This yesterday morning, America woke up to an inspiring press conference with Obama, his teleprompter, and the likely next Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor.
Most liberals were thrilled when they saw her name. Not because they necessarily knew her, but because they were totally pumped when they deduced that she must be a female and an ethnic one. They were even more psyched when they found out she wasn’t some Uncle Tom when the blogs reported that she had said:
That type of prejudice and stereotyping is right in the deranged liberal wheelhouse, but unfortunately it’s unconstitutional and it reeks of judicial activism. Of course this fits directly into Obama’s own radical viewpoint and was easily predicted if only you paid attention to what he’s said:
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom…The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
You’d think a brilliant Constitutional lawyer lecturer would know better, wouldn’t you?
Me too, but maintaining congruent arguments is always a challenge for liberals and by lunch time on this awesome day, they had to completely flip their script when Prop 8 was upheld in California and same-sex marriage remained banned, in part because of differences between genders.
Instantly, they had to switch from admitting (if not boasting) that the genders are not the same, to insisting that they indeed are, and that anyone who disagrees is a hater and a homophobe.
Such is the difficulty of day to day life when suffering from a mental disorder.
People who are speculating about whether the next nominee will be a woman, a Hispanic or whatever, are missing the point. That we are discussing the next Supreme Court justice in terms of group “representation” is a sign of how far we have already strayed from the purpose of law and the weighty responsibility of appointing someone to sit for life on the highest court in the land.
Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with “empathy” for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law. That would be bad news, even in a traffic court, much less in a court that has the last word on your rights under the Constitution of the United States.
Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with “empathy” for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees “equal protection of the laws” for all America.
We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges
Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words “rule of law.” And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.
Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law “to relieve the distress of the German people and nation”? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.