The Empathy Hearings


Why has the gun crowd been so quiet about Judge Sotomayor?

When slavery ended in America after the Civil War, no civil right was more important for black Americans than the right to keep and bear arms. We passed an amendment to the Constitution to make that possible.

Now the Supreme Court will decide this issue. And Sonia Sotomayor has already come down against this civil right, relying on a discredited precedent from a dark chapter in our nation’s past.

For that matter, why are Republican Senators so quiet and conciliatory about a judge who so clearly reflects the radical activism of the President.

The next big gun-rights case to go to the Supreme Court will be whether the right to bear arms applies to the states. When the Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) was ratified in 1791, it only applied to federal laws and the federal government.

But after the Civil War, Congress and the states passed the Fourteenth Amendment, empowering all Americans with those fundamental rights in the Constitution that had protected them against federal oppression. For example, most people know that the First Amendment rights of free speech, religious freedom and peaceful assembly are rights they have against their states. This is true only because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

It shouldn’t matter who she’s replacing. What should matter is whether she’s a mainstream American judge, or one who resides in the comfort zone of Barack Obama’s closest allies – ACORN, Reverend Wright, Reverend Pfleger, Bill Ayers, etc.

In Congress, as they crafted the Fourteenth Amendment, they referred over and over again to the right to bear arms for defending yourself and your family as an essential right of American citizens, which every American needed to be able to assert against his state or city. Many of their lives depended on it.

Obama and his crowd have an extra-constitutional view of the constitution – that equality means not an equal opportunity for individuals to succeed, but instead, a government responsibility to handicap the competition so that everyone does well. The issue for the Judiciary Committee should be whether Sotomayor is part of the radicalization of America which Obama is eager to achieve.

“My record shows that at no point or time have I ever permitted my personal views or sympathies to influence the outcome of a case,” the appeals court judge declared during a tense exchange with Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, the top Republican on the committee that is conducting this week’s confirmation hearings. He repeatedly questioned her ability to be objective as a Supreme Court justice, citing her own comments in speeches.

Empathy, in the context of the conversation about Judge Sotomayor, is not about how one’s life experience informs their sense of fairness. Empathy is code for subversion – are you willing to undermine logic, capitalism, the idea that there are winners and losers in life, are you willing to undermine the intent of the constitution? Are you in favor of the intention of America, or the conversion of America?

The President is in favor of converting the country into something new – following in the footsteps of FDR. Sotomayor is clearly being chosen for her readiness to be part of the team.

In 1944, FDR proposed a Second Bill of Rights.

Roosevelt’s stated justification was that the “political rights” guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had “proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.”

In other words, that the country should guarantee end results for individual Americans, not the freedom to pursue their destinies and to take their lumps.

Roosevelt’s remedy was to create an “economic bill of rights” which would guarantee: a job with a living wage, Freedom from unfair competition and monopolies, homeownership, medical care, education, and recreation.

President Obama is pursuing the unmet legacy of FDR – Sotomayor’s “empathy” is about sharing these goals. She served for twelve years on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, an ACLU type organization for Hispanics which pushed for quotas.

During her years on the PRLDEF board, the group opposed President Reagan’s 1987 nomination of the conservative Bork — then a federal appeals judge — “because of the threat he poses to the civil rights of the Latino community,” according to the documents.

The 350 pages of documents released Wednesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee show the Fund filed hundreds of discrimination lawsuits over the years on behalf of Hispanics… they reflect the Fund’s strong push to establish a precedent of cases that would establish legal authority to uphold workplace quotas for minorities.

Lindsay Graham chased Sotomayor on that connection.

Particularly, Graham pointed out Sotomayor’s work with a Puerto Rican defense legal fund that he said “advocated taxpayer-funded abortion and said in a brief that to deny a poor black woman Medicaid funding for an abortion was equivalent to the Dred Scott case.”

Will anyone mention her membership in La Raza?

Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.

Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.

They’re going way too easy on her.

One Response to “The Empathy Hearings”

  1. I actually disagree with your understanding of the 14th Amendment. I reject the incorporation doctrine, which holds that the 14th Amendment applies certain (not necessarily all) civil rights from the bill of rights against the states. I don’t think that’s what the 14th Amendment means. In fact, the incorporation doctrine is judge-made, so the Court’s limitation of that doctrine isn’t necessarily less legitimate than the doctrine was in the first place.

    The 14th Amendment wasn’t intended to destroy federalism. If the people of New York want to protect their right to bear arms against the state government of New York, they should do so through their political channels (e.g., amend the New York state constitution, elect different representatives, etc.). If they can’t do that, then they lose, and that’s what democracy is all about.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: