EDITORIAL: The Franchise For Felons: Sotomayor Would Let Prisoners Vote

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor wants to give jailbirds the right to vote. It's her opinion that the federal Voting Rights Act can be used to force states to allow voting by currently imprisoned felons.

Ms. Sotomayor's dissenting opinion in a 2006 felon-voting case should make senators extremely wary of confirming her for the high court.

In Hayden v. Pataki, a number of inmates in New York state filed suit claiming that because blacks and Latinos make up a disproportionate share of the prison population, the state's refusal to allow them ballot access amounts to an unlawful, race-based denial of their right to vote.

Eight of 13 judges on the liberal-leaning Second Circuit dismissed their arguments, and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled likewise in a similar case.

Yet, operating on a dubious and extremely broad reading of the Voting Rights Act, Ms. Sotomayor dissented from the decision.

In a remarkably dismissive, four-paragraph opinion, she alleged that the "plain terms" of the Voting Rights Act would allow such race-based claims to go forward.

Thank you.

Here’s something that was sent by Newsmax.

It Will Only Take Seven Republican Senators to Prevent Judicial Activism on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Seven Republicans in the Senate if they have the guts to do the right thing can stop the Sotomayor confirmation dead in its tracks.

Senate Judiciary Committee Rule IV states, “... debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.” [Emphasis Mine]

That means if the seven senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Jeff Sessions, Orrin Hatch, Charles Grassley, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham, John Cornyn and Tom Coburn) stand together, they can prevent Judge Sotomayors confirmation from being rammed though the Senate by the liberal majority.

If you believe the liberal media, Judge Sotomayors confirmation is a done deal.

But nothing could be further from the truth. The confirmation needs at least one Republican vote to advance out of the Judiciary Committee.

Keep that simple point in mind as you watch these senators jockey and maneuver and pontificate and tell you that stopping this nomination is a “long shot.”

You’ve already heard statements from Members of the Senate that they want to be “fair.” And, the process should be. But in total and complete “fairness,” there are already plenty of reasons why Judge Sotomayor should give us all pause.

And, while we are on the subject of fairness, were liberals like Ted Kennedy and Patrick Leahy “fair” when it came to Judge Robert Bork or Justice Clarence Thomas? What about Miguel Estrada, whose confirmation was denied a fair up-or-down vote because he is Latino? Was that fair?

Of course not.

Use the button below and send your Blast Fax messages to Barack Obama, the seven Republican Members of the Judiciary Committee and each and every one of the remaining Republicans in the United States Senate.

Tell them that when it comes to Judge Sotomayors confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court, you don’t want any dog-and-pony shows or token resistance. Tell them that the American people expect a thorough examination of her record and fitness to serve a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Supreme Court. Tell them that the American people want judges who will impartially interpret the law, not make laws from the bench.

If the button above does not work, please use this hyperlink.

Judge Sotomayor Judicial Activism is No Laughing Matter.

When Justice David Souter announced that he was retiring from the Supreme Court at the end of its current term, President Obama didnt waste any time announcing to the American people just what type of person he was planning to nominate to the Court.

Obama told the American people that he considered empathy a prerequisite for his nominee. Lets be perfectly clear: empathy is nothing more than code for judicial activism the favoring of certain classes of litigants over others in the judicial decision-making process.

And, if Judge Sotomayors public statements are any indication of how she will judge on the Supreme Court, it appears that President Obama has found his gal.

By now, you’ve probably seen videos of Judge Sotomayor saying that the appellate courts are where “policies are made.”

Sotomajor went on to say:

And I know I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m you know.”

But what no one seems to be pointing out is that Sotomayor was playing to this crowd of Duke University law students and moved them to laughter and as she concluded her statement, she smirked... she actually smirked.

That telling wink-wink-nudge-nudge moment, caught forever on video... her smirk... the laughter. Sotomayor is not just a left-wing activist judge who is willing to occasionally legislate from the bench.

She’s proud of her judicial activism; so much so, that she wears it on her sleeve and has no problem yukking it up with young impressionable law students when discussing the matter even when the cameras are rolling.

Of course, Sotomayor’s liberal defenders might say it was just nervous laughter but judicial activism is no laughing matter... not coming from a judge... not under any circumstances.

The law is supposed to blind. Judges must be impartial in their decision-making in order for justice to prevail. The Courts are NOT where policy is made.

If Judge Sotomayor wants to make policy, then she should run for Congress, not serve a lifetime appointment on the highest court in the land.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.