http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonia_Sotomayor
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Berkeley_La%20Raza_2002.pdf
Page 6 end of second paragraph (full or partial) from top:
“Second, 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.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Coke
“Sir Edward Coke (pronounced “Cook”) (1 February 1552–3 September 1634), was a seventeenth-century English jurist and Member of Parliament whose writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for nearly 150 years.
On June 30th, 1606, Coke was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. His tenure on the bench was marked by brilliant and innovative judgments in a number of areas of the law, as well as by jurisdictional conflict between the common law courts and the courts of Chancery, High Commission, and Admiralty
Coke’s efforts to limit the jurisdictions of these courts through the issuance of writs of prohibition ultimately caused James I to become involved in the conflict, and to assert a claim that he could decide disputes between his different courts, and even judge individual cases himself. To this Coke famously responded that:
the King in his own person cannot adjudge any case, either criminall … or betwixt party and party … but this ought to be determined and adjudged in some Court of Justice, according to the Law and Custom of England…. Then the King said, that he thought the Law was founded upon reason, and that he and others had reason, as well as the Judges: To which it was answered by me, that true it was, that God had endowed his Majesty with excellent Science, and great endowments of nature; but his Majesty was not learned in the Lawes of his Realm of England, and causes which concern the life, or inheritance, or goods, or fortunes of his Subjects; they are not to be decided by naturall reason but by the artificiall reason and judgment of Law, which Law is an act which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it; And that the Law was the Golden metwand and measure to try the Causes of the Subjects; and which protected his Majesty in safety and peace.[4]
“
Your freedom today comes from the courage of dead white male Anglo Saxon judges. It was bought and paid for on battlefields by dead white male Anglo Saxon men.
Spain was trying to end that freedom just a few years before Coke wrote these words. Anglo Saxon men have been protecting freedom for five centuries but now the Latinos, Muslims, and others are in striking distance to destroy it. All that stands in their way is a thin line of Anglo Saxons and other Europeans who have rallied to the Anglo Saxon cause of freedom stated by Judge Coke above.
Coke’s position on judges is the opposite of Sonia Sotomayor and of Barack Hussein Obama II. The latter two believe in prejudice to decide cases for blacks and Latinos and Muslims against whites. That is what Sotomayor did in the Ricci case.
The great judges of the last 500 years have been Anglo Saxons or other white men in the Anglo Saxon countries who adopted the Anglo Saxon tradition as their own. Judge Posner should be appointed to the Supreme Court not Sonia Sotomayor. Posner is the diversity candidate. He never put his name on a book written by his law students at U Chicago and he doesn’t put his name on opinions written by his clerks. That’s diversity.
==
Part of Coke comment above submitted to Raw Story currently awaiting moderation.
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/05/28/no-republican-oppose-sotomayor/#comments
Also in comments at WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052703713.html
==
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/27/AR2009052703713_Comments.html#
…..Your freedom today comes from the courage of dead white male Anglo Saxon judges. It was bought and paid for on battlefields by dead white male Anglo Saxon men. Spain was trying to end that freedom just a few years before Coke wrote these words. Anglo Saxon men have been protecting freedom for five centuries but now the Latinos, Muslims, and others are in striking distance to destroy it. All that stands in their way is a thin line of Anglo Saxons and other Europeans who have rallied to the Anglo Saxon cause of freedom stated by Judge Coke above.
***********************
Keep on keepin’ on, dude! It’s opinions like yours that ensure the GOP will never rise again, very much like your beloved Confederacy. Please do not let my following observations discourage you from contributing many more comments such as yours above.
Having said that, I’m grateful for the timely reminder about Coke. Two things to note:
1) “On June 30th, 1606, Coke was appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas. His tenure on the bench was marked by brilliant and innovative judgments in a number of areas of the law” Whoa there! You mean he was getting creative? I thought his job was to figure out “original intent.” Boy, I sure hope we don’t get innovation from Judge Sotomayor!
2) “…as well as by jurisdictional conflict between the common law courts and the courts of Chancery, High Commission, and Admiralty.” You mean, one of his great contributions was that he “set policy” for the courts?? You mean, just exactly like Judge Sotomayor observed our courts of appeal do???? Say it ain’t so!!!
==My Reply at WaPo
abqcleve wrote:
“Keep on keepin’ on, dude! It’s opinions like yours that ensure the GOP will never rise again, very much like your beloved Confederacy.”
What are some landmark decisions by Latina judges in the last 500 years? Sotomayor in Ricci, that white men don’t have rights? She upheld the lower court with a single paragraph. That was in 2008. She wanted Obama to appoint her to the Supreme Court so she sided with blacks against whites. Is that whom you want making decisions? She improperly said that baseball owners couldn’t hire replacement workers during a strike. That was because baseball players were Latino. That came from her experience as a Latina.
Compare her theory of judging with Coke’s.
“Then the King said, that he thought the Law was founded upon reason, and that he and others had reason, as well as the Judges: To which it was answered by me, that true it was, that God had endowed his Majesty with excellent Science, and great endowments of nature; but his Majesty was not learned in the Lawes of his Realm of England, and causes which concern the life, or inheritance, or goods, or fortunes of his Subjects; they are not to be decided by naturall reason but by the artificiall reason and judgment of Law, which Law is an act which requires long study and experience, before that a man can attain to the cognizance of it; And that the Law was the Golden metwand and measure to try the Causes of the Subjects; and which protected his Majesty in safety and peace.[4]“
v
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Berkeley_La%20Raza_2002.pdf
Page 6 end of second paragraph (full or partial) from top:
“Second, 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.”
Sotomayor.
Coke’s opinion is why we can have judges and courts of law in the first place. Sotomayor’s opinion is you vote for the Latino baseball players over the Gringo owners. When before did a judge stop a company from hiring replacement workers in a strike? That’s the right of employers. A union doesn’t have the right to go on strike and then the employer can never hire another person forever until the union stops its strike. That is contrary to the Constitution. It gives ownership of the company to the union. She sided with the black firefighters in Ricci to get Obama’s favor. That is the opposite of what white Anglo Saxon male Coke said to the King. He told the King to butt out of making court decisions. Obama and Sotomayor say its our turn now white man.
“Keep on keepin’ on, dude! It’s opinions like yours that ensure the GOP will never rise again, very much like your beloved Confederacy.”
There is no point in giving up on the Anglo Saxon fight for freedom just because the powers against it are strong all over the earth. Yes, Anglo Saxon freedom lost in Rhodesia and South Africa to be replaced by the long dark night of barbarism and the end of the rule of law. But that is no reason not to fight for Anglo Saxon legal traditions here in America to survive against the Obama Sotomayor forces trying to destroy them and replace them with racist judges and racist laws that are anti-white in conception. Obama hates whites and gave the finger to Clinton, McCain and called Palin a pig. He did that all openly on video tape. That is hate he can’t hide. Fight for your freedom while you can. There is no value in giving it up to be ended on this planet by a tide who don’t care or even understand the Anglo Saxon tradition of objectivity and fairness.
==
Note how any defense of Anglo Saxon men, after being attacked by Sotomayor to La Raza at Berkeley, a racist organization whose name is The Race, and then deciding against white firefighters in Ricci without giving reasons why, is then attacked. Moreover, he says that white men have to give up any rights or any nation at all. He is saying their time is over, whether they speak up or not. He is saying they will be ethnically cleansed and have no right to fight it and no chance. He says that in a judicial appointee, i.e. conceding that the Sotomayor appointment by Obama is anti-white and part of the victory over the white race and its elimination.
==
In addition, the liberal at WaPo is saying you can’t say the plain truth. Its a fact of where our modern legal concepts come from and who fought to secure them in the last 500 years. They came from England. They came from Anglo Saxon judges and were fought for by Anglo Saxon men. Others it is true joined their cause and adopted their concepts of the law.
But now those are under attack around the world by opposite concepts of the law and judging. Those are the concepts of Obama and Sotomayor and La Raza. Those concepts call for the ethnic cleansing of the white race by immigration and not allowing Anglo Saxon men to even comment or speak up as their lands and rights are taken from them. That is what the libs are fighting for. That is what the Democratic Party is fighting for. That is its platform. That is what immigration and uncivil rights laws mean to it.
==
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013294.html
“The shocking truth: To assimilate into America means to accept the laws and culture of white people”
Joseph C. writes:
The abomination of Sonia Sotamayor to the Supreme Court, while disturbing, is not surprising to anyone who has followed Barack Hussein Obama’s career path and paid attention to his statements. What does surprise me is how the Republicans are “shocked, shocked” at some of her views.
The error that many faux conservatives make is one of omission. They state that a judge should apply “the law” evenly, that a judge should “interpret the Constitution” impartially, should not read their personal preferences into “our jurisprudence.” Of course, they never complete the thought–whether discussing affirmative action, judicial philosophy, etc.
The missing part of the statement, which many “conservatives” believe goes without saying, is that “the law,” “the Constitution” and “our jurisprudence” does not exist in a vacuum. It is the product of an Anglo Saxon culture from the dawn of the American Revolution times. Sadly, this does not go without saying, because unless it is said–and said again and again and again and again–it will not be understood. And true conservatives should not only state this but embrace it.
Yes, the role of an American judge is to interpret laws according to the Constitution–the Constitution written by white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s. Yes, judges should apply the law–the law as written by white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s, and as subsequently amended by a more diverse (but still predominantly white ) majority culture. True, a judge’s personal preferences have no place in our jurisprudence–meaning that nobody is qualified to be a judge if they are not going to follow the jurisprudence established by white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s and maintained by a white majority culture.
When Obama speaks of “empathy,” what he really means is he wants a judge who will not be bound by a white man’s Constitution. In his words, he wants someone who understands what it is like to be a single mom, a minority, gay, handicapped, etc. What this translates into is that Obama wants a judge who knows what it is like to be a minority in a culture ruled by a majority, and will interpret the law from the viewpoint of a minority. Someone who will ignore the rules because they do not feel bound to uphold the white man’s rules. And when liberals speak of “institutional racism,” what they mean is that it is not enough for everyone to be judged equally according to “the law” because “the law” was written by only one segment of the population (in this case, white Anglo Saxon Protestant Northern Europeans in the 1700s).
Earlier in this thread, Larry G. asks:
“What exactly is this ‘richness of [Latina] experiences’ of which she speaks? Being beaten by a husband? Being impregnated and abandoned by a boyfriend who also molested her daughter? Living ten persons to an apartment with relatives who all entered the U.S. illegally? Failing an employment test and knowing–just knowing–that she was rejected because of her race, and not because she couldn’t correctly answer most of the questions? Or does it all come from knowing how to make enchiladas for dinner?”
The answer is–all that and more. Her experience consists solely of being a non-white viewing the law written by white people through the prism of a non-white. That was her prime qualification. In fact, I would guess it was her only qualification.
If there is one question worth asking this cretin during her confirmation hearings, it is this: “Judge Sotamayor, you took an oath to uphold our Constitution. That Constitution was written by people of a different gender, background, and experience than your own. Do you feel that you could uphold laws written by people so different from you, regardless of the impact of those laws on you and people like you? Do you, a resident of a white majority culture, feel obligated to uphold laws written by dead, rich white men, even though you are not white nor a man?”
==End quotation from VFR. Please read the whole thread there.
Another important thread at VFR
“The left as an alliance of anti-white tribes”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/013286.html
Jeff W. writes:
You wrote: “that multiracial unum that so inspired [Horowitz] was a unum made possible by the anti-whiteness of nonwhites, and by whites’ approval of that anti-whiteness.”
Not all whites approve of the anti-whiteness of nonwhites. I know plenty of people who do not approve of it at all, and who wish that America could truly be the land of E Pluribus Unum. But there is a group of whites who are the allies of the nonwhites in their effort to seize control of government and use a tribal/racial spoils system to distribute America’s resources. Those elite whites want to participate in dividing the spoils. I might add that the current discussion about the Sotomayor nomination shows how far this spoils system way of thinking has advanced.
Tribalism is innate to human nature. People have always formed themselves into tribes, and the tribes have always warred against each other. I don’t believe anything can change that.
What has changed in our lifetimes is that the left has morphed from an international workers’ movement into an alliance of ethnic tribes and disaffected groups. The left now stirs up tribal hostility and benefits from the hostility it creates. This makes them more dangerous than they were in the old days when they used to sing, “Workers of the world, unite!” In those days they were working against the grain of tribalism; now they are working with the grain.
Rather than uniting the workers against property owners, the left now seeks to unite nonwhites, gays, Jews, atheists, feminists, government employees, environmentalists, leftists, convicted felons, the morally depraved, the poor, and any other disaffected persons they can find, against the remaining whites. (A good definition of PC speech rules is, “You can’t say anything bad about anyone in the leftist alliance.”)
I would also note that like pirate captains, the leaders of this motley leftist crew must constantly distribute plunder in order to prevent mutiny. Distribution of spoils is thus always uppermost in their minds.
The whites who are the targets of the leftist alliance can now be spotted at the gun stores, buying up all the ammunition.
==
Jeff W is really sizzling as are others at Lawrence Auster’s blog as well as Auster himself. The discussion there has been the best on Sonia Sotomayor on or off the Internet.
==
The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen
Indictments of Obama’s front-runner to replace Souter.
Post Date Monday, May 04, 2009
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=6168aeb7-9869-43eb-b401-2204a0d84478
==
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/or_20090523_2724.php
Identity Politics And Sotomayor
The judge’s thinking is representative of the Democratic Party’s powerful identity-politics wing.
by Stuart Taylor
Saturday, May 23, 2009
http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/05/stuart-taylor-slams-sotomayor.php
- bdbd Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 11:00 am The 2001 speech by Sotomayor: http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/Berkeley_La%20Raza_2002.pdf
==
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/05/26/sotomayor-steve-sailer-saw-sotomayor-comingof-course/
==Some questions:
Did Sotomayor decide the players v. Major League Baseball for the players to block MLB using replacement workers during a strike because baseball players are Latino? Was that part of the difference between Judge Sotomayor and Justice Coke?
Did Sotomayor decide the Ricci case in favor of black firefighters in 2008 because she saw her only chance to the Supreme Court being an Obama victory? She played the black race card to appeal to Obama to put her on the Supreme Court? She pegged him right? That is why he appointed her, her decision in that case. She also issued no opinion in order to limit the ability of senators to question her on her reasons for that decision? The other judges on the panel in the majority agreed with her in writing no opinion to help her get onto the Supreme Court? The minority of that circuit said it was practically unethical not to give an opinion on why the majority came to its result.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/05/27/sonia-sotomayor-v-frank-ricci/
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/argument-recap-ricci-v-destefano/
==Excerpt from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricci_v._DeStefano
Ricci and seventeen other white and Hispanic test takers, who would have qualified for consideration for the promotions, sued the city, alleging racial discrimination. The federal district court ruled for the city, granting its motion for summary judgment. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Sotomayor, Pooler and Sack, JJ.) affirmed the district court’s ruling in a summary order, without opinion, in February 2008. However, after a suggestion[who?] that the court hear the case en banc, the panel withdrew its summary order and in June 2008 issued instead a unanimous per curiam opinion.
The panel’s June 2008 per curiam opinion characterized the trial court’s decision as “thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned.”[4] The trial court’s opinion was adopted in its entirety by the panel.
Plaintiffs moved for a rehearing en banc, and the motion was denied 7-6, with Chief Judge Jacobs and Judge Cabranes writing opinions in dissent from the denial of rehearing, urging review by the Supreme Court.[5][6]
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and heard oral arguments on April 22, 2009.[7]
==
The appeals court was supposed to issue an opinion on a case like this.
==
==
Also interesting discussion with good links is at Michelle Malkin
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/05/26/scotus-pick-sonia-sotomayor/
==
http://volokh.com/posts/1243483882.shtml
“
After some consideration, I have decided that Sonia Sotomayor’s 2001 speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice” deserves more extensive analysis than I gave it in a previous post. I still believe that the speech shows that Sotomayor thinks that judges can often legitimately base decisions in part on their racial or ethnic backgrounds. I especially think that that interpretation is by far the most plausible reading of Sotomayor’s statement that she hopes 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.”
“
==
Sotomayor calls for prejudice and anti white prejudice in particular. She calls for tearing down Anglo Saxon objectivity in law. That disqualifies her from being a judge under an Anglo Saxon constitution. They have to tear the Constitution down first.
Like Barack “give the finger to white people” Obama II, she doesn’t just talk the talk, she walks the walk. She decided for Latino baseball players over Gringo baseball owners. She made the decision that white owners can’t hire replacement workers when a union strikes for all eternity it would appear. Once a union strikes, until it stops, the company can never hire another worker again forever. That is until its Gringos striking a Latina owned company. Then her wise experience will lead her to the wise answer, the Latina wins.
She decided Ricci in 2008 on the calculation that only if Obama could win could she make it to the US Supreme Court. Why else not write an opinion on the case? If she didn’t think she could get to the Supreme Court, why not take the opportunity to write her views of the law in the opinion? Its because she didn’t want to leave a paper trail like her Berkeley speech to La Raza that she knows the Senate will go over.
She sided with blacks in the case to get Obama to nominate her. She wrote no opinion to make it hard for the Senate to stop her. Her actions in the Ricci case are appalling. They are the opposite of what Justice Coke did and said. She says use your position to take advantage of your opportunities. The white firefighters in Ricci were just there to be used as a stepping stone for her to win Obama’s favor by siding with blacks over whites. It worked. That’s who she is. That’s who Obama is.
