Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele, making an appearance as guest-host of the Bill Bennett radio show last Friday morning, used the opportunity to attempt to distance the GOP from the debate raging over Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. His primary concern was how any attack against Sotomayor would be played by the liberal media as GOP opposition to the first Hispanic Female nominee filling the position. “MSNBC will rip everything we have to say up into shreds.” Steele told listeners.
He repeatedly hailed the Sotomayor pick as “historic” and admitted, “I’m excited that a Hispanic woman is in this position.”, which misses the point of the arguments against her entirely. Obviously wanting to avoid another damaging confrontation with radio personality Rush Limbaugh, Steele was careful not to address issues raised by him concerning an alleged racial bias having a factor in her decision making process when ruling from the bench.
I believe Steele’s position on this nomination is just another example of the basic philosophical divide which now exists within the GOP. On one side are those in the conservative “base” of the party who support a sound fiscal policy, moral values, fair taxes and a return of the federal government to it’s intended limited role. On the other side are those wishing to “modernize” the parties “core values” in an attempt to broaden their appeal to voters. Those who will compromise or completely sacrifice their own values as a path to political power and expect the voters to sacrifice their own values to put them there. These are the “values” displayed by Arlen Specter as he defected to the democratic party in a bid to retain his office. These are the “values” displayed by “RINO” Meghan McCain who believes the party will return to it’s core values by becoming more inclusive to those with liberal viewpoints. These are the “values” of Colin Powell who claims to still belong to the Republican party as he casts his vote for President Obama.
These are the “values” which will not oppose Sotomayor because the success of their party is more important than the success of America. These are the “values” which will not oppose the Obama administration’s conduct of a new socialist revolution against America if only they can be the one to hold the reigns of that power in the future. In so doing, the GOP is waving good-bye to their conservative “base” and becomming the new democratic party as that party turns itself into the democratic socialists party of the people.
Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination needs to be actively challenged based on the facts. Does she believe her racial background will have an effect on the outcomes of her decision making as supported by her own actions and statements?
She holds membership in the National Council of La Raza (the Race) which supports driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police. NCLR is also connected to groups which support separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America to form a “Hispanic-only homeland”, which prompted condemnation in 2006 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood.
She is a former board member of George Soros funded LatinoJustice PRLDEF which, along with the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund and others, fought to oppose the nomination of conservative Miguel Estrada’s appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals under President George W. Bush in 2001. LatinoJustice supports multiculturalism, diversity, bilingual public education, race-based gerrymandering of electoral districts, race-based employment quotas, tenants’ rights, and illegal immigrants’ rights.
Her own statement during a lecture at University of California, Berkeley,
“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.”
Does she believes it’s the role of the judicial branch of government to create policy by legislating from the bench?
Supported by a 1996 law review article she co-authored entitled “Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics, a Modern Approach” challenging the belief that law needs to be knowable and predictable. It supports a position of the courts as engines of social and political change .
Supported by this video clip of Judge Sotomayor from a 2005 appearance at Duke Law School, where she stated that the appellate courts is the place where policy is made.
If anything is worth putting up a fight over, it is a lifetime appointment of a judicial activist who president Obama has said he is sending to the supreme court to bring justice to the people. Apparently there was no justice to be found there before. Or at least not his particular version of it.
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 0 comments… add one now }