Sotomayor On Applying The Law

Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.

These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."

She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?

It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.

With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.

In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.

Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.

And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.

Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.

For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.

I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.

And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.

As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.

I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.

I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.

I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.

It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.

She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."

And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.