 |
 |
Obama High Court Choice a Far-Left Globalist at Heart
James P. Tucker, Jr.
American Free Press
Friday, July 10, 2009
Only a miracle can prevent Senate confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor as Supreme Court justice, but Republicans have a patriotic duty to let the people know she is an unwise—even dangerous—choice for the job.
If she had been on the court, the ruling favoring white firemen who had been denied promotion after passing tough tests because no blacks or Hispanics were capable would have been sustained and public safety put at risk. (The high court had been asked to reject the case ending the fireman’s fight. Instead, the federal appeals court was ordered to hear the case.)
Former President George Bush’s appointments to the Supreme Court should be hailed by all patriots: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito. They, with Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, formed the court’s “right wing.” With unpredictable help from fence-sitterAnthony Kennedy, the court was able to make a few good decisions. With Miss Sotomayor, the court will lurch left. She joins the court’s left wing as an advocate of subordinating the U.S. Supreme Court to the opinions of foreign courts—a frightening surrender of sovereignty.
On April 28, she delivered a speech claiming that “unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases . . . we are going to lose influence in the world.”
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
She said judges have correctly looked to foreign authorities “to help us understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking. To the extent we have freedom of ideas, international law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about unsettled issues in our legal system” she said in April.
In a 2007 forward to the book The International Judge, Miss Sotomayor wrote that judges should “all attempt to cobble together a culture of justice-seeking in a changed world.”
Reacting to her words, Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee that is holding hearings on her nomination, signaled that lawmakers will educate Americans on her lunatic-left views. He said: “Moral authority is undermined when we allow foreign law, which we had nothing to do with, to impact our law. That is a pernicious thing.”
Miss Sotomayor is a lifelong advocate of taxpayer-funded abortion on demand. When Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) asked if the unborn had any rights whatsoever, she replied that she had “never thought about it.” (Not thinking is characteristic of the lunatic left.)
Miss Sotomayor is trying to hide her position on gun control but she is fiercely opposed to the Second Amendment. She has ruled that the Supreme Court’s recent upholding of the right of Americans to bear arms applies only to federal lands (the case had been filed in Washington). It does not apply to the states, she argued.
“Her opinion was that the hundreds of millions of Americans in the 50 states do not have a fundamental right to bear arms,” DeMint said. “She refused to back away from that opinion in my meeting with her.”
Her view that a Hispanic woman justice would render better opinions than a white male have been, correctly, widely reported. But the mainstream media has maintained a near-absolute silence on her views that the Supreme Court should be guided by foreign courts and views.
Prison
Planet.tv Members Can Watch
Fall Of The Republic
Right Now Online -
Don't Miss Out! Get
Your Subscription Today!
CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are
"they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU
be the next victim? Learn
the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY
-
- Social bookmarks
- Email this article
-
- Print this page
13 Responses to “Obama High Court Choice a Far-Left Globalist at Heart”
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | |||||||
| By N2H | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
July 10th, 2009 at 7:39 am
Whether you are afraid of her because she is a Hispanic woman or even because of your belief that she is capable to take your right to bare arms – you must visit a doctor! Or your head
will turn into cabbage.Or even worse-you will turn into canadian policeman desperately in love with his horse
July 10th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Her statement about foreign govts. is treasonous !!!!! America still has a Constitution & Bill of Rights that are supposed to be the basic law of the land. She couldn’t be farther from this.
Nick Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 9:56 am
What statement are you talking about ?Which ‘foreign govts’?You kidding every one
including your dearest self!Give a quotation,please!
gimmeabreak Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
The 4th paragraph in this particular article. You should read it.
Nick Reply:
July 10th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Did you find ‘foreign govts’ in the next (4th) paragraph -
‘On April 28, she delivered a speech claiming that “unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases . . . we are going to lose influence in the world.” ‘ You probably have political X-ray spectacles or something similar device
to find non-visible words in the text!
July 10th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
How many amendments in the bill of rights does a Supreme Court candidate have to refuse to support before they are disqualified? It appears our “living” document is DOA.
July 10th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Gimme, I think you are right on with that comment. My favorite quote was the one about checking to make sure that our “constitutional rights” agree with the “mainstream of human thinking.” This proves that she is a dirty little piece of shit like so many others in our government. Our “constitutional rights” were forged with indivudual freedom in mind, to GO AWAY FROM the “mainstream of human thinking” – because the mainstream of human thinking can hardly be called that at all. It’s more like superstitious genuflecting at whatever idol happens to be on top, and grovelling in terror because what little one has for oneself will be taken away by those with more power. And I think our “constitutional rights” were actually derived from, er NATURAL RIGHTS, which only death can take away … if it gets so lucky. She doesn’t understand this because she is a part of a group, not an independent mind. She cannot think without looking to others for cues or approval. So put away your Ayn Rand and pick up your Jack London! It looks like the law in the near future will be “The Law of Meat”: EAT OR BE EATEN. To all true men and women, dine away …
Nick Reply:
July 11th, 2009 at 2:21 am
Do you mean The New American Civil War in ‘White Fang’ style?
July 10th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
She has the face of an old decreped mans ass.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
This woman is a La Raza racist filth. She will be a detrimental to our country.
July 10th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
You can thank the obomabots for this hope and change coming now to the U.S. For all you deranged Bush haters, he made excellent choices for the Supreme court in comparison to now what Obama has done and will do. elections have consequences, and now you will suffer them.
July 11th, 2009 at 1:33 am
Whatever dirty names you are inventing ,still you can’t convince me that she said anything about foreign govts influence on american courts Can i guess you were afraid by the word ‘discussing’ in the next frase – ‘unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases . . . we are going to lose influence in the world’ If so where is the influence of foreign govts – can you tell me,if you can see the difference between the ‘discussing
the ideas’ and influence of imaginary ‘forein govts’
July 14th, 2009 at 7:01 am
let us see;
1.) she is a racist- La Raza mamber/reconquistador movement American southwest
2.) She is a judicial activist
3.) many of her rulings were overturned by Supreme court; most recent New Haven FD case
4.) she is anti-2nd Amendment; appointed by worst 2nd Amenment president , ever
5.) she is on record stating her empathy will guide her decisions; not the law or precedents.