In an effort to make her appear more acceptable to the majority of Americans, Democrat Senator Schumer spent about 30 minutes describing cases that had come before Judge Sotomayor in the past.  Each case involved parties most people, especially The Left, would find “sympathetic.”  In each case, Schumer announced triumphantly, Judge Sotomayor had ruled against the sympathetic parties.  In other words, she had not shown “empathy.”

Back in April, President Obama was asked what qualities he would seek in his first nominee for the Supreme Court.  He repeated the word he had used on the campaign trail: “empathy.”  When asked for clarification a senior administration official said:

President Obama is keen on choosing a Supreme Court justice who possesses the quality of  imagination. To Obama, that means someone who can see beyond the legal formalism that characterizes most court decisions and deliberations…a capacity to relate to real world experiences…

While The Left loves a judge who will swerve away from the Constitution and the written law to achieve a favored outcome for a defendant or litigant, most Americans want judges and courts to restrict their authority to the law and the Constitution, regardless of the outcome.

To help Judge Sotomayor appear more acceptable to the majority of Americans Senator Schumer has tried his best to portray her as not meeting Obama’s empathy test.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings began today for President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Judge Sonia Sotomayor.  While Democrats tried to present her as an impartial judge, Republicans tried to remind us that she would bring some incendiary baggage to Court.

Her annoying quotes include this overtly racist utterance:

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…

This quote is from a lecture Ms. Sotomayer delivered at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, in 2002.  Later in the same lecture she spent considerable time on a tedious, statistical review of numbers, percentages and ratios of women and minorities serving as federal judges, and then declared:

I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.

Remember, she was a judge, invited to speak to law students.  The “choices” she says are made “by our experiences” are not which clothes to wear or which ethnic restaurant to dine in, or which traditions to pass on to children.  These “choices” are judicial decisions:

• Whether the accused committed the crime or not;
• which side should prevail in the lawsuit.

It appears that Ms. Sotomayor believes that impartiality is only an aspiration, and therefore we should expect, and accept that judicial rulings can and will differ from judge to judge due to differing ethnic roots.

The only logical conclusion then, is that Ms. Sotomayor believes that due to differences in judicial ethnicity an innocent man can be thrown in jail, or a guilty man can be freed to harm more victims.  A plaintiff in a lawsuit can be denied the judgment she deserves, or, can be given a judgment she doesn’t deserve.  Impartiality is only an aspiration.

Let us hope the Senators considering Judge Sotomayor’s suitability for the Supreme Court exhaustively explore her repugnant ideas in televised hearings.