Life, the universe ... and Sotomayor

They won. They have Congressional might ... and their choice will sit.

The trouble is this: the candidate is not qualified ... nor was Barry, but this does not seem to matter to the American public. You see, Barry was simply underqualified: he had sat less than 145 days in the U.S. Senate before announcing his run, and had been the CEO of precisely nothing.

Sotomayor is a Federal Judge -- that's a lifetime appointment, breakable only by something extraordinary in terms of malfeasance. Since being elevated from prosecutor to the District Court by Bush Senior (who is generally, an "OK" sort despite numerous failures) ... wait ... let's look at that. She was an Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan for about 5 years. That means that Morgenthau got to hire a female latin attorney from Yale ... that's a trifecta! Yale got to educate an under-privileged female latin from the Bronx, their own trifecta, and Princeton before them! And of course, Bill Clinton, who elevated her to the Second Circuit simply couldn't wait to score his trifecta. Before this turns to a rant about affirmative action, Sotomayor has, unlike Barry, a record of academic authorship and as editor of the Yale Law Journal and published her pieces. Judge Cabranes (a very accomplished jurist, and Sotomayor's professor at Yale -- he was a District Court Judge in D.Conn.) recommended her to Morgenthau -- and for me Cabranes' recommendation is not mere race politics: if she were an affirmative action flack, he would not have done it. But it sure looks and smells odd.

Further, 3 out of 5 of her decisions to go to the Supreme Court have been reversed. "There! You see!?!" No, I don't. Because only the cherry-picked ripe cases are taken by writ of certiorari: you need present and urgent conflict between the Circuits on an issue of law to get there -- or a few other rare instances. So it is only where Constitutional interpretation is at stake do we get there. Sotomayor has authored literally hundreds of Second Circuit decision -- and where there isn't conflict presented as to constitutional interpretation, that is the highest Court the aggrieved party can get to.

Meaning, there is TONS of leeway to influence policy through "law" without risk of reversal. AND, as a matter of law, you can't even get to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals unless "a matter of law" is involved. As a "finder of fact" on the District Court bench, she had even greater ability to move her liberal agenda forwards. You can only get to the Appeals Court through gross error in findings of fact (it almost NEVER happens) or incorrect application of the law ... and that can be VERY subjective.

Sotomayor has never really had any personal disasters or setbacks (apart from a divorce which may or may not have been a setback). Straight from the Bronx to the Second Circuit. Sort of like Barry. It could only happen in the good old US of A. But all this experience and astoundingly good luck does not mean that she is qualified. In fact she could be spectacularly ill-qualified. You see, to be a good Judge you have to leave your personal agenda "at the door." As a finder of fact at the trial court level (as in the U.S. District Court) you need to ensure that you are not reversed -- although you can view facts very differently than, say, someone else might. What is a "slur" and "discrimination" to one person may be mere joking or of no consequence to the next. Just so long as your "view" is not so extraordinary that it shock the consciousness, then you should be OK -- provided that you meet the requirements of also "following the law." Nobody said that Sotomayor was stupid ... in fact she may be very clever indeed -- like Bill Clinton.


My fear is that she is intellectually dishonest -- and it is precisely this dishonesty that should disqualify her from the Supreme Court. She is on tape epxressing her own RACIST statement: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life....” Hang on a frikkin second, if it was a white male that had said the equivalent ... the world would be up in arms! Racism is racism, no matter who says it. And who the hell is she to presume that she is "wise?" Don't be an idiot and parse this as though she were not refering to herself.

Worse, she is on tape stating that "policy" is made in the Appeals Court. She then realized that it was on tape, mentioned that and back-tracked, ending in a lame, "...well, you know." And that is precisely why she is not fit to sit on the Supreme Court. That position is meant to interpret a 200+ year old document that is the fabric of our society, that has endured only because of restraint and certainly not because of "policy makers."

Just "because we won" is NOT a good reason to mess with our judicial process. We need less Souter/Ginsburgs and more Roberts (although maybe not Scalia or Thomas). If the law is wrong, let our ELECTED officials change it. If they get it wrong, they can undo it or be thrown out of office. But do not let UNELECTED life-time appointees have a say. That is bad precedent.