Judge Sotomayor is only a small part of the disaster but a symbolic one. With an activist liberal President commanding absolute majorities of course, we would have had a liberal appointment to the Supreme Court. Could have been worse than Sotomayor.
Se is a racist but, at least, she is self-disciplined. In two-plus days of Senate hearings, she managed to never state the obvious:
“The ‘wise old Latina’ statement was a racist statement. I am sorry I made it. That was 15 years ago. How about you? (The things you said fifteen years ago and before).”
She is also managed to divulge nothing about her beliefs regarding what agitates most Americans, notably abortion and the right to bear arms. When pressed on the inviolability of property rights, in connection with a pro-confiscation ruling she had made, she said her ruling was just following the rules.
The real problem is obvious but no one on the Republican side has the brass to talk about it. So here I goes:
Judge Sotomayor passed the bar, which requires hard work. After that, her career is a pure product of affirmative action. She is a woman with a mediocre mind who was pushed along the way because the system needs women and members of protected minorities in full view. The Republican Party lost a long time ago the will to say no.
The best evidence of her mediocrity is her startlingly poor command of the English language. I know, I know, English was probably not her first language. It was not mine either. Yet, there is zero chance I would confuse “vagrancies” and “vagaries,” or “providence” and “province.” (The latter is a real doozy; see below.) She had a lifetime of legal practice, presumably in English, to learn the language. She did not learn it well enough to be a judge, not even a lower-court judge. That’s what people who are not very bright do: They fail in spite of much repetition to learn something others master by age 20.
For the non-linguists among you, let me point out that what we are facing there is more than simply an inability to acquire a foreign language. “Providence,” in Spanish, is “providencia.” “Province” is, “provincia.” It’s not unfamiliarity with a foreign language that’s the issue. The real issue is language in general. She does not recognize common words in her native language. Uneducated people who are also intelligent usually don’t have this problem. She is well educated, from a formal standpoint. Therefore…. (complete the sentence.)
There is worse: During the friendly Senate hearing, the former clown, Senator Franken – elected by a tsunami of 300-odd votes – tried to help. He asked her a silly TV quiz question, which she flunked. While flunking, she came out with this mind-boggle: When I was watching Perry Mason as a girl, I was amazed that he, “proved most of his clients innocent.” (The words in quote marks are an exact quote; the rest of the sentence is my very accurate paraphrase.)
Hello, Judge Sotomayor! In no American court does a defense attorney have to prove his client innocent. There is no such burden at all. It’s up to the government to prove that he is guilty. That’s not just a matter of words. It’s an issue of burden of proof that is extraordinarily important in the actual practice of American justice.
For whatever reason, the next Supreme Court Justice does not understand a central principle of American justice.
Note: The Sotomayor statements above I heard with my own ears. They are part of the public record. There is no possibility of misunderstanding.
The President is not against competence. He is indifferent to it. He probably thinks it unfair that some people are more competent than others. Besides, he never demonstrated competence at anything himself, except in getting elected.
The Sotomayor nomination is just a small part of the rolling Obama disaster. I don’t have the courage to discuss every part of the disaster. I try to do on this blog what the respectable part of the main media is not doing, or not doing well, in my judgment. Besides, typing hurts my hands. I have to be more selective. Maybe this will improve my writing.