Tag Archives: Sonia Sotomayor

Sexy Snails and Other Federally Funded Priorities

imageIn order to find a way to reopen White House tours, somebody should really be appointed the job of figuring out where to cut corners.  Clearly, the $900K that was spent on the president’s weekend golfing expedition with Tiger Woods in Florida, at the rate of $74,000 per week, could have kept the doors open to schoolchildren for the remainder of the school year.

If the feds want to squeeze another couple of months’ worth of tours out of the tight budget, maybe the National Science Foundation can rescind its $876,752 grant to the University of Iowa to study the sex lives of New Zealand mud snails.  During this administration at least, finding out “why any organism has sex,” apparently takes priority over White House tours for students. But then again, isn’t Georgetown University sexpert Sandra Fluke someone who should be able to answer that question without it costing taxpayers a million dollars?

Nonetheless, the purpose of the snail sex study is to see if it’s better for snails to “reproduce sexually or asexually.”  Seems snails do both, which could offer hope for women who desire to have children but just haven’t met that special someone just yet.

Read the remainder of the article at The Blacksphere

Hobby Lobby and the Loss of America’s Soul

hobby_lobby_banner_5B1_5D

Originally posted at American Thinker

In America, established rights such as religious liberty and the right to bear arms are currently under attack. Liberals are in charge and they seem to feel that straightforward Constitutional precepts require alteration or eradication.

Take for instance the “right to privacy” — the left has had no problem broadening the meaning of “privacy” to include the right to kill an unborn child. As for religious liberty, unless you’re a Muslim demanding a Ramadan meal, liberals like Supreme Court judge Sonia Sotomayor, rather than uphold religious liberty, facilitate Barack Obama’s effort to redefine the free exercise clause of the First Amendment.

Currently, Obamacare is ushering in a new definition of “religious liberty.” So far, the Catholic Church has already received fair warning that when it comes to providing insurance that covers birth control and abortion, there are limits on “religious liberty.” Moreover, they are also finding out that refusal to conform to progressive edicts could result in the federal government raining down fire and brimstone on the defiant.

So, in conjunction with the updated version of the “right to bear arms,” right about now liberals should provide a lexicon that defines religious liberty in the following way: The right for the government to demand, by law, that religious institutions be forced to support policies that contradict their core beliefs.

Take for example the Oklahoma-based companies craft store giant Hobby Lobby and booksellers Mardel Inc. In 2010 Hobby Lobby grossed $2.6 billion in sales, and employed 13,000 people in 455 outlets in 42 states.

Both companies are owned by Bible-believing Christian families who close up shop on the Sabbath and pay full-time employees a minimum wage of $11 per hour versus the federally required $7.25 minimum wage.

Currently, Hobby Lobby is the largest religiously-owned non-Catholic business to have filed a lawsuit against the HHS birth control directive. Yet, despite the fact that they’ve been founded and run on Christian principles, Oklahoma U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton ruled that Hobby Lobby and Mardel are not religious organizations and therefore subject to the federal birth control dictate.

Because the Christian-owned company maintains that the mandate “violates the religious beliefs for their owners,” it’s evident that Hobby Lobby must think “religious liberty” is defined in a way other than how it is being defined by liberals at this time.

Hobby Lobby maintains that the “morning-after pill is tantamount to abortion because it can prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted in a woman’s womb.” Therefore, “defy[ing] a federal mandate requiring it to offer employees health coverage that includes access to the morning-after pill” is the company’s way of staying true to its core convictions.

In the meantime, for failing to meet what she called “the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief,”Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied a request for an injunction while the Hobby Lobby lawsuit is pending. If the injunction were granted that would have prevented the birth control mandate from beginning on January 1st.

Because it was denied, until the lawsuit reaches the lower courts, Hobby Lobby had better submit to the HHS mandate or, starting January 1, 2013, figure out a way to come up with $1.3 million a day in IRS excise taxes.

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case, if government can now force Christians to pay for insurance that covers abortion-inducing drugs, shouldn’t they also require other religiously-based businesses like Halal food markets to sell foodstuffs considered haram? After all, in the words of the Honorable Joe Heaton, a food market is not a religious organization. Right?

Attorney Kyle Duncan of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty speaking for Hobby Lobby said the company would continue to “provide health insurance to all qualified employees.” But while its lawsuit is pending, the company does not intend to offer health insurance that provides pharmaceuticals that induce spontaneous abortion.

On behalf of Hobby Lobby, maybe Duncan should point out that the $3.75 per hour over and above the $7.25 per hour the Christian-run business’s full-time employees would be earning if they worked 40 hours a week elsewhere comes to $150 extra per week, which should be more than enough money to purchase emergency birth control.

Despite facing millions in fines, the noncompliant Hobby Lobby and Mardel Inc. CEO and founder David Green refuses to surrender the companies’ religious convictions. Green has said he’d rather abandon the business. A $2.2 billion-a-year company that is willing to close itsdoors rather than compromise its core principles? Now that’s impressive.

Green maintains that Hobby Lobby, “[b]y being required to make a choice between sacrificing our faith, or paying millions of dollars in fines, we essentially must choose which poison pill to swallow. We simply cannot abandon our religious beliefs to comply with this mandate.” Sounds like Hobby Lobby’s David Green believes verbatim the Scripture verse that asks “What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, yet forfeit his soul?”

In the end it is clear that Hobby Lobby’s CEO is more concerned about his standing before God than his standing in the business world, hence proving that in their effort to gain the world, liberals’ redefinition of “religious liberty” forfeits our nation’s soul.

The “Trilling” Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor

Slide1

The word empathy stirs up images of understanding, sensitivity, and the ability to vicariously identify with the feelings, thoughts and experiences of another. The expression, in some circles, is linked to the promotion of the belief that those who suffer have an inherent right to receive reparation, either in the form of prerogative, or title.

Yet, in America today a compelling life story can still lack impact if not coupled with a diverse background. Empathy birthed from hardship, experienced as a minority, can serve as the ultimate resume requirement for the highest of public office. Although unconstitutional as a standard to select political leaders or to make legislative or judicial decisions, in the current political climate empathy, tied to diversity, is a perfect synthesis.

Liberal belief is that only someone from a distinct heritage can identify with the struggles of those from a similar background. One example where empathy and diversity have catapulted an individual to stratospheric career heights is the Latina woman confirmed to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor.

Obama expressed that he views the, “quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles, an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.” All qualities that sound eerily like Obama might have been considering Oprah Winfrey before he settled on Sotomayor.

President Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor, as a contender to replace Justice Souter, based on her personal story, ethnicity and gender.  Obama’s response to her was apparently an empathetic one based on a background, which had the components to insure the kind of predisposed decision-making Obama considers equitable and fair.

Judge Sotomayor is a minority woman who is being portrayed as someone who valiantly elevated herself from the throes of a “drab yellow kitchen” in Bronxdale, NY to the Supreme Court confirmation process.  And, she did it with an insulin needle in one hand and a Sabrett’s hot dog in the other. To add impact to her candidacy, low economic status added splashes of color to a gripping, made for TV, tearjerker. In empathetic America, where humble upbringing triumphs over credentials. Sonia’s Latina woman story qualified her to be considered for a lifetime appointment to America’s highest court, where her sympathy will have national influence.

When choosing Sotomayor, Obama overlooked those on the Left who have, “…expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.”  Obama’s willingness to ignore her weaknesses underscores his faith in Sotomayor as someone who can both inspire and extend empathy from the bench.

Sotomayor’s empathetic legal philosophy has embroiled her in questionable, activist decisions and repeated racist statements.  Her apologists defend these accusations by prefacing her judicial history with a recap of her “great American story.”  This is done in an effort to distract from her record.  Moreover, they repeatedly enforce her poignant saga by reminding everyone that she would be the first Latina woman on the court.  Combining empathy and diversity serves up the perfect mind numbing cocktail for a cautious public’s consumption.

Sotomayor defenders use touching narrative as justification for her confirmation.  The fact that she grew up in a Bronx ghetto has been elevated to the level of an Ivy League education and takes priority over judicial competence, fairness and adherence to the Constitution. The charming whimsy of a candidate who loves New York baseball and drew inspiration from Nancy Drew and Perry Mason cancels out the negativity of racism, unfair judgment and gender discrimination.

The nomination and confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor is a symbolic demonstration of diversity, gender and empathy politics. In anticipation of Sotomayor’s assured meteoric rise to the highest court, “wise Latina women” everywhere are hugging each other, dabbing moistened eyes and preparing to clink glasses filled with coquito. The only thing the proceedings lacked were the addition of a soaring string orchestra, a slide show of the Bronxdale housing projects and the reading of Sonia’s moving childhood journal.

The confirmation process of Sonia Sotomayor highlighted and revealed the fact that empathy takes primacy over the oath of office for a Supreme Court Justice, which says,

“I, Sonia Sotomayor, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Judge under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

A dichotomy has surfaced for Americans to consider.  The empathetic choice of Sonia Sotomayor was made with respect toward all things a Supreme Court justice should disdain when deciding the law. Sotomayor cannot exercise the empathy she was recruited to implement without ignoring the oath she is slated to take.

Not one Senator asked the question, how does a Supreme Court justice solemnly swear to disregard the very empathetic things in others, which were the basis of her consideration for nomination?  How does a Supreme Court justice, who has failed to be impartial in cases on the lower courts, with empathetic respect to a person’s race and gender, now be trusted, under oath, to “discharge and perform all the duties” of a Constitution that takes none of these things into consideration?

Rest assured those questions will not be addressed because in Barack’s O-merica unfair judgment, irresponsible comments and racist statements exhibit the type of judicial temperament he reveres. Sympathetic stories take precedence over Constitutional fidelity.   The ability to overlook Constitutional parameters and the willingness to inject prejudice into judgments are highly touted pre-requisites to be considered for a seat on the court President Obama’s election has given him the power to fill.

Judges pledge to be “no respecter of persons.” Yet, activist judge Sotomayor has shown partiality and favoritism in her decisions with respect to both gender and ethnicity. Sotomayor has exhibited an outstanding ability to mete out inequity.  This bias deems her the textbook candidate to exemplify presidential disregard for the Supreme Court oath of office, as well as the contents of the American Constitution, Obama has openly defined as “fundamentally flawed.”

Sotomayor will be vested in black robes and ascend those lofty marble steps to mete out Obama-style empathetic justice.  Sonia could have saved us the trouble and just shared hardscrabble memories with the confirmation committee in Spanish.  As the Constitution took a back seat to empathetic diversity and the hearings ceased, formalities aside, approval should have been based solely on Sonia Sotomayor’s proficiency with the alveolar trill.

The Senate approval of una juez de la corrte suprema Sonia Sotomayor is poised to bestow on America the type of “caring,” activist judge the Obama administration demands.  Moreover, her confirmation will concurrently provide ample copies of an unsympathetic, straightforward United States Constitution, which henceforth can be used by the American majority as kindling to ignite backyard barbecue pits across the nation.

Supreme Court Injustice

300_127761

It’s hard to grapple with the reality that on Inauguration Day Barack Obama put his hand on a Bible and swore to uphold a Constitution he considers intrinsically flawed by, “…constraints that were placed there by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.” Did Mr. Obama swear to defend the Constitution as framed or one he hopes to construct into a socialist charter?

Do not be deceived, under Obama’s Brooks Brothers is a black power, Angela Davis T-Shirt and in his back pocket a worn out copy of Rules for Radicals. Barack Obama may have donned the cloak of non-radical agitator but underneath he is actively working the system to implement a specific social agenda. His aspiration is to bring about major redistributive change through the courts.

The flock Obama flies with has similar plumage to his own. Perusing his list of Cabinet appointees one would be apt to surmise our new president is both gender and color blind. However, upon closer examination and with a minimum of research it is obvious most of his Cabinet appointees adhere to the same leftist, radical tenets he does. The Father Pfleger model proves that color belies ideology. Barack Obama, surrounded by white people does not mean that he and they are not racists.

To an astute observer, Obama cannot conceal his ideology with smiles, platitudes or even mock moderate half-truths because his leftist schema is being revealed daily and specifically by his choice of Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor. Without uttering a word, Barack Obama revealed bitterness toward this nation and the radical racial agenda he hopes to implement. He is confident that the hope and change mantra he espouses will come to fruition through activist judges on the lower courts whose decisions will be upheld by judicial activists seated on the Supreme Court.

In picking his first Supreme Court nominee, Obama searched for someone with liberal, living breathing viewpoints on race and gender. Sonia Sotomayor gives Barack Obama’s dogmas texture. Sonia is the embodiment of Obama’s belief system. She is Reverend Wright dressed in a corporate suit, clip-on earrings and a pair of sensible pumps. Sotomayor may well be the incognito non-violent Angela Davis Obama has been waiting for.

During the election, Obama accused Republicans of using race to scare people saying, “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black? Sonia could pass for any average, middle-aged American but uses similar tactics to disarm potential critics by saying she lives as a Latina woman in a world that, “sometimes looks at her with suspicion,” because of her ethnicity. This is from a woman who suspicion has earned graduating valedictorian of her class at Cardinal Spellman in New York, winning her a scholarship to Princeton, graduating summa cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa and then Yale Law School. She was Assistant District Attorney in Manhattan before becoming the first Latina appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Suspicion has served her well.

Sotomayor’s lengthy 2001 Speech at the Berkeley, School of Law exposes both bigotry and a judicial ideology. Her words clearly delineated her belief that the Supreme Court needs restructuring and rebalancing with minorities and females. She is not shy about exposing her prejudice when expressing the view that white men fall short when it comes to fair decision making, “….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.” A similar racist statement, if uttered by the likes of Judge Alito about white Italian males, would have sent him packing back to New Jersey.

In order to address the injustices of the past, Obama made his litmus test and the main criteria for Supreme Court nominee, compassion. He failed to mention that racism and bigotry were also a resume priority. Ms. Sotomayor‘s angst with racial injustice, disgust with judicial paternalism, coupled with her empathy for minorities made her a prime contender. At the mention of her name, the black power fist on Obama’s T-shirt beats with Tarzan-like pride.

With a friend like Sonia on the highest court, the Obama/Sotomayor vehicle can commence legislatively moving forward the radical social change Obama has been chomping at the bit to implement. She can maternally dispense 40 acres and a mule in the form of redistribution of wealth. She can balance the scales of justice with morcilla, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, which everyone knows has been a long overdue equalizer of social justice.

It is important to understand that empathy has to do with identifying and understanding another’s circumstances and attributing your feelings to a situation. Identification with cultural, racial or gender feelings or the ability to relate to situations in flux is not sound jurisprudence. Sotomayor has said that, “…personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.” Yet, she fails to mention that Lady Justice should be wearing a tightly bound blindfold.

Eager to celebrate her Latina heritage in the form of legal rulings Sotomayor freely admits that “…there will be some [rulings] based on her gender and Latina heritage.” Law should be based on decisions that are measured against the unchanging pillar of the United States Constitution, not on women’s hormonal changes and identification with Puerto Rican cuisine, Cantinflas or the South Bronx. Sonia should listen to Sandra Day O’Connor whose tenet was, “…a wise old man and a wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” The key word is wise and Sotomayor’s public statements have been everything but.

Obama chose Sotomayor because he felt she identified with racial injustices he is intent on remediating. Sonia is someone who could appeal to the empathetic public that elected an inexperienced, first term Senator based on race and oratory ability. The same precedent can now be applied to Sonia, this time matronly accessibility, coupled together with “Newyorkrican” sarcastic humor can be the catalyst to the seat of power. Can anybody say, “Yes we can?”

Judicial activists likely agree it is time for America to atone for past injustices by disregarding ideology, experience, and past associations in order to grant the ultimate prize of Supreme Court justice. Is it now America’s responsibility to symbolically compensate all minorities, by affirmatively catapulting Sotomayor into action? Keeping with liberal tradition, Sonia deserves a seat on the highest court mainly because it is time to mete out justice for past inequities waged towards all Latina women who go to Princeton, Yale Law School and then are unjustly nominated for associate justice on the Supreme Court.

Obama’s whole “redistribution of wealth” agenda is rooted in what he perceives to be national racial injustice and a means for him to dispense overdue political and economic fairness. Obama has never been shy about sharing his view on Supreme Court intervention or lack thereof in legislative policy. He has stated openly that a, “…rationale for bringing economic change through the courts” is needed and that empathy is the key to seeing those changes happen.

Sonia Sotomayor is a willing vessel. The judge conveyed her belief that policy is formulated in court and mocked the idea that it is not. She is a poster child for race and identity politics. Her bent is in the direction Obama wants the court to go. His belief is that our highest court lacked justice thus far justifies his statement that he wants Sonia confirmed so that she can, “…climb those marble stairs and start to provide some justice. Sonia obviously agrees change is in order, “… not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.”

Barack Obama is on the precipice of being in a position to interpret the Constitution as a means of advancing radical legal opinions. His dream of a Supreme Court weighed down with racist, bigoted, activist judges who could assist him in the transformation of the system of government upholding and legalizing the Alinsky gospel of redistribution of wealth is about to be realized. Obama’s intent of bringing “…economic legal change through the courts” will have a friend in Justice Sotomayor. She is the empathetic, judicial activist whose job will be to help reverse 200 years of legal injustice brought upon this nation by racist forefathers who Barack Obama and his ilk believe deserve a postmortem day in court.

If Obama has his way, a left leaning judiciary, in honor of Sonia Sotomayor may even be open to removing the stars and stripes from the American flag and replacing them instead with the image on Obama’s Angela Davis T shirt.

Señorita Sotomayor the Unwise Judge

ladyjustice32Pundits are discussing Barack Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court judge’s views on everything from race to policy. While all those things are important, no one has addressed Señorita Sonia Sotomayor’s qualification to sit as a judge on the highest court in the land should be based on wisdom.

Wisdom is defined as the ability to judge what is true, right or lasting. It is incorporated together with common sense and good judgment, neither of which Sonia Sotomayor has exhibited in the things she has blurted out of an uncontrolled mouth. The Bible says, “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks,” (Luke 6:45). The Obama Administration is attempting to respond to the accusations of racism based on a statement Sotomayor made at a 2001 conference in Berkley, California where she said, “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.” The explanation by those speaking on her behalf is that she misspoke and that if given the opportunity she would restate what she said. Judges should be measured, thoughtful and introspective, not uncontrolled, impulsive and flippant when speaking about the law.

Sotomayor gave a lengthy discourse at the University of California Berkeley, School of Law. In that speech, the “Latina Judge” made more than one unwise misstatement. She referred to the “old-boy network.” She addressed America’s “…deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension.” Not only did she separate people by race and gender but then divided Latino’s into subgroups like Mexican-Americans, Puerto Rican’s, Caribbean and Latin American’s. She spoke of herself not as American but rather a Puertoriquena and NewYorkrician, differentiating West Cost from East Coast. Men, women, African-American, White, Latino…her speech divvied up people groups in America stressing differences much more than similarities. She mentioned the tension of New York’s diversity calling it, “the melting pot and the salad bowl.

When King  Solomon of the Bible prayed he did not ask God for riches, fame or the legislative ability to “redistribute the wealth.” He did not implore the Lord to recognize his gender,  race, creed or color instead he petitioned the Lord for wisdom and wisdom was granted to him. His first concern was governing and judging in a way that would best benefit his people. He didn’t have an agenda or a predisposition, instead he recognized his own lack of wisdom and appealed to the Lord for insight saying, “…give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong…discernment in administering justice” ( 1 Kings 3:9-12).

Solomon’s wisdom was made evident through his wise rulings and through the things that he said when he opened his mouth. Sonia Sotomayor, may be saying things Barack Obama wants to hear but her words belie a lack of forethought and wisdom and Barack’s approval of those words reveal a lot about him.

Barack Obama sees Sonia Sotomayor as the ingredient the high court has been missing. Ideologically she fits the criteria of someone who is willing to raise her blindfold to peak beneath, loading up the scales of justice with, “mucho platos de arroz, gandules y pernil – rice, beans and pork” in an effort to address the racial inequalities that Obama hopes to equalize through judicial activism. Her ability to exhibit thoughtful wisdom is not the credential Obama seeks. Instead, his qualifications include a social agenda similar to his own, as well as an empathy toward minorities, the poor and women. Yet, nowhere in his affirmation of  Sotomayor, or her credentials, does he even mention wisdom.

Wisdom is knowing when to speak your mind and when to mind your speech” said Evangel, neither of which Ms. Sotomayor seems to practice. In fact, being aware that she is saying something she ought not and then failing to exercise  self-control and insight to keep quiet shows a tremendous character flaw. Now if Latina heritage or estrogen override intellectual acumen as a prerequisite to judging, Sonia seems to be qualified. Barack Obama seems more interested in making sure that Sonia Sotomayor, “…climb those marble stairs and start providing some justice” by ruling on the side of liberal policy than he does her ability to adjudicate with wise Solomon-like decision making.

A judge should be the embodiment of fairness, impartiality, common sense with a sage-like wisdom under girding all these qualities. Without wisdom as the foundation the others cannot bear the weight of difficult decisions and unpopular rulings. Sonia Sotomeyer, hasn’t just made one unwise statement, but many. She mocked the belief that policy is not made on the judicial level and scoffed at the premise that the letter of the law should be followed. These statements are more than unwise, they are dangerous.

Her speech at Berkeley outlined her belief that individual experiences and perceptions have impact on a judge’s legal decisions. She articulated her feeling and belief that while judges must transcend…

Personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of the law…she wondered whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And wondered whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

Yet, Obama has not addressed the lack of wisdom incorporated into a statement that exudes sexism and racism and judicial activism because this is the type of jurist he desires to see on the court. Someone who will bring a level of activism that he feels has been missing since the beginning. He said in July 2007 at a Planned Parenthood conference,

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.

Quoting Professor Martha Minnow, Sotomayor shared that there can, “…never be a universal definition of wise.” That statement in itself incorporates the epitome of Sotomayor’s lack of wisdom. If Sonia Sotomayor does not recognize that judges must “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and the rich. If she is not willing to judicially split a child in two to remain true to what is just, she may have the empathy Obama requires to remake the court and ultimately the nation but lacks the wisdom of Solomon, a follower of the original Framer.

Sonia Sotomayor has not proven herself  wiser than she is ideological and epitomizes the folly of  identity politics. Barack Obama appears to be willing to sacrifice the nation rather than return it to a place of wholeness in the arms of Lady Liberty by choosing instead non-activist judges who adhere to the original intent of the Constitution.

Sonia Sotomayer is a potential wielder of an unjust rapier. She is willing to forfeit Constitutional stability under a sword of liberalism and judicial activism. She has not proven herself judicious in an atmosphere where wisdom is a top priority and where the scales of justice require the guidance of God, not ideology.

Solomon’s wisdom has gone down in the annals of history as being the encapsulation of good judgment. His statements were measured and full of justice, When all Israel heard the verdict the king had given, they held the king in awe, because they saw that he had wisdom from God to administer justice.” (1 Kings 3: 28). Solomon’s poorly chosen words, if not guided by wisdom, would have cost the life of an innocent child and his reputation as a just and wise ruler.

Señorita Sotomayor’s poorly chosen words are an indication of her lack of wisdom and should make her ineligible to ascend those marble stairs.  Judge Sotomayor should not be rewarded with the opportunity to continue to mete out more misdirected, bigoted, racist justice at the cost of the life of our nation and the survival of all our freedoms.

%d bloggers like this: