I however, find myself asking what the rationale, or put another way political interests were that led to her nomination. I know her judicial credentials are sound and she apparently has no skeletons in her closet. She is an intelligent and well spoken jurist who handled herself with composure and confidence throughout the hearings.
So why the uneasy feeling I keep asking myself. Is it possible the rationale and interest for nominating her for the job was to lock in the Hispanic vote in 2012? Or perhaps it is because Judge Sotomayor is a socialist minded jurist that the President knows will support his socialist/Marxist agenda from the bench through activist judicial opinions? Perhaps it is a combination of both of these factors. I do not know the women, only through what I have read. Those readings have led me to believe she will be an activist judge whose philosophy is the Constitution and the Supreme Court are living breathing institutions and should move with the times. This simply put means movement further and further to the left.
Senator Patrick Leahy, D-VT., Judiciary Committee chairman says of Sotomayor, "She is a restrained, experienced and thoughtful judge who has shown no bias in her rulings." Perhaps this is so, but I rather think not. Senator Jeff Sessions, R-AL., top ranking Republican on the panel, said "Judge Sotomayor's expressed judicial philosophy rejects openly the ideal of impartial and objective judging. Instead, her philosophy embraces the impact that background, personal experiences, sympathies, gender and prejudices - these are her words - have on judging." This is the more credible statement.
In the end it wasn't going to matter what anyone may have thought. We have no voice in this and since the majority of those deciding had their minds made up from the start they wouldn't have listened anyway. So as the court moves leftward with Sotomayor's certain confirmation I can't help but laugh at the progressives talk about conservative judicial activism as though it were a bad thing. Well, I guess to them it would be a bad thing, it doesn't agree with their version of justice or impartiality.
All this brings to mind Judge Robert Bork, a Reagan nominee to the Supreme Court. A highly qualified and respected Judge who was considered to be one of the most brilliant Constitutional law scholars of his time. Without diminishing Judge Sotomayor's credentials, Judge Bork was at least as qualified to sit on the High Court as Judge Sotomayor is, and arguably more so.
Judge Bork failed confirmation irrespective of his sterling judicial record. His problem? He was a strict constructionist who rightly believed in judicial restraint. A judge who correctly believed that the responsibility of a Supreme Court Justice is to rule in a case based on the strict interpretation of our founding and guiding document. The Constitution of the United States of America.
Why did he fail to be confirmed? Because of progressive judicial activism. In my view activism is what defines the American spirit. It was astonishing to many that Judge Bork was not confirmed. However, we all went back to our business and hoped for a better day and another fight on the issues that matter to us, and should be important to every citizen of this nation.
Senator Patrick Leahy said this, "I'm disappointed not more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are likely to vote for this outstanding nominee." To this progressive judicial activist all true conservatives should respond with something like this, and I paraphrase John Paul Jones, with all due respect Mr. Leahy we have not yet begun to fight. If we do not lose heart, stay true to our American birthright to activism we will live to win another day. We are essentially a conservative nation, the progressive socialist/Marxist can only stretch the rubber band so far to the left before they will face the wrath of the American Patriot.
Les Carpenter III
Rational Nation USA
all quotes from Associated Press article Julie Hirshcfeld Davis - 8/5/09