Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Qualifications

By Nicholas Stix

Sit on the Supreme Court? Heck, Sonia Sotomayor isn't fit to sit on a jury!

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s Senate confirmation hearings today enter their fifth day. On Day One, Sen. Lindsey Graham (Vichy-SC) stated to her, on the record, “Unless you have a complete meltdown you’re going to get confirmed.”

Sotomayor was a longtime board member of the racist, irredentist, Hispanic supremacist group, La Raza (The Race), which is the equivalent of a white being a Grand Kleagle of the KKK. She has a history of bullying lawyers. She has publicly made in-your-face racist and sexist statements about her approach to deciding the law, and publicly bragged, in violation of the constitutional separation of powers, of legislating from the bench.

Not only did Sotomayor ignore the cast-iron cinch of an argument for the white firemen plaintiffs in Ricci v. DeStefano that came before her three-judge appeals panel, but with her two colleagues engaged in unethical deception, in seeking to “bury” the case with “a one-paragraph, unpublished, summary order with no mention of … the ‘questions of exceptional importance’ raised in the appeal,” in an attempt to hide this fundamental constitutional case from the Supreme Court. And they would have succeeded, had Judge Jose A. Cabranes, a colleague from the full Second Circuit, not publicly dissented.

The poorly reasoned decisions of this “quota queen” have been reversed by the Supreme Court at an extraordinary, 66.7 percent rate, including Ricci.

Sotomayor has repeatedly lied, in insisting that it has been “proven” that all mental and professional tests—on which she admittedly performed mediocrely—are “culturally biased.” “… my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

That would be an Asian cultural bias.

As Larry Auster and others have pointed out (from here to here), Sotomayor has also repeatedly engaged in deception during her sworn testimony before the Senate this week, in misrepresenting her repeated racist (“wise Latina woman”) and unethical statements (about making policy from the bench). All the training in the world from David Axelrod, et al., couldn’t help her there. What has saved her, however, has been the cowardice of the Living Dead Party. If there were any men left in the Senate, they would have announced that Sotomayor’s racism disqualified her from the bench.

Any judge worth his salt would be ashamed to use his ethnicity as a “qualification” for the bench, because it would be a confession that he was an unqualified, incompetent interpreter of the law. Yet Sotomayor revels in her ethnicity.

At every step of the way, Sotomayor has benefited not from her ability, but from affirmative action, in other words, from racism. Indeed, she has bragged, “I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby.”

She has agitated for Hispanics’ “right” to be admitted to “highly selective” universities, despite demonstrably inferior test scores, and to be hired as professors despite a lack of scholarship, based on nothing more than their ethnicity, and for “Hispanic” litigants’ (who, since she assumes they do not know English, sounds like a euphemism for illegal aliens) “right” to have Hispanic judges preside over their court cases, i.e., take their side against non-Hispanics and American institutions. Thus would Sotomayor reduce all public life to a rigged ethnic spoils system, thereby throwing generations of valid mental and professional testing and scholarship, the merit principle, 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and 1964 Civil Rights Act out the window.

Sotomayor isn’t a jurist at all; this self-styled “wise Latina woman” is an ethnocentric, separatist advocate who, consistent with her racism and sexism, hates the rule of law, fairness, science and meritocracy.

Is there a single positive reason why this woman should be sitting on the bench in traffic court? To ask the question is to answer it.

But Sotomayor is not only unqualified to serve as a traffic court judge. As former U.S. attorney—but please don’t hold it against him—Andrew McCarthy has pointed out, Sotomayor is unqualified even to serve as a juror in the lowest level court.

McCarthy quotes the standard instruction that every judge must read to the jury:

You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them…. Perform these duties fairly and impartially. Do not allow sympathy, prejudice, fear, or public opinion to influence you. You should not be influenced by any person's race, color, religion, national ancestry, or sex.

McCarthy then asks,

Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let's say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to "transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law"; and that there are "basic differences" in the way people "of color" exercise "logic and reasoning." If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request? Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?

For what job, then, is this self-proclaimed “wise Latina woman” qualified? If she were a man with a strong back, I’d say digging ditches. But that’s not an option, though it would be fit punishment.

What do we do with racist, treasonous, incompetent “persons of color” who are good for nothing? Why, we make them President!

Fighting Racism: The Case of Judge Sonia Sotomayor

By Nicholas Stix

Sonia Sotomayor is waging war on “racism.” If you don’t believe me, just ask her. Why do blacks and Hispanics not do as well as whites on standardized tests? “Racism.” (Never mind about the Asians.) Why are more blacks and Hispanics in jail than whites? “Racism.” We can’t have capital punishment, either. As The Urban Grind observes, “Judge Sotomayor also believes that capital punishment is racist.”

The Urban Grind observes, as well, that Judge Sotomayor “believes that denying felons the right to vote while they’re still in prison is racist.”

During the 2000 Great Florida Disenfranchisement Hoax, as the overlapping groups of Democratic operatives, white leftists, and black supremacists sought to steal the election after the fact, they employed at least two different strategies:

• Telling ever more exaggerated race hoax stories supporting their claim that Republican forces in Florida had stolen the election via the disenfranchisement of black voters (in reality, some of the black voters claiming disenfranchisement, at three segregated black colleges, were found to be guilty of vote fraud, through having voted twice, but none was prosecuted); and

• Projecting their contemporary hoax onto the past, by inventing a white conspiracy to disenfranchise blacks through denying felons the vote, after they had served out their sentences.

(According to the Miami Herald, some 5,000 convicted felons, 75 percent of whom were registered Democrats, illegally voted in Florida in 2000. To my knowledge, none of the felons who committed vote fraud was prosecuted, either, as Florida officials backed off, in the face of black racial demagoguery.)

Back then, the purpose of strategy #2 was to get all black felons who had finished their jail sentences reinstated as voters, under the assumption that the overwhelming majority would vote Democratic. (It wasn’t clear whether they had to have actually finished their sentences, i.e., including their terms of parole or probation, meaning that the hoaxers likely sought to get the convicts’ franchise re-instated while they were still convicts.) The Village Voice even made this racist strategy explicit, with references to Marcus Garvey and black power.

The Urban Grind quotes Ben Johnson:

Sotomayor’s position came in a terse dissent to the 2006 case Hayden v. Pataki. The case argued that New York’s law barring convicted felons from voting until they are released from prison or complete parole is racist and thus unconstitutional. Its supporters made this argument on the grounds that “[m]ore than 80% of the New Yorkers disenfranchised…are Blacks or Latinos, who lose their right to vote at more than ten times the rate of other citizens.” Plaintiff Joseph “Jazz” Hayden, before he began his humanitarian crusade on behalf of the disenfranchised, was convicted in 1987 of stabbing a sanitation worker to death.Most Second Circuit Court of Appeals judges disagreed with him, but Sotomayor found Hayden’s objection supported by the “plain terms” of the Voting Rights Act.

Her minority opinion (no pun intended) puts into perspective precisely what a judicial activist she is and how deeply concerns of ethnicity color her view of the law.

Johnson then enters into a scholarly discussion of the ancient Greek roots of the practice of disenfranchising felons, and shows that, contrary to racial socialists’ phony claims, in America the practice is older than the black franchise.

Note Sotomayor’s further radicalization beyond the 2000 talking point. Back then, forbidding ex-convicts to vote was “racist”; now, forbidding current convicts from voting is “racist.”

And one may not disagree with Sotomayor, et al. Merely disagreeing with these people is “racist.” Referring to them as “these people” is “racist,” too! Given Sotomayor’s documented viciousness from the bench, just imagine oral arguments in a Supreme Court on which she sat. It would be like a contemporary university faculty senate meeting!

In case anyone should accuse me of hyperbole, the practice whereby black and Hispanic racists and their white allies constantly harass whites with charges of “racism” regarding the most innocent, trivial linguistic usage, in order to continuously keep them on the defensive, is an over 20-year-old tradition.

(When Sotomayor’s critics argue that she lacks “judicial temperament,” they are implicitly making the same sort of character requirement of jurists that was a given in pre-affirmative action, pre-“diversity” higher education, back in those benighted days before “diverse” faculty and administrators had their own goon squads, with which to terrorize colleagues. In City on a Hill: Testing the American Dream at City College (1994), James Traub showed how tenured black supremacist Leonard Jeffries used his personal goon squad—almost certainly at taxpayer expense—to physically intimidate people, including Traub, at the City College of New York. Thanks to thugs like Jeffries, and the jettisoning of all moral and academic standards, in a few short years, City College deteriorated from America’s most rigorous undergraduate college, to a racist, ghetto hellhole.

How long will it be, at this rate, before Supreme Court justices have personal goon squads, with which to “persuade” their fellow justices as to the power of their arguments?)

Note too Sotomayor’s rationale: By assuming that any law that “impacts disproportionately” on blacks’ or Hispanics’ versus whites’ voting rights (or, apparently, blacks’ or Hispanics’ murder rights) is racist, she is applying what is called “disparate impact” to voting rights (and the death penalty).

“Disparate impact” is the pseudo-scientific fig leaf that has been used since circa 1970 to cover the racist power grab that successfully, more often than not, illegally violated civil service law, the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act, in order to racially discriminate against qualified whites and East Asians on behalf of radically unqualified blacks and Hispanics, destroy the merit system, and turn America into a system of racial spoils.

According to “disparate impact,” any government action, regardless of intent, that results in rewarding “protected classes” (initially blacks, then Hispanics and American Indians, now the handicapped and homosexuals, and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women) in a smaller proportion than it does non-protected classes (white, heterosexual men and sometimes, depending on political expediency, white women), is discriminatory.

“Disparate impact” made the counter-factual assumptions that, absent discrimination, all racial (and due to political alliances since) and other demographic groups which, due to political expediency will be counted in a given situation, will have identical average IQs, test scores, grades, poverty rates, school and college graduation rates, crime rates, etc. (Those indices, such as professional sports, in which “protected classes” have disproportionately higher success rates than non-protected classes are either to be ignored or attributed to the virtues of the protected class in question. ‘Heads we win, tails you lose.’)

The combination of using “disparate impact” and screaming “racist!” (or “sexist!,” etc.) at every critic, and if those tactics didn’t work, firing, “whitelisting,” and/or assaulting him, ushered in a counter-scientific revolution. “Scholars” and lawyers no longer had to marshal evidence and prove intent. All they had to show was inequality of results, in order to “prove” their case.

But why arbitrarily limit the criticism’s target? Given that blacks are incarcerated at over eight times the rate of whites—and at over 30 times the rate of Asians!—the criminal laws themselves must be repealed as racist. (Hispanics are imprisoned at half the black rate.)

The sophistry of “disparate impact” is central to the racial profiling myth. If it is declared unthinkable, the facts be damned, that blacks and Hispanics commit crime at higher rates than whites, and whites are blamed for every social ill, higher rates of black and Hispanic imprisonment must necessarily be the fault of white racism.

These are the logical consequences of disparate impact dogma, which Sonia Sotomayor and “Barack Obama” both embrace. If we accept disparate impact’s backwards theory of the law, whereby the law’s legitimacy is determined after the fact, based on whether its enforcement results in parity of imprisonment between minorities and whites, there can be no criminal law. It must be jettisoned, while anti-white civil rights laws must be retained.

“Disparate impact” dogma demands that the worse blacks and Hispanics conduct themselves, the more whites and Asians must be punished, especially when the original black and Hispanic misconduct entailed victimizing whites and Asians! And there must be ever more blacks and Hispanics, and ever fewer whites and Asians. “Disparate impact” is a weapon of ultimately genocidal race war.

“Disparate impact” is incompatible with science or any rational, fair, system of law. For Sonia Sotomayor, as for the man who nominated her, there is no law or science; there is only race war.