As a personal note, we spent the last half of the week at the Grand Canyon. We froze, but had a wonderful time. The highlight was seeing the California Condors. We saw three adults flying at one time. They were first flying against the backdrop of the Grand Canyon and it was wonderful. The second time we saw them up close and personal. That means we saw 1% of all the living California Condors at one time.

The two big issues facing us immediately are health insurance and Judge Sotomayer. Today, I will write about Judge Sotomayer and tomorrow about health insurance.

Since last writing about Judge Sotomayer, I have learned a lot more about her positions on issues. Her statement about Latino women being able to make better judicial decisions than white males is taking up most of the press. There are a lot of reasons for that to be the case. First, if a white male had made a similar statement, he would have been removed from consideration within a nanosecond. Second, her actions during the Ricci case supported her words.

Since the initial two reasons, a third has come to light. The third reason that the issue of her policy on race is important is that she made statements like the initial statement that Latino women can make better judicial decisions than white males seven more times. If you make a statement one time, it can be a mistake. It can be a poor choice of words or just pure brain freeze. If you make a statement two times, the chance of it being a mistake go down from about 25% to 1%. If you make three or more statements that are the same the chance of a mistake is eliminated. That means her initial statement was intended just as she said it. No matter that the Democrats are calling it just a poor choice of words, the truth is she intended to say just what she said.

Let us look closer at the statement and see what it could mean. She said that Latino women can make better judicial decisions because of their life histories. As I understand the law, when it says something there are no decisions to make. In other words, the law is the law. There are guidelines in sentencing and there one judge will make decisions different than another. I am not sure that this is where she was going. I think she meant that a Latino woman will read the law to mean something different than a white male because of her life experience. If that is the case she is preaching pure racism. It is racism of a different color, but it is still racism. When we think of racism, we think of it as white on black or other minority. She is talking minority (Latino) on some other group. That is not equal treatment under the law that our Constitution talks about.

There is another issue where her position is not where the Constitution actually should be. She has made statements on the second amendment. The second amendment is the right to bear arms. It has always meant that individuals can own firearms. Judge Sotomayer has stated that the second amendment only applies to the military. The second amendment does not apply to the military. It talks about militias, not the military. If it was talking about the military, it would have mentioned the military, not the militias. In the early days of the country, militias and military were quite different. A militia unit was an untrained unit formed from local people for an emergency purpose. A military unit was a trained unit formed to protect the country. The writers of the Constitution were such sticklers for correct words, that they would not have made the mistake to use one word in place of the other. She is obviously wrong about the second amendment. She needs to read the second amendment and learn what it really means.

Judge Sotomayer is not really qualified to be on the Supreme Court. That she will eventually be on the Supreme Court is a foregone conclusion. There are not really enough votes to stop her nomination. I do not think that the Republicans should fight to stop her nomination. They should highlight her extreme liberal positions. By highlighting her extreme positions, they can set up the next unqualified person that Barack Obama nominates to the court. This one is pretty much a foregone conclusion that it will go through. But, it can be used to highlight extreme positions and make it more difficult for Barack Obama to get another extremist judge on the Supreme Court. They would have to continue to highlight her extreme positions as she continues to trash the Constitution in her daily attempt to rewrite what the Founders wrote.

Last week, Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayer for the Supreme Court. At the time, I said I would reserve judgment until I found out more about her. For the past week, I have read all that I can about her and her background. I have read legal experts that I trust and have come to a conclusion. Sonia Sotomayer is not qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

How did I come up with that judgment? There were a number of factors that came into play. Her most talked about statements really troubled me. The one that bothers me the most is the racial statement. She said that a Hispanic woman can make better decisions than a white male based on her life’s experiences. Had a white male said the same thing in reverse, he would have been shown the door in no time at all. The fact that she is Hispanic should have nothing to do with the fact that the statement is one of the most racially charged statements from a Supreme Court nominee since one of the KKK members became a member of the Supreme Court.

The statement alone was not enough to sway me that she was sincere. There is a case that she decided that clinched the argument. The case was about a town that made a test for firefighters for advancement. The test was prepared by experts so that it had no racial components at all. After the test was administered, 17 white males and one Hispanic male passed the test. No blacks passed the test at all. The city then determined that because no blacks passed the test, the test must be racially biased and threw it out. The firefighters then sued the city. The case came to the court of appeals where Sonia Sotomayer was serving. She was on the majority that threw out the firefighter’s case. This was an obvious case of racial discrimination, yet she decided the other way.

One other reason that I do not feel she is qualified is that she has had 60% of her decisions overturned upon appeal to a higher court. As a teacher, if I had any student get 40% on a test I would not say they were a top student. Any judge will have some cases overturned on appeal. Everyone makes mistakes. That is why we have appeals courts. A judge deciding cases strictly on the law should not have cases overturned very much. Sonia Sotomayer had the highest overturned rate of any judge that Barack Obama was considering for the Supreme Court. If she makes so many wrong decisions on lower courts, how can we be sure she gets it right on the Supreme Court? The high rate of decisions overturned tells me that she is deciding some cases based on her own ideas, not the law. Her supporters always bring up cases where she follows the law in sentencing. Those are undoubtedly cases that were not overturned. I would like to know her decisions in the cases she had overturned. That would tell us much more about her judicial philosophy than the cases she got right. Especially since her rate of cases overturned is so high.

On the surface, this appointment looks like an affirmative action pick by Barack Obama. It does not look like he picked the best person in the United States for the Supreme Court. It looks like he decided he was going to pick a Hispanic and just picked one without regard to her track record. I could be wrong, but that is what I think based on the information that is at my disposal at this time. That would be typical of someone who was an affirmative action selection at most levels. Also, Democrats believe fervently in affirmative action. That is another reason that this appointment just does not look right.

I still think that Sonia Sotomayer will become a Supreme Court Justice. Why do I think that? Democrats hold a 59-40 majority in the Senate. If the Republicans do not find something more damning than the racist statement, they will not filibuster the appointment. If they do not filibuster the appointment, she will be approved. That is why elections have consequences. We are now paying for the stupidity of the Republicans in 2006 and 2008. Also, Republicans should be ashamed for trying to be Democrats leading up to the elections in 2006 and 2008. People will always pick the real thing over a fake if given the choice. They made that abundantly clear in 2006 and 2008. I hope the Republicans got the message or they will get it again in 2010. If they got the message, the Democrats will get their hat handed to them in 2010. That would be a good thing for America and the world.

Barack Obama nominated his first Supreme Court Justice yesterday. He selected Sonia Sotomayer. She is a far left nominee, which should be no surprise. If approved, she would be the first Hispanic elevated to the Supreme Court. That would be a distinct honor. That honor should have gone to Miguel Estrada. But the left so demonized him that his nomination was impossible.

For the most part, Judge Sotomayer is uncontroversial. That is to be expected from any Supreme Court nominee. The last thing a President wants is for his nominee to be attacked as badly as Justice Thomas was.

Judge Sotomayer has made a few statements that have people scratching their heads. The worst two are her one that a Hispanic woman can make better decisions than a white male and that the bench is where policy is made. Many people are lining up to oppose her based on those two comments alone. You have to find out the context of those statements before you can jump to a conclusion. Context is what did she really mean when she used the words attributed to her. You look at the statements before and after the statement in question to form the answer to context. At this time, the context has not been released.

The first comment shows a racist tendency. That would be terrible in anyone, but particularly in a Supreme Court nominee. If she truly is a racist, she would not be the first. There have been members of the KKK that have served on the Supreme Court back in the later half of the 19^th century and early part of the 20^th century.

The second comment is one that would indicate that she felt the Constitution was not the law of the land. That would mean that she would be like the other liberal judges on the Supreme Court and use foreign law and her own opinion to determine if something is Constitutional. What Supreme Court Justices are supposed to do is look at the words in the Constitution itself, and nothing else, to determine if something is Constitutional. They can reference other American case law to back up their opinion. But, the words of the Constitution take precedence. Ideally, the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution should be taken into consideration when making the decision. This does not always seem to be the case for more recent Supreme Court decisions.

There is an interview with Jonathan Turley out on You Tube. In the interview, he says that Judge Sonia Sotomayer is just an affirmative action pick. Jonathan Turley teaches law at George Washington School of Law. He should know whether Judge Sotomayer is a good selection or not. Jonathan Turley is also a reliable liberal, so if he is bashing Judge Sotomayer for being an affirmative action pick, she must be pretty bad.

Right now, I am reserving judgment until I know more about Judge Sotomayer. My first impression is not good. The two bad comments raise red flags. Until those red flags are successfully answered, my opinion tends to be negative. If I had a vote and it had to be now, based on first impressions, it would be no. But, we will learn more over the next couple of months. She may not be as bad as the first impressions make her out to be. She might be a Harriet Meier pick or she might be really good. I just hope she is not as bad as Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That would be a total disaster.