Situational Justice

We are, with the seating of Sonia Sotomayor entering the age of situational justice which sounds the death knell of statutory and constitutional law. Law will come to be what individual judges decide it to be on an ad hoc basis relying on their own proclivities and biases. Such a system necessarily cannot rely on the Constitution nor case law as the legal theory of stare decisis has long dictated. It will necessarily, also, lead to judges of questionable character as they must take an oath to uphold the Constitution which they have no intention of doing and will instantly ignore.

Judge Sotomayor has said on at least six documented instances over a period of 1994 until fairly recently she believes a female Hispanic can always reach a better conclusion than can a white man. Yet she, under oath, says over and over to the Senate Judiciary Committee she didn't mean it. President Obama has said it was a slip of the tongue. She calls it a "rhetorical flourish that didn't work." (try to define that one) The obvious is, a position oft stated over years is a philosophy, not a slip to the tongue. What do you think the Senate and the press would have done if John Roberts has said he felt a white man could always reach a more proper conclusion than a Hispanic.....black.........Asian......?

President Obama has stated his desire to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution," yet he blithely swore and oath to uphold the Constitution. He, it seems clear, intends to achieve this by appointing activists judges.

People seem to have trouble is discerning what is an activist judge. Chief Justice Roberts likened a judge to an umpire in a baseball game. Sotomayer has publicly and often taken issue with this analogy. Justice Roberts is correct. In a baseball game the rules of the game are the Constitution and Statutory law. An umpire decides what he sees within the constraints of theses rules. Judge Sotomayor and others of her ilk would have you believe this is laughable. She would in a hypothetical case, call one who tried to stretch a single into a double and was clearly thrown out more that 3 feet from the base, safe. Her reasoning would be this poor player, two innings earlier, was robbed of a home run by a miraculous catch above the fence. This ruling would be indicated by her empathy for the poor player being deprived, so she had to right this horrible wrong. Don't laugh. This is what activist judges do.

Remember Lady Liberty? She is always depicted as blindfolded with scales signifying the weight of the evidence rule her decision with no regard to who either party is. She is often shown with a sword in the other hand. This sword is always double sided denoting cutting both ways and fairness to either side. Is this the desired model for American Jurisprudence or is Sotomayor? You decide.

As a footnote, and of little import, Sotomayor will not be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice.