- Vladimir Putin orders military to boost presence in Arctic
- Brooklyn, N.Y.: ‘Lesbian capital’ of the Northeast
- Elian Gonzalez: It’s America’s fault that my mother died
- India top court rules homosexuality is illegal
- Aaron Hernandez, ex-Patriot, on prison life: ‘I’m way less stressed in jail’
- Man pulled from water believed to be disgraced D.C. cop
- Kabul airport hit by suicide bomber who targeted NATO gate
- Space probe on course to land on mile-wide comet
- New budget accord saves $23 billion — after $65 billion spending spree
- Congress seeks ban on in-flight calls
SOWELL: Sotomayor in context
As the mainstream media circles the wagons around Judge Sonia Sotomayor, to protect her from the consequences of her own words and deeds, its main arguments are distractions from the issue at hand.
A CNN reporter, for example, got all worked up because Rush Limbaugh had used the word “racist” to describe the judge’s words.
Since it has been repeated like a mantra that Judge Sotomayor’s words have been “taken out of context,” let us look at Mr. Limbaugh in context. The cold fact is that Mr. Limbaugh has not been nominated to sit on the highest court in the land, with a lifetime appointment, to have the lives and liberties of 300 million Americans in his hands.
Whatever you may think about his choice of words, those words and the ideas behind them do not change the law of the land. The words and actions of Supreme Court justices do. Anyone who doesn’t like what Mr. Limbaugh says can simply turn off the radio or change the station. But you cannot escape the consequences of Supreme Court decisions. Nor will your children or grandchildren.
What does it say about a nominee to the Supreme Court that the most that her defenders can say in her defense is that her critics used words that her defenders don’t like?
What does it say about her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court when her supporters’ biggest talking points are that she had to struggle to rise in the world?
Bonnie and Clyde had to struggle. Al Capone had to struggle. The only president of the United States who was forced to resign for his misdeeds - Richard Nixon - had to struggle. For that matter, Adolf Hitler had to struggle! There is no evidence that struggle automatically makes you a better person.
Sometimes, instead of making you appreciate a society in which someone born at the bottom can rise to the top, it leaves you embittered that you had to spend years struggling and resentful of those born into circumstances where the easy way to the top was open to them.
Much in the past of Judge Sotomayor, and of the president who nominated her, suggests such resentments. Both have a history of connections with people who promoted resentments against American society. La Raza (“the race”) was Judge Sotomayor’s Jeremiah A. Wright. If context is important, then look at that context.
Judge Sotomayor has, in both her words and in her decision as a judge to dismiss out of hand the appeal of white firefighters who had been discriminated against, betrayed a racism that is no less racism because it is directed against different people from the old racism of the past.
The code word for the new racism is “diversity.” The Constitution of the United States says nothing about diversity, and the Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, not the prevailing buzzwords of the times.
What the Constitution says is “equal protection of the laws” for all Americans - and that is not taken out of context. People have put their lives on the line to make those words a reality. Now all that is to be made to vanish into thin air by saying the magic word “diversity.”
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have “empathy.”
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was debated in Congress, its opponents claimed it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed.
By Donald Lambro
Growth spikes are little more than trend-free anomalies
Get Breaking Alerts
- Teen thugs in DC run wild -- even while wearing GPS ankle bracelets
- New budget accord saves $23 billion -- after $65 billion spending spree
- Obama takes 'selfie' at Mandela's funeral service
- VEGAS RULES: Harry Reid pushed feds to change ruling for casino's big-money foreigners
- CARSON: Why did the founders give us the Second Amendment?
- Gov't Motors: Obama fudges math on auto bailout, $15 billion loss for taxpayers
- Somber duty: U.S. presidents in hot demand at Mandela's memorial
- FITTON: A closer look at the Benghazi lie
- American bourbon now better than Scottish whiskey: U.K.-born expert
- LAMBRO: The dark lining to the silver cloud of Obamanomics