Showing posts with label Sonia Sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sonia Sotomayor. Show all posts

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor: The Unwise Latina

Barack Obama and Sonia Sotomayor: An American Love Affair . . .




Sonia Sotomayor graduated "summa cum laude" (highest honors) with a degree in political science from Princeton University. Apparently, poli sci at Princeton, as at many big-time universities, is an easy major, one that doesn't demand a great command of the English language.

On Sunday and Monday, I'll be writing more about Sonia Sotomayor's intellectual limitations, which are many.

The other day I was taking notes during the first two days of the Sotomayor hearings. Her comments were legalistic and jargon-ridden to the point of being incomprehensible. When Senator Coburn asked her if we Americans "have a right to self-defense in our own homes," she gave an incoherent answer.

Even worse, she regularly misused common English words. In answering (sort of) Coburn's question she use the word "eminent" (standing out above others) several times when she meant "imminent." (about-to-happen). If she's ever ruled on the concept of "eminent domain," goodness knows what the decision sounded like.

Also, when she was talking about an individual's "store of knowledge" (itself a redundant phrase) she called it "story of knowledge." It was an absurd blunder. I doubt she won any spellingbees at Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx.

(Marine Delano of New York State pointed out to me that Sotomayor badly mispronounced the Latin phrase "sui generis," meaning originally "of its own kind" and now generally meaning individual or unique. Sotomayor pronounced it "soo jen-riss," whereas the correct form is "soo-eye gen-er-iss.")

The Democrats
on the Senate Judiciary Committee have been slobbering (and shedding tears) over Ms. Sotomayor and her supposed "brilliance." Sotomayor once described herself as the "poster girl for Affirmative Action." In her case, truer words were never spoken.

She's not a "wise Latina." She's an unwise one. She wouldn't even be a good candidate for the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.

Oh yes, she's a certain to get confirmed. Her confirmation is imminent, although there's nothing eminent about her.

America now is the country where every girl, even stupid ones, can grow up to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Rush Limbaugh No Hate-Monger

I realize that some extremists on the political Left delight in calling Rush Limbaugh all sorts of names, including "hate-monger." Frankly, Limbaugh has emphasized many times that, in addition to being a (first-rate) political analyst, he's also an entertainer. He realizes that, in order to be heard, it's usually necessary to speak in colorful language -- and, in his case, to hit liberals with a big (verbal) stick. Rush is a big admirer of Gov. Sarah Palin, and I hope she and he establish common cause to the greatest extent possible.

I saw on TV Rush Limbaugh's February presentation at CPAC and later read the speech (a long one). I described it as "A Love Letter to America," one emphasizing limited government, opportunity, tolerance, self-reliance, and, especially, liberty. I basically stopped listening to Rush with any regularity in 1994 -- too much bluster, but the man does have a good heart.

I realize that some on the Left called the CPAC presentation "hate speech," which it was not. People on the Left who hate Limbaugh do so because he's so effective -- and because he absolutely refuses to apologize for being an American.

Some people, including Rush, are extremely angry at Sonia Sotomayor, who has made remarks proclaiming herself superior not only to white people, but apparently to Black people. Note that she didn't give any props to "wise Black women" or "wise Asian women" or "wise Native Americans." Why not?

What if a Rush Limbaugh had pronounced white men superior to Black men . . . or Black women? I don't think Obama would have nominated him to the Supreme Court. I doubt if Rush has ever in his career made remarks as offensive as some of Sotomayor's. She's a racial polarizer, and he is not.

The whole "Latina" identity thing is B-S. If she truly believed the Latin culture was superior to our American culture, she would have headed back to Puerto Rico long ago. It's just pretense, a pose by someone who wants to assert her own "specialness."

Friday, May 29, 2009

Winning Against Obama in Congress

One last thought about winning in politics. On the show "House" (my wife is obsessed with it), Dr. House was talking to :"Amber," whom he had described as a "cutthroat b-word" about why she was so driven to prevail. She said, "You know, awhile back I watched a big football game on TV . . . and at the end, you know what, the team that won was the HAPPY one."

We won a big victory in the Senate -- 90 to 6 -- on the issue of providing Obama funds to close GITMO. We won mainly because we framed the issue in a way that prevented even Dems from voting for it. We won because we framed it, "Do you want homicidal maniacs -- terrorists -- in YOUR neighborhood?" Even Harry Reid voted against it. The next day or so Obama went out with his TelePrompter and tried to "make the case," but it was a case nobody wanted to hear -- or will ever want to hear.

If we can't do that kind of "framing-to-win" with Sonia Sotomayor, then we won't win. Heck, we're all used to that anyway, right? We can wear the health care debate as long as we put the issue in terms that will acquaint the American people with the "joys" of rationing and "take-a-number" health care.

One of Obama's key advisers on health care is Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel -- he's Rahm's brother -- who advocates getting rid of the Hippocratic Oath. His "treatment" for the ill elderly seems to be to hold a pillow over their heads. Cost control, you know. Obama's comment -- I'm not making this up -- is for society to face up to the need for "democratic decisions" on when to deny care. Patients and their families -- and even their personal doctors -- appear not to be part of those democratic decisions for euthanasia.

I have been urging people to get a copy of Dr. David Gratzer's book called The Cure. In it, he describes his shocking experience as a Canadian med student, taking a short cut through a hospital emergency facility. Every hallway was full of people on stretchers, most of them elderly, who had been there for days. In the air was an almost suffocating stench of urine and sweat. Many of the patients were moaning, and others were going in and out of consciouness. (The description is on p. 1 of the book).

Gratzer says that was his first real experience of what the much-celebrated Canadian system actually meant. We need to take these realities and rub the leftists noses in them.. One of the people writing in these e-mail exchanges (Teri) has TWENTY-ONE separate/related illnesses, although she remains as feisty as when she was a teenager. In Canada, she would not be writing about Obama and Sotomayor, because her funeral would have occurred long ago.

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Is America Losing Its Soul?

So many people back Gov. Sarah Palin because she represents the traditional values, human decency, and love of America that people like Obama and Sotomayor view with contempt bordering on loathing.

Political commentator Dick Morris said that Obama's goal was to turn the proud USA into . . . France. Why do so many people in our country, formerly known as "the land of the free and the brave," approve of Obama's action diminishing our country? Today's column will explore the bad things that are happening in this nation.


I sent the disturbing picture above of Obama and his political soulmate, Sotomayor, out to many people and one of them -- Cindy in New Mexico -- wrote back, "Ugh, so much for dinner!"
One recipient of my e-mail, Teresa in Illinois, sent me the following:
"Watching Obama speak truly creeps me out b/c there is always an audience of robots absorbing every word.The American people have lost their guts in some respects. There is a vast difference for those who are hungry for opportunity and those content with the status quo.
"With the exception of the great people I have marched with and all the great organizations we support, I also see a great disconnect with the two wars we fight. I can barely say "America is at war" without having some skepticism, because the majority of this country has turned their backs on our troops. The military is at war while America rushes home to watch their reality TV and update their Facebook pages.
"The Tea parties give me hope, but we need a re-awakening. America needs to struggle to reclaim our grit and our gut." -- Teresa
America, a Nation of Voyeurs?
Teresa, you are right on target about the disconnect. It seems to me that people born and growing up in the shadow of World War II -- in the 40s and 50s mainly -- had a kind of awe about being Americans. Every family was touched by that War.
Your comment about the idiotic reality shows struck home. In general, we've become a nation of voyeurs, celebrating people our predecessors would have turn away from in revulsion. Sometimes when I'm looking for news on TV, I keep running into the disgusting Jon & Kate, or Nancy Grace ("all Caylee Anthony all the time") and "Showbiz Tonight" featuring the multitude of shallow and immoral people in Hollywood.
It has struck me recently that many of the cable channels and the traditional ones are busy trying to make "heroes" out of people who've committed murders and other crimes. They make household names -- "stars" -- out of individual like Drew Peterson and Scott Peterson. They would be doing the same for sadistic murderer Ted Bundy if he hadn't lived slightly before the reality show mentality.
Are so many Americans' lives so shallow -- so pointless -- that they need to spend so many hours learning every detail about people who are thoroughly contemptible?


Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sonia Sotmayor: Rule of Lawlessness

Two unpleasant human beings in a pose of perpetual adoration . . . Obama, Sotomayor

About Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comment, Stuart Taylor wrote the following in the National Journal: "Do we want a new justice who comes close to stereotyping white males as (on average) inferior beings?"

Barack Hussein Obama wants such a Justice. Sonia Sotomayor obviously does . . . but does America really want to go down that road of identity politics? We shall see.




Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, falsely claimed today (May 26) that she believes deeply in "the rule of law." As you learn more about this woman, you'll find that for her the "rule of law" is a term that means the rule of law-flouting liberal activist judges.Barack Obama clearly believes that Sotomayor possesses the quality he believes most important in a judge: empathy.

However, in her case, empathy apparently is synonymous with bias in terms of gender, race, and ethnicity. From her public statements and rulings, believes that people should receive unequal protection under the law.

Specifically, in the case of the New Haven, CT, firefighters, Sotomayor ruled that Caucasian firemen (and one Hispanic) somehow had an unfair advantage when it came to promotion. However, on any objective basis, they had no such advantage.

Many lawyers who have argued cases before Sotomayor believe she lacks a judicial temperament. In fact, some make the case that she's a bad-tempered individual.

Consider the comments made by lawyers in The Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, as outlined in one of Jeffrey Rosen's articles in the liberal New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478




  1. "She is a terror on the bench."

  2. "She is very outspoken."

  3. "She can be difficult."

  4. "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry."

  5. She is overly aggressive--not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament."

  6. "She abuses lawyers."

  7. "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts."

  8. "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system--as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

Those are descriptions of a narcissist or an egomaniac, or both. Is that the kind of person we really want on the Supreme Court?