Sotomayor shows her true colors

Flopping Aces ^ | 04-24-14 | DrJohn

[Starman417]

I see your true colors And that's why I love you So don't be afraid to let them show Your true colors True colors are beautiful, Like a rainbow

- Cindy Lauper

As noted here by Curt, the recent SCOTUS ruling caused quite a dustup. Sonia Sotomayor is inclined to shooting her mouth off without thinking. She did it in this ruling and she's done it in the past, and each time she reminds us of the poor decision it was to put her on the Court.

In the most recent ruling Sotomayor, employing the Al Sharpton method of association, essentially called the people of Michigan racists:

Sotomayor, in her dissent, opened by describing three stages of "the majority" discriminating against racial minorities in the political process, beginning with the Jim Crow laws that flouted the 15th Amendment.

"This time, although it allowed the minority access to the political process, the majority changed the ground rules of the process so as to make it more difficult for the minority, and the minority alone, to obtain policies designed to foster racial integration," she wrote. "Although these political restructurings may not have been discriminatory in purpose, the Court reaffirmed the right of minority members of our society to participate meaningfully and equally in the political process. This case involves this last chapter of discrimination."

Then she immediately had to walk it back:

"I of course do not mean to suggest that Michigan’s voters acted with anything like the invidious intent of those who historically stymied the rights of racial minorities,"

But of course she did. It's undeniable. Now let's crank up the wayback machine for some predictions:

As I said, it's not first time she's blathered something out that she probably should not have let escape. Back in 2009 when asked a question about the difference between Federal District and Appeals Courts she blurted out:

“Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And, I know, and I know that this is on tape and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know.”

Mark Impomeni then remarks:

What we know is that Sotomayor realized immediately that her words could jeopardize her chances at a Supreme Court nomination sometime in the future, so she does her best to restore the veil of secrecy she just tore down. But her tone of voice and gestures make clear that Sotomayor does not believe a word of what she is saying. The audience’s laughter proves that the message was sent loud and clear. Every student at that forum walked out secure in the knowledge that Sotomayor believes courts should make policy, but that they should never talk about that publicly.

If Sotomayor really believes that her role as an unelected justice on the Supreme Court should be to decide policy questions, then that should be a topic of discussion in her confirmation hearings. But as her half-hearted cover-up shows, Sotomayor does not want to be as honest about her view of the Court’s role as she does about how gender and ethnicity influence judicial ability. Like all liberal activists, Sotomayor wants to hide her true intentions behind politically correct rhetoric. In short, she is willing to lie to gain power, after which she will do as she pleases.

Liberals got all hot and bothered when some on the media referred to Sotomayor as a liberal:

[jmacusa]

Al Sharpton has never in his life EVER experienced an act of racism. By God Almighty has he spread it around. That a-hole is more responsible than the KKK for setting race relations back decades in this nation. It’s a mystery to why he isn’t in jail or dead.

[Michael1977]

The rationale for affirmative action was to guarantee that minorities can have equal opportunities. However, I point out that this same rationale could have been used to justify racial segregation in public schools. After all, when minorities had their own schools, that meant there was a guarantee of a minority being a valedictorian or cheerleading captain. It could have been further argued that segregating minorities in their own schools protected them from racial discrimination. After all, as the argument would go, if there were no white students, then there is zero possibility of a minority being passed over for cheerleading captain for a less-qualified white candidate. If schools were integrated, the racist administrators would make sure that the valedictorians and cheerleading captains were white, even if they were not the most qualified. In fact, i would not be surprised if such arguments were used by the Brown v. Board of Education appellees and supporting amici. And yet, even though segregation guaranteed that minorities have a chance at being valedictorians, cheerleading captains, and other high status positions in schools, on the basis that there would be zero possibility that a less-qualified white person would be given these honors and stati, somehow the Supreme Court found that segregation stamps a badge of inferiority. I wonder why they thought that.

[Michael1977]

From Justice Thomas's concurrence in Fisher v. University of Texas.

In our desegregation cases, we rejected arguments that are virtually identical to those advanced by the University today. The University asserts, for instance, that the diversity obtained through its discriminatory admissions program prepares its students to become leaders in a diverse society. The segregationists likewise defended segregation on the ground that it provided more leadership opportunities for blacks. See, e.g., Brief for Respondents in Sweatt 96 (“[A] very large group of Northern Negroes [comes] South to attend separate colleges, suggesting that the Negro does not secure as well-rounded a college life at a mixed college, and that the separate college offers him positive advantages; that there is a more normal social life for the Negro in a separate college; that there is a greater opportunity for full participation and for the development of leadership; that the Negro is inwardly more ‘secure’ at a college of his own people”); Brief for Appellees in Davis 25–26 (“The Negro child gets an opportunity to participate in segregated schools that I have never seen accorded to him in non-segregated schools. He is important, he holds offices, he is accepted by his fellows, he is on athletic teams, he has a full place there”. This argument was unavailing. It is irrelevant under the Fourteenth Amendment whether segregated or mixed schools produce better leaders. Indeed, no court today would accept the suggestion that segregation is permissible because historically black colleges produced Booker T. Washington, Thurgood Marshall, Martin Luther King, Jr., and other prominent leaders. Likewise, the University’s racial discrimination cannot be justified on the ground that it will produce better leaders. The University also asserts that student body diversity improves interracial relations. In this argument, too, the University repeats arguments once marshaled in support of segregation. See, e.g., Brief for Appellees in Davis 17 (“Virginia has established segregation in certain fields as a part of her public policy to prevent violence and reduce resentment. The result, in the view of an overwhelming Virginia majority, has been to improve the relationship between the different races”); id., at 25 (“If segregation be stricken down, the general welfare will be definitely harmed . . . there would be more friction developed”; Brief for Respondents in Sweatt 93 (“Texas has had no serious breaches of the peace in recent years in connection with its schools. The separation of the races has kept the conflicts at a minimum”); id., at 97–98 (“The legislative acts are based not only on the belief that it is the best way to provide education for both races, and the knowledge that separate schools are necessary to keep public support for the public schools, but upon the necessity to maintain the public peace, harmony, and welfare”); Brief for Appellees in Briggs 32 (“The southern Negro, by and large, does not want an end to segregation in itself any more than does the southern white man. The Negro in the South knows that discriminations, and worse, can and would multiply in such event” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We flatly rejected this line of arguments in McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Ed., 339 U. S. 637 (1950), where we held that segregation would be unconstitutional even if white students never tolerated blacks. Id., at 641 (“It may be argued that appellant will be in no better position when these restrictions are removed, for he may still be set apart by his fellow students. This we think irrelevant. There is a vast difference—a Constitutional difference—between restrictions imposed by the state which prohibit the intellectual commingling of students, and the refusal of individuals to commingle where the state presents no such bar”). It is, thus, entirely irrelevant whether the University’s racial discrimination increases or decreases tolerance.