Sotomayor Is Disqualified By Her Empathy

Sotomayor Is Disqualified By Her Empathy

The safest general characterization of the whole Western philosophic tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.” So wrote one of the most revered “libertarians” of the past century Alfred North Whitehead.

Who am I to argue with Whitehead? The Platonic model for a successful judge is exactly the opposite of Sotomayor and we’ll see that in relationship to Sotomayor, Plato is correct. The model for a Platonic judge as described in the Republic is one who’s life is sheltered form criminal acts and lawlessness and the general evil of society’s seedy underbelly. Of course that’s not plausible but his arguments in support of his Utopian model merits analysis and certainly has practical applications.

The argument presented by Plato is that judges will project the imprimaturs of their formative years onto their future legal decisions. Oddly enough, or perhaps not so odd considering his propensity for Utopian systems, Barrack Hussein Obama has advocated the same exact type of criteria for his judicial nominees.

For example a Judge who grew up in a very rural setting would certainly have a different point of view towards cases that might deal with farming issues. By the same token a judge who grew up in a fishing community will have a certain perspective on maritime law that may not be readily apparent to someone who grew up in the projects of New York City’s South Bronx.

This of course brings us right to judge Sotomayor and one of subjects that is dear to me, the Second Amendment.

In her January 2009, Maloney v Cuomo, a case that didn’t even involve firearms but rather a pair of nunchaku, Sotoamyor volunteered this bit of “wise old latina” wisdom:

“It is settled law, however, that the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right, said the opinion. Quoting the court said, “it is a limitation only upon the power of Congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state.””

This came months after the 2008 case of Heller v. District of Columbia ,which flatly, directly and absolutely contradicted Sotoamyor’s gibberish. In that case the high court declared that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right of all Americans and that the Second Amendment guaranteed that right to everyone. Perhaps Sotomayor should give her mouth a rest from the demagoguery and read the SCOTUS decisions once in a while.

Of course Sotoamyor is prejudiced against the second amendment as per her record, prejudiced against whites as per her numerous comments and prejudiced against laws passed by congress as per her activist-“policy is made in the appellate court” statements. All of that is clearly evident to a blind man. What I want to put forth here is that even though it may not be entirely her fault, she is after all a product of her environment as Plato postulated and liberals so gladly concede , she is nonetheless unqualified to represent the vast majority of Americans as our judge.

Is it so difficult to believe that a person who grew up in the middle of the hate and crime and misery of the liberals experiment known as the South Bronx Projects would have such an almost genetic hatred of guns?

Is it so difficult to believe that a person who grew up in an environment where guns are the favorite instruments of terror and intimidation of Hispanic and black gangsters and drug dealers that such a person would grow up to hate guns?

Is it more plausible to believe that she identifies more with the other 99.9% of America, law abiding citizens who jealously guard our right to keep and bear arms, then with the endless number of victims of gun crime in the South Bronx?

As a prosecutor and judge a large portion of her life has be spent in prosecuting and judging gun crimes. Few if any of 2,000,000 annual instances in which law abiding citizens stop or prevent violent crime with legally obtained fire arms ever come in front of a judge. Of course that’s no excuse and Sotomayor should educate herself better on this subject, but it does speak to her attitude towards guns. Because of her unique but limited experience she is vehemently and irreparably prejudiced against the Second Amendment. As Senator Jeff Session pointed out, Sotomayor declared seven times over these past several years that “My experience affects the facts I chose to see”.

What has she seen all of her childhood but gun crime and citizens who could not make it on their own but required the assistance of the state? With whom does she empathize? Law abiding upright citizens throughout the nation or a small section of our population who are the hapless victims of gun crime in the South Bronx Projects?

Obama says that he wants judges who display “empathy.” OK, but should they emphasize with as much of America as possible or should judges, like Sotomayor, empathize with but a minuscule unfortunate part of the American population?

In her scholastic and professional career, Sotomayor, has used her life experience as club with which to clear the decks of more qualified competitors. She herself as often repeated how paramount her experience is to her decisions and also how difficult or impossible it is for her to rule against her preconceptions. “Impartiality is a mere aspiration which may not be possible in all or even most cases” she declared on numerous occasions.

Well, fine then so be it Mrs Sotomayor. The verdict is that because based on the very experience which you seo readily tout as the overwhelmingly deciding factor in your thought process you simply cannot empathize with the majority of America. You are therefore disqualified form representing America as a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Chris Olt,

Chris Olt is a freelance writer whose articles appear at Chris brings a unique point of view to American life, derived as much from his fourteen year experience on Wall Street and veteran of the USMC as by having emigrated with his family to the U.S at 12 years of age