Everything Obama has done so far, both domestically and abroad, has been 180 degrees wrong, and his first Supreme Court pick doesn’t break his ignominious record. Sonia Sotomayor is a disastrously bad judge. She will work on the Supreme Court to further Obama’s agenda of destroying individual rights and reshaping America by the standard of collectivism.
Of course, most of the commentary on Sotomayor has focused not on her ideas, but on that over which she has no control: she was born an hispanic woman. Multiculturalism has so perverted the west that we ignore philosophy to focus on blood. And only blood will come of blood.
The best analysis has come from Richard Epstein:
We have already seen a president whose professed devotion to the law takes a backseat to all sorts of other considerations. The treatment of the compensation packages of key AIG ( AIG – news – people ) executives (which eventually led to the indecorous resignation of Edward Liddy), and the massive insinuation of the executive branch into the (current) Chrysler and (looming) General Motors ( GM – news – people ) bankruptcies are sure to generate many a spirited struggle over two issues that are likely to define our future Supreme Court’s jurisprudence. The level of property rights protection against government intervention on the one hand, and the permissible scope of unilateral action by the president in a system that is (or at least should be) characterized by a system of separation of powers and checks and balances on the other.
Here is one straw in the wind that does not bode well for a Sotomayor appointment. Justice Stevens of the current court came in for a fair share of criticism (all justified in my view) for his expansive reading in Kelo v. City of New London (2005) of the “public use language.” Of course, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment is as complex as it is short: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” But he was surely done one better in the Summary Order in Didden v. Village of Port Chester issued by the Second Circuit in 2006. Judge Sotomayor was on the panel that issued the unsigned opinion–one that makes Justice Stevens look like a paradigmatic defender of strong property rights.
I have written about Didden in Forbes. The case involved about as naked an abuse of government power as could be imagined. Bart Didden came up with an idea to build a pharmacy on land he owned in a redevelopment district in Port Chester over which the town of Port Chester had given Greg Wasser control. Wasser told Didden that he would approve the project only if Didden paid him $800,000 or gave him a partnership interest. The “or else” was that the land would be promptly condemned by the village, and Wasser would put up a pharmacy himself. Just that came to pass. But the Second Circuit panel on which Sotomayor sat did not raise an eyebrow. Its entire analysis reads as follows: “We agree with the district court that [Wasser’s] voluntary attempt to resolve appellants’ demands was neither an unconstitutional exaction in the form of extortion nor an equal protection violation.”
Maybe I am missing something, but American business should shudder in its boots if Judge Sotomayor takes this attitude to the Supreme Court. Justice Stevens wrote that the public deliberations over a comprehensive land use plan is what saved the condemnation of Ms. Kelo’s home from constitutional attack. Just that element was missing in the Village of Port Chester fiasco. Indeed, the threats that Wasser made look all too much like the “or else” diplomacy of the Obama administration in business matters.
(HT: TIA Daily)
A thuggish president has nominated a thuggish judge to serve on the highest court so he can continue to expand his power over Americans without any obstacles from the court. (Come to think of it, Obama is a lot like FDR, who tried to pack the court.)
Tom Bowden goes deeper philosophically to show that Sotomayor’s multiculturalism rejects objectivity and impartiality.
If initial reactions are any indication, Sotomayor is a lock. Republicans are such a joke these days that they have no idea what to do. They’re terrified that people will say “Republicans hate women and hispanics” if they vote against Sotomayor. They have no clue as to how to mount an opposition to her based on ideas.
Over at Ace of Spades, they ask “What Has Happened to Little Green Footballs?” Charles Johnson can’t understand why Rush Limbaugh would want the Sotomayor nomination to fail. (Do you think the Democrats, who invented Borking, might have wanted Thomas, Alito and Roberts to fail in becoming Supreme Court judges? But it’s always okay for collectivists to be “mean-spirited” because they are motivated by altruism.) Mark you, Johnson is considered a vehement opponent of the left — and he is a puling pragmatist.
I once marveled at something I read about priests in the 7th century AD, the heart of the Dark Ages. Learning had so degenerated that many priests did not know what the Latin words they spoke meant. To them and their laity, Latin was just magic words, like abracadabra; it was the magic one spoke to God. How could people let reason, science and learning disappear?
But are we not losing the same values now? Compare today’s hapless Republicans to Barry Goldwater. Somehow I think Goldwater could have mounted an argument against Sotomayor on her disdain for property rights. Instead we’re doomed to hear Republicans bubbling over about Sotomayor’s “inspirational life story.” Yes, all you hispanic little girls out there, take heart that someday you too can grow up to trample liberty and individual rights on the Supreme Court in the name of altruism and egalitarianism.
As Leonard Peikoff said, the Dark Ages were dark on principle. They followed logically from Augustine’s attack on reason, science and all worldy values. Today we are turning away from reason, again on principle. A generation of multiculturalism and other New Leftist isms has left us incapable of thinking about anything more abstract than bloodlines. What tribe does she belong to?
The west is getting darker — on principle.