Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor as the Supreme Court Justice to replace David Souter. Sotomayor was born to Puerto Rican parents in New York City and raised in the projects in the Bronx. With her father dying early in her life, she was raised by a single mom. Sotomayor went on to graduate from Princeton and then from Yale Law School. She is considered a centrist by the Bar Association (which doesn't mean anything, considering the far left stance of the Bar Association) and was a nominee of George H.W. Bush onto the U.S. District Court. Notable achievements while in that office was that she effectively ended the Major League Baseball strike in 1995 by not letting the MLB play replacement players and also ruled that the Wall Street Journal was able to publish Vince Foster's suicide note (a sting to Hillary, who probably had him killed). She seems to have been appreciated by both Republicans and Democrats.
But Sotomayor has made some serious blunders. In 2001 she stated "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." At the same event, she also stated, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." In 2005, she said that "...Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."
So, it seems that Sotomayor thinks that Latinas make better law than whites, that her race will obviously make an impact on her judicial rulings, and that it's o.k. to legislate from the bench. Awesome.
I should also note, however, that Sotomayor upheld Bush's "Mexico City Policy," which prevented taxpayer money from paying for abortions in other nations. Therefore, I will be open minded concerning Sotomayor and hope for the best.
What's disturbing is not Sotomayor's previous rulings, or even her judicial philosophy, but the way the media has been playing up her story as "the American Dream." Nearly every television station I've listen to (Fox, CNN, MSBC) are touting Sotomayor's nomination as a confirmation that the American Dream is alive and well. This is because a Latina (double minority) from humble, immigrant origins has been nominated to one of the highest offices in the land.
At face value, nothing is wrong with that. In fact, it's great. When a child of immigrants achieves much in our land, we should be proud. And when minorities achieve the same feats as those who are of a more common demographic, we should be reminded our nation really is Land of the Free and that we don't value diversity - but value hard work, regardless of from whom it comes. Even though I'm not sure it's great that we all knew Obama's appointee would have a 0% chance of being a white male and I don't believe that we should fill offices because of one's skin color, genitalia, or national heritage and that's obviously what he was going for... it's still a great day in America.
BUT, the media is referring to this a "the American Dream come true" not because of the hard work and achievements of Sotomayor, but because she came out of the projects. That's the angle the media is working..."how wonderful it is that a child from the projects can achieve much!"
I know you may think I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think it's a great idea to associate the American Dream with the projects. Liberals love it when people achieve much because liberal social programs like welfare and public housing support them during their formative years. In reality, these individuals don't achieve because of social programs like welfare and public housing, but in spite of them.
Let's face it, most inhabitants of public housing don't learn work ethic and responsibility from their parents, and it would be better they be raised in a camper down by the river by parents that are independent of the system than in the ghetto being raised by parents that live on government cheese.
The American Dream isn't rising out of the projects, but being raised by hard working parents that couldn't give you everything, but worked darn hard to provide. It's about rising from the farm or other blue-collar settings where the sacrifice of one's parents (not the welfare of one's neighbors) provided them opportunities and the means to achieve them.
What this association with the projects or welfare with the American Dream does is promote the greatness of entitlement programs and not the individual that achieves. Think of the countless black Americans who have done much through hard work and ambition, but the left uses as examples of the success of Affirmative Action rather than gumption or ambiton of the individual.
But Sotomayor has made some serious blunders. In 2001 she stated "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." At the same event, she also stated, "Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." In 2005, she said that "...Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t make law. I know. Okay, I know. I know. I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it. I'm, you know. Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application."
So, it seems that Sotomayor thinks that Latinas make better law than whites, that her race will obviously make an impact on her judicial rulings, and that it's o.k. to legislate from the bench. Awesome.
I should also note, however, that Sotomayor upheld Bush's "Mexico City Policy," which prevented taxpayer money from paying for abortions in other nations. Therefore, I will be open minded concerning Sotomayor and hope for the best.
What's disturbing is not Sotomayor's previous rulings, or even her judicial philosophy, but the way the media has been playing up her story as "the American Dream." Nearly every television station I've listen to (Fox, CNN, MSBC) are touting Sotomayor's nomination as a confirmation that the American Dream is alive and well. This is because a Latina (double minority) from humble, immigrant origins has been nominated to one of the highest offices in the land.
At face value, nothing is wrong with that. In fact, it's great. When a child of immigrants achieves much in our land, we should be proud. And when minorities achieve the same feats as those who are of a more common demographic, we should be reminded our nation really is Land of the Free and that we don't value diversity - but value hard work, regardless of from whom it comes. Even though I'm not sure it's great that we all knew Obama's appointee would have a 0% chance of being a white male and I don't believe that we should fill offices because of one's skin color, genitalia, or national heritage and that's obviously what he was going for... it's still a great day in America.
BUT, the media is referring to this a "the American Dream come true" not because of the hard work and achievements of Sotomayor, but because she came out of the projects. That's the angle the media is working..."how wonderful it is that a child from the projects can achieve much!"
I know you may think I'm splitting hairs here, but I don't think it's a great idea to associate the American Dream with the projects. Liberals love it when people achieve much because liberal social programs like welfare and public housing support them during their formative years. In reality, these individuals don't achieve because of social programs like welfare and public housing, but in spite of them.
Let's face it, most inhabitants of public housing don't learn work ethic and responsibility from their parents, and it would be better they be raised in a camper down by the river by parents that are independent of the system than in the ghetto being raised by parents that live on government cheese.
The American Dream isn't rising out of the projects, but being raised by hard working parents that couldn't give you everything, but worked darn hard to provide. It's about rising from the farm or other blue-collar settings where the sacrifice of one's parents (not the welfare of one's neighbors) provided them opportunities and the means to achieve them.
What this association with the projects or welfare with the American Dream does is promote the greatness of entitlement programs and not the individual that achieves. Think of the countless black Americans who have done much through hard work and ambition, but the left uses as examples of the success of Affirmative Action rather than gumption or ambiton of the individual.
If the American Dream starts by the generosity of the federal government, then God help us all.
3 comments:
What shall we do about all of this? Obama is an Islamic Socialist! Sotomayor is a racist! What shall we do? I know, let's start a blog and whine like a bunch of little babies.
Holding machine guns in your photo yet responding so cowardly.
Isn't there such a thing as being answerable to God by proclaiming the truth?
Do we have to be terrorists to prove we are just like they?
Machine guns are obviously just a fun thing for Jordan to hold.
S-T-A-R-S
Isn't there such a thing as being answerable to God by proclaiming the truth?
Do we have to be terrorists to prove we are just like they?
Machine guns are obviously just a fun thing for Jordan to hold.
S-T-A-R-S
Post a Comment