Just a "Poor Choice" of Words?
By John W. Lillpop
According to President Obama, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is guilty of nothing more serious than a "poor choice of words" when 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."
As reported at the Washington Times, in part, the White House attempted to dismiss Sotomayer's racist rhetoric:
"The White House said Friday that Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor now regrets saying in 2001 that a Hispanic woman would tend to arrive at a 'better conclusion' in making legal decisions than a white male.
"Her word choice in 2001 was poor," spokesman Robert Gibbs said, seeking to settle what has become an early stumbling point for President Obama's nominee as she prepares for her Senate confirmation battle. "
Excuse me? We are talking about a nominee whom the president described as "brilliant" and yet she is not sufficiently bright to avoid words riddled with the passions of racism and bigotry?
Either Sotomayor is far less than "brilliant" than Obama believes, or she is an unrepentant racist.
Regardless of which happens to be true, this unwise Latina simply does not belong on the Supreme Court.
Surely, that cannot be all that difficult to understand?
For example, what if the record of Chief Justice John Roberts revealed a similarly poor choice of words? What if Roberts was on videotape saying:
""Because of educational and cultural advantages, I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his education and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a female person of color who hasn't lived that life."
Would John Roberts have been confirmed to the Supreme Court with that quote in his dossier? Even more to the point, would he still be employable in the legal profession?
Surely, President Obama knows full well that the furor is not about Sotomayor's choice of words. Rather it is about the racism and hatred that underlies those un-American and unprofessional blatherings.
With so many genuinely "brilliant" and ethical judges to choose from, why is Obama trying to saddle America with a woman who lacks the sensitivity and insight needed to serve on the highest court of the land?
More critically, why is this president intent on supplanting the gold standard of judicial temperament and restraint with "empathy" rooted in racism and sexism?
Once again, the liberal "solution" is to rely on the travesty of affirmative action and PC quotas rather than excellence.
Posted by John W Lillpop at 7:33 AM