and partnering with banks that do business with illegal aliens.
1. “The Race” thrives on ethnic supremacy — and the politically correct elite’s unwillingness to call it what it is. Prominent historian Victor Davis Hanson observes: “[The] organization’s very nomenclature ‘The National Council of La Raza’ is hate speech to the core. Despite all the contortions of the group, Raza (as its Latin cognate suggests) reflects the meaning of ‘race’ in Spanish, not ‘the people’ — and that’s precisely why we don’t hear of something like ‘The National Council of the People,’ which would not confer the buzz notion of ethnic, racial and tribal chauvinism.”
Sotomayor, let’s remember, is a leader of La Raza - - an individual who has shaped its policies, its ideology, and its racist demands.
“No one,” President Obama said today, “can oppose this appointment.”
I oppose it, and, if you are a red-blooded American, you should oppose it as well.
Sotomayer's quals
If I as a private citizen being asked to serve on a jury, made the latino vs. white male comment, would be summarily disqualified.Such should be the fate of especially a SCOTUS judge.
Stupid Comments About Ms. Sotomayor...
Statement: Showing "empathy" as bias???
Reply: I cannot have empathy for any bozo who thinks this way. But I can be biased against them.
Statement: "This woman doesn't even rise to the level of a Souter."
Reply: It's still really hard for a non-white to rise to the level of racist whites.
Statement: Does Obama know the Constitution?
Reply: Duh! Obama was a professor of the Constitution for 10 years (wow, that was a really dumb question!)
Statement: Obama's racial bias is subtle.
Reply: He must have gotten it from his WHITE mama (lol).
Statement: La Raza thrives on ethnic supremacy.
Reply: Because we know that white folk don't do such a thing.
Statement: The Race” has conducted a smear campaign against staunch immigration-enforcement.
Reply: And the rich, greedy whites who hire Mexicans for cheap labor and place profits before protecting the border don't have ANYTHING to do with it!!! They're all innocent!!!
Statement: Dr. King must be spinning in his grave.
Reply: Oh yeah, Dr. King, a BLACK man, is spinning in his grave because a BLACK man became president. That's really deep.
Statement: We now have a president and a supreme court nominee who are there based on the color of their skin.
Reply: And the last 43 presidents before Obama...didn't they become president by a WHITE majority (again, dumb statement). One more thing: the majority of people who voted for Obama were white, genius.
Statement: La Raza...the Latino answer to the KKK.
Reply: Oh yeah, because American history is replete with large numbers of Latino's hanging white folks down south. White folks better be careful underpaying illegal Mexican farm workers. They might join La Raza, put all their chump change together and hang y'all law-abidin' white folk what be hirin' dem.
Statement: La Raza...the Latino answer to the KKK.
Reply: La Raza is racist? Using the same "yardstick", let's discover other "racist" organizations:
1) United Jewish Organization of Williamsburg;
2) The National Organization of Italian American Women;
3) African American Planning Commission.
Do I need to go on, or have I made my point???
Sotomayor
Barack Obama's pick for Supreme Court is a perfect pick period. On Staten Island right here in the family courts, there is a judge who practices identity politics before the law every day.
The parties to these matters are represented by 18B Law Panel Attorneys who do not effectively represent the best interests of their clients. 18B Law Panel Attorneys - Law Guardians who misrepresent children.
It is a de facto practice in this court, it is a systemic problem that begins with the the attorneys representing the litigant to [that] legal matter that bring about identity politics.
When a Judge acts in a manner which is unethical it is obvious. When an attorney acts in a manner that is unethical while wielding their license to practice in a court of law it is obvious.
It is not that the judicial system does not work, it is that the participants pervert the system to their own end.
All Attorneys need to remember what they take an oath and swear to do when receiving a license to practice.
"You solemnly swear that you will do no falsehood nor consent to the doing of any in court, and that if you know of an intention to commit any, you will give knowledge thereof to the justices of the court or some of them that it may be prevented; you will not wittingly or willingly promote or sue any false, groundless or unlawful suit nor give aid or consent to the same; that you will delay no man for lucre or malice, but will conduct yourself in the office of an attorney within the courts according to the best of your knowledge and discretion, and with all good fidelity, as well as to the courts, as to your clients. So help you God."
Mr. Fitton, with all due respect, your opinion about this jurist is erroneous. Do not preach and make accusations regarding a person when identity politics occur in other areas of the judicial system everyday. Mr. Fitton, I witnessed falsehood, have witnessed this committed, have seen it wittingly promoted, seen attorneys give aid and consent to same, delayed lucre and malice and conducted themselves within a court with NO fidelity to the courts and to their clients.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative Action is what it is....RACISM. Bottom line is she shouldnt even be where she is today. She didnt meet the standards then and she doesnt meet the standards now. AA only puts unqualified people in positions they have no business being in.
Excellent Comment Mr. Fitton
If there is no law, then lawless is a proper term.