Stop the Sotomayor nomination

A Washington Times article by Tom Lobianco Wedenesday raises the idea that Judge Sonja Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination may be in danger. I certainly hope so, but I have my doubts. The NRA issued a weasel worded letter to Senators here. Clearly, NRA is holding some of its political capital in reserve. After all, in case Sotomayor becomes a Justice, they don't want her to be predisposed against them going in, not that Sotomayor would hold it against them, of course.

I sent an e-mail to both my Senators requesting that they do not confirm Sotomayor, and force the President to make a better pick. I made the points that:

* She has spoken out against the Heller decision in which the Supreme Court recognized the individual right to Keep and Bear Arms.

* Expressed disdain for private gun ownership dating back to her senior thesis at Princeton University, where she wrote that America has a "deadly obsession" with guns and that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to firearms ownership.

* In United States v. Sanchez-Villar, she stated that "the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right." In addition to her record opposing the Second Amendment, she has also strongly advocated judicial activism.

Lest I become trapped here by my disdain for "judicial activism" let me explain. When judges substitute their own prejudices and predispositions for a fair reading of what the law says, I consider that "judicial activism." There have been too many such cases in the last 40 years, and each one undermines the rule of law. It may also be described as legislating from the bench. On the other hand, if the Legislative branch passes, and the Executive branch signs a law that is unconstitutional, I expect a judge to recognize that fact and to strike it down. All three branches have a duty to the Constitution. For example, if the Legislature passes a bill reinstating the unFairness Doctrine, I would hope the President would veto it, as is his duty. But if he signed it, then I would expect the Supreme Court would strike it down as unconstitutional. Such "judicial activism" is not, but is instead their duty.

The rule of law is what our Constitution was founded on. In theory, everyone knows the law, and everyone will be treated equally if brought before a court. Ms. Sotomayor's thinking suggests she does not believe in the rule of law, but instead believes that certain people, for whom she has "empathy" should be treated better than other people for whom she does not. That is the rule of men. If she takes us down that path, the destination is ultimately the rule of the Strongman.

I watched the Postman with Kevin Costner again last night. The movie itself takes all the usual bows to liberal ideas like goofball wormening, but Will Patton plays an excellent General Bethlehem, being thoroughly tyrannical and proud of it. That is what we face if we go down that path; warlords who treat the rest of us like peasants. If only it were as easy to end such treatment as Costner did. I especially liked Costner's line "Wouldn't it be great if wars could be fought by the assholes who started them". Indeed. But I have a feeling that if our system of laws becomes much more strained, no one's liberty, or property will be safe.