The Nation's Pulse
Polling the Constitution
A “great American story” adds to the nightmare.
Once again all those who pay attention to national politics turn their eyes to Washington to witness the Senate confirmation hearings of a U.S. Supreme Court justice nominee. Now, it is to be assumed that Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed easily, with or without Republican support. Still, the hearings are always interesting, if not sadly predictable.
We will continue to hear terms like “empathy” and “super precedents” and ultimately, when a woman or minority is involved, we will once again be treated to a dissertation that theirs is a “great American story.” This is a template that is a well-worn part of these proceedings; but no more so than when applied to liberals. As if Justices Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas did not work hard, did not burn the midnight oil, or did not prosper as the result of the love, support, suffering and sacrifices of their families.
Yet it is ironic that those on the left who celebrate this “great American story” are proponents of a political philosophy that would deny its fairy-tale ending to a great majority of their fellow citizens. And although her confirmation is all but guaranteed, it will be interesting to see if the minority members of the Judiciary Committee will have the perspicacity to point this out. And it wouldn’t be that hard.
The application of only a dab of common sense would show that it is not the empathy, accomplishments or even the character of judges or lawmakers that make the American dream possible: it is supremely and solely the enumeration of our rights as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution. And it is only a nominee’s fitness to uphold those rights as written, that should be at consideration at these hearings.
Sadly, as has become uncomfortably common in these confirmation hearings, the most glaring revelation is the high level of senatorial ignorance of the plain words of the U. S. Constitution. On Monday, Herb Kohl spoke of the Constitutional guarantees of “personal privacy,” then droned on about the “separation of church and state,” an issue that might better be understood if the word church was capitalized.
And that great legal scholar, Dianne Feinstein, in bewailing the SCOTUS decision that stripped a “fundamental Constitutional protection” from women who want to kill their unborn children up to the day of birth, said that judges should be more than “umpires calling balls and strikes.” Maybe, but senators should have a greater knowledge of the law of our land than so many bleacher bums.
Lindsey Graham has said that elections matter; and he is right, they do. But that should have no effect on the law. Unfortunately, the opinion that we should or shouldn’t faithfully adhere to the Constitution has now become a political issue. My opinion is that, of all of the depredations visited upon this land by liberals, this is the most dangerous to the future of this country. If the nation wants to hold a poll on the U.S. Constitution, it should be done as so wonderfully laid out in Article V of that document, and not every four years on the first Tuesday of November.
That Sonia Sotomayor has famously said that appeals courts are where “policy is made,” and that a “wise Latina” might be a better judge than a white male is, of course disturbing, but not surprising. These are just liberal beliefs spoken out loud. And we can expect more of the same from future Obama judicial nominations. But so far as the SCOTUS is concerned, unless he serves two terms or one of the Constitutionalist judges dies or retires soon, what we have is a liberal replacing a liberal. But, the bar is further lowered as new and more disturbing paradigms are established.
People say they experience a profound sense of satisfaction and pride that a woman/Latina will sit on the high court. It’s time for the general populace to stop experiencing these feelings vicariously and start living them out as American citizens using that perfect instrument of personal and national freedom: the U.S. Constitution.
Are we a government of laws or of men? Or of wise Latinas?
Letter to the Editor View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Lisa Fabrizio
More Articles From The Nation's Pulse
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/07/15/polling-the-constitution
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The Lehrman Standard
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
- Overheated Frauds and Fools
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robert Rosencrans| 7.15.09 @ 8:38AM
Sadly enough, the story of Sotomayor isn't a great American success story, it's an American tragedy. Success is something you achieve on your own with few strings attached.
Sotomayor has taken the escalator of affirmative action right to the top. She's a pig at the trough of government hand outs.
In esssence she's just another form of a welfare queen picking up her ticket to meals vis a vis a government handout.
Nittany| 7.15.09 @ 9:52AM
I'd like to know....what makes Sonya "wise" ? Who told her she was "wise" ? Did she decide for herself that she is "wise" ? She doesn't seem that wise to me, actually a little slow. Wait! I got it...Peter Sellers in "Being There". He was thought to be wise, too.
An example....Sonya stated that judges often disagree, that's why she was reversed so often. True, but judges usually disagree over points of law ; she seems to disagree on matters of race preference and who deserves empathy. A wise Latina would know the difference.
Liberal Reader| 7.15.09 @ 10:30AM
Nittany --
Where did you get the idea that Sotomayor was "reversed so often"?
I know that a few dunces on right wing radio have been saying this, but surely you've taken the time to check the facts.
In case you haven't, let me review them for you.
Sotomayor, as an appellate judge, has written more than 300 opinions.
Of those, fewer than 10 have been reviewed by the Supreme Court, and fewer than 5 have been reversed.
Now let's put this into perspective. When we say "reversed" or "overturned" we create the impression that the Supreme Court found the lower court's ruling somehow deficient or inadequate.
This is very often not the case. Lower appellate courts (remember, the Supreme Court is an appellate court) are bound by precedent in a way the Supremes are not.
The SC is free to apply new legal theories or even new interpretations of laws to decisions. For example, the SC decided Ricci following a completely different legal theory than Sotomayor was free to use as a judge.
They didn't really "reverse" her ruling. They simply changed the lens through which the applicable law would be interpreted.
In sum, she hasn't been reversed all that often (Alito had a higher percentage of reversals), and even the reversals don't tell us too much about her judicial acumen.
You could have learned any of this in a good civics class or just reading a good newspaper or just getting your news somewhere other than on talk radio, by the way.
Old Texican| 7.15.09 @ 11:48AM
Liberal
Quote or link your daily KOS source on da judge overturns and overrules.
Robert
Thank goodness Americans are finally catching on. Notice the plummeting approval rates for Obama?
Old Texican| 7.15.09 @ 11:52AM
Folks
One single fact just delights the heck out of me: Judge Sotomeyor's opinions are going to be compared to those of some of the finest legal talent/brilliance in America.
She will toe the line...or be laughed off the bench as those varying WRITTEN opinions come out.
Tim| 7.15.09 @ 12:00PM
FAce it, she's a party hack. Like all lawyers of either party with judicial ambitions she sucked up and brown nosed her way to success. Obama wants her because he believes that she will back up his various socialist enterprises with her rulings.
"We all know policy is made at this level"
JP| 7.15.09 @ 1:59PM
"The SC is free to apply new legal theories or even new interpretations of laws to decisions. For example, the SC decided Ricci following a completely different legal theory than Sotomayor was free to use as a judge"
Actually, SCOTUS was intended to be the least dangerous (read political) of the 3 branches of the Federal Judiciary. Read the Federalist Papers and see Article 2 Section III of the US Constitution, which reads, ""the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." ).
The SCOTUS and the Federal Judiciary were defined as to have limited jurisdiction (as set by the US Senate), and whose applications were tightly limited by a)The Constitution and b)Congress. The majority of the court's cases were inteneded to come up from the Appeals Court, and were to settle jurisdictional questions. Justice Marshall, attempted to expand the courts jurisdiction and he did establish the TRADITION of Judicial Review. It was the establishment of this tradition that set our courts on thier merry way. From the beginning many Justices intended quite openly to inject thier own political prerferences. The most notable was Chief Justice Taney in the infamous Dred Scott Case. However, not everyone was happy with this expansion of political power. Namely President Jackson, who once quipped, "The Supreme Court has ruled, now let them try to enforce thier opinion."
There is coming a time (perhaps sooner rather than later) when the courts will over-step thier boundaries. Perhaps then Congress will be filled with right thinking lawmakers who understand Federalsim.
Marc Jeric| 7.15.09 @ 2:02PM
Let me try my hand at imitating the language of the far-left when they attacked Sarah Palin (" slutty-looking stewardess with 14-year old daughter knocked up"):
La Sotomayot is a pig-faced racist with lipstick. Let me now wait for personal attacks by the Obama's ACORN brownshirts.
Len| 7.15.09 @ 6:20PM
Liberal boy you must smoking some dmn good stuf to state the following,..The SC is free to apply new legal theories or even new interpretations of laws to decisions...
Seriously where do you lunatics come up with stuff? The first obligation of a judge is to determine the plain intent as stated in the law, failing that, the judge must then seek to discover the intent of the law by referencing all debate , records, comments, etc. that expound or state the legislators intent in enacting a law. To do otherwise is to not interpret( give the meaning of), but to creat new law.
Reminds me of Thurgood Marshall's Judicial philosophy when he said he would judge as he saw best and let the law catch up. Yeah and he is a celebrated Supreme Court Justice, how wonderful! Just ignore the US constitution delegating all legislative authority to Congress and set oneself above the people and law, that's a quality I want in one administering justice.
You are a vile, base individual seeking to beguile the uninformed and unwary who may know no better.
Richard Baker| 7.15.09 @ 6:37PM
Keep your powder dry, folks. The time is coming.
denialator | 7.15.09 @ 9:11PM
Liberal Reader mentioned the following:
"For example, the SC decided Ricci following a completely different legal theory than Sotomayor was free to use as a judge."
I would suggest that this is precisely the reason conservative, thinking people and constitutionalists are adamantly opposed to Sotomayor's confirmation. She uses inappropriate precedents and concepts in her judgements completely. One does not just pick a theory or a legal concept to use for rendering a decision, when there is a definite statute, clause or precept which deals with the context and germane to the issue in question.
Judging through the lens of "ethnic origin", "empathy", "life stories" or "temperament" is not jurisprudence, it is judicial activism, precisely why we have the advice and consent process by which the Senate confirms or rejects judicial appointees. In this case, it will be unbalanced as there is inequity in the split between opposite partisan factions. No doubt, the liberals have the majority.
It is one thing to see one political party voting along strict party lines on issues, but in the case of confirming a lifetime appointment to the highest court of our land to boost political allies to power, it is not government, it's unadulterated corruption!
Conrad Spiracy| 7.16.09 @ 9:06PM
Well.....
Looks like our MIA friend David Matthews (aka Liberal Reader) has returned from summer school. Apparenly she took Debate 101 - or maybe even Debate from a Liberal Feminst Perspective 101 class.
Unfortunately she failed the chapter on Bibliographies.
Cite references David/Liberal. If you want to put your "facts" into context, start by reading, attempting to understand, then cross-referencing Article III of the United States Constitution - if you even know what it is and where to find a copy.
Sufferin' Sonia is a complete travesty.
Liberals all - you like to tell us to get over Reaganism. Well I reply, get over FDRism. It failed before, and it will fail again. Reaganism was a supreme success.
And don't give me any crap about deficits "skyrocketing under Reagan." If you read the previously referenced Constitution, you will note that Congress controls the pursestrings. When the blood (money) sucking Democraps saw the U.S. Treasury swell with receipts due to business activity spurred by tax reductions, they couldn't resist finding new ways to spend like... like... like drunken Democraps.
They're doing the same today - except Treasury receipts aren't swelling - only the IOUs are, just as they did under FDR.
Keynes is dead. Long live Reagan/Laffer.
LEAVE YOUR D@MNED HANDS OFF MY GRANDCHILDRENS' MONEY!!!!!
NO MORE OBAMUNISM!!!!!!!!!
Con Spiracy
jordan 6 rings | 7.17.09 @ 4:54AM
Thank goodness Americans are finally catching on. Notice the plummeting approval rates for Obama?