Vulture Droppings is a semi-regular feature of this blog. It's a kind of "Random Thoughts" post in which I try to quickly summarize a particularly large event or series of events. Think of it being sort of like what a vulture leaves behind after devouring a horse. You don't get the whole horse, just highly processed leftovers.
The circus is in town. No, I'm not referring to the Barnum and Bailey variety. I'm speaking of the Kabuki dance known as Supreme Court nominee confirmation hearings.
While this show is usually good for a nice dose of heartburn as sub-human reptilians interrogate (or, if the candidate is Left-leaning, go through the motions and appear to interrogate) the Justice-to-be about legal minutia fed to them by their minions. It's analogous to the show trials of the old Soviet Union. You pretty much know going in that, unless the candidate is a complete f-up (like Harriet Miers) or actually believes in enforcing the Constitution (like Robert Bork), they're going to be confirmed.
The current nominee presents a unique challenge, however. This isn't going to be the usual rubber stamp. Not for this steaming mess of a candidate.
Public opinion is
NOT a friend of Judge Sotomayor.
Sonia Sotomayor will begin her confirmation hearings next week with some of the highest levels of public opposition of any Supreme Court nominee in the last two decades, according to a new poll by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation.
In fact, only one nominee had a higher level of opposition: Harriet Miers, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. Miers later withdrew her nomination under questions about her qualifications from both the political left and right.
It seems that there are still sentient Americans who believe in a level playing field as opposed to Sotomayor's vision of a female Hispanic oligarchy of "wise Latinas".
That Ms. Sotomayor's numbers rival those of Ms. Miers is telling. Ms. Miers was a mental lightweight, a poseur. Ms. Sotomayor is simply a racially bigoted gynecocentric shrew who thinks it her job to legislate from the bench. Personally, I'd prefer Ms. Miers to Ms. Sotomayor.
Even the Washington Post, no friend to freedom nor to individual rights, managed to find time amidst the Michael Jackson coverage to drop
this little nugget on Ms. Sotomayor.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's opinions show support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects, skepticism of corporations, and sympathy for plaintiffs alleging discrimination, an analysis of her record by The Washington Post found. And she has delivered those rulings with a level of detail considered unusual for an appellate judge.
During nearly 11 years on the federal appeals court in New York, Sotomayor has made herself an expert on subjects ranging from the intricacies of automobile mechanisms to the homicide risks posed by the city's population density. Her writings have often offered a granular analysis of every piece of evidence in criminal trials, and sometimes read as if she were retrying cases from her chambers.
Legal experts said Sotomayor's rulings fall within the mainstream of those by Democratic-appointed judges. But some were critical of her style, saying it comes close to overstepping the traditional role of appellate judges, who give considerable deference to the judges and juries that observe testimony and are considered the primary finders of fact. (Emphasis mine)
The WaPo sugar-coats it; I'm going to come right out and say it. Sotomayor's ego knows no bounds;
SHE is the law, and
SHE will decide what is right or wrong, the Constitution and the law be damned.
It's telling that this is the sort of person
Il Duce chose to make his first judicial nominee. I'm just sayin'.
While I'm on the subject of Big Media (the BM for short), are you as tired of the wall-to-wall Michael Jackson coverage as I am? Especially in light of events around the world that merit actual
news coverage: the events in Honduras, the G20 summit that recently ended, Al Gorebells trumpeting how cap-and-trade will "help bring about
global governance", the cratering economy, the situation in Iran, etc., etc., ad nauseum.
Have we actually reached the "bread and circuses" phase of our descent into oblivion?
Team Elephant is going to make a show of putting Sotomayor's feet to the fire. Their main salvo will be the testimonies of firemen whom Sotomayor ruled against
famously in the New Haven case that was recently overturned by the Supreme Court.
Naturally, the sub-human reptilians of the Left have kicked into their
usual mode of "destroy the messenger, destroy the message".
Supporters of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor are quietly targeting the Connecticut firefighter who's at the center of Sotomayor's most controversial ruling.
On the eve of Sotomayor's Senate confirmation hearing, her advocates have been urging journalists to scrutinize what one called the "troubled and litigious work history" of firefighter Frank Ricci.
This is opposition research: a constant shadow on Capitol Hill.
"The whole business of getting Supreme Court nominees through the process has become bloodsport," said Gary Rose, a government and politics professor at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, Conn.
No, Mr. Rose. It's only bloodsport for the Stateist thugs of the Left. I highly doubt that Team Elephant will so much as ruffle Ms. Sotomayor's hair, let alone draw blood. Team Elephant ought to be called Team Pansy, such is their utter lack of core beliefs and fight.
I'm not going to review all of the reasons why Ms. Sotomayor is an unqualified and inappropriate candidate for the Supreme Court; I did that when
her nomination was announced. In that post, I identified her as a racist, anti-freedom horror show. Nothing that has happened in the subsequent weeks has changed my opinion.
If you're the type who writes to your Congressman and Senators, this is the time to do it. The last thing we need on a Supreme Court that is already a precarious 5-4 ideological split is this steaming mess of a human being.
