Archive for Sonia Sotomayor

Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason

Posted in Attack on Freedom, General, International Bankers, New World Order, News, Stupid Government Tricks, Unconstitutional with tags , , , , , on January 25, 2010 by truthwillrise

Gordon Duff
Veterans Today
January 23, 2010

Five members of the Supreme Court declared that a “corporation” is a person, not a “regular person” but one above all natural laws, subject to no God, no moral code but one with unlimited power over our lives, a power awarded by judges who seem themselves as grand inquisitors in an  meant to hunt down all hertics who fail to serve their god, the god of money.

There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law.

featured stories   Call For Immediate Arrest of 5 Supreme Court Justices for Treason  
  supreme court


Their ruling has made it legal for foreign controlled corporations to flush unlimited money into our bloated political system to further corrupt something none of us trust and most of us fear.  The “corporation/person” that the 5 judges, the “neocon” purists, have turned the United States over to isn’t even American.  Our corporations, especially since our economic meltdown are owned by China, Russia and the oil sheiks along with a few foreign banks.  They don’t vote, pay taxes, fight in wars, need dental care, breathe air, drive cars or send children to school.  Anyone who thinks these things are people is insane.  Anyone who would sell our government to them is a criminal and belongs in prison.  There is nothing in the Constitution that makes this “gang of five” bribe sucking clowns above the law.  There is nothing in the Constitution that even mentions corporations much less gives them status equal to or greater than the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government.

The Supreme Court of the United States has no right to breathe human life into investment groups owned by terrorist sympathizers, foreign arms dealers or groups working for the downfall of the United States and everything we believe in, but 5 “justices” have done just that.  We now have a new government above our government, above our people, one above any law.   Five judges have created institutionalized gangsterism as the new form of government for the United States.

No American soldier can ever go to war fighting for a Chinese hedge fund, a German bank or a Saudi Arabian fertilizer company.  Will our new debates in Congress be between members representing the opium warlords against the Columbian cartels?  Their cash, which long ago has infiltrated one major corporation or bank after another is now heading for your local representative.   How important do you think secure borders for America are for these new policial “influencers?”

For years we complained about AIPAC, the Sierra Club, the NRA, trial lawyers, trade unions, NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) and the churches that got involved in politics.  Behind all of these were people, American citizens, and, on some occasions, Americans who fought for their country, raised kids here and were invested in the survival of America although they didn’t always act that way.  This was an American problem.  Now we aren’t even sure we have an America anymore.

Anyone who believes that a massive flood of corporate money into politics won’t throw control of both houses of Congress into the hands of the wealthy nations that are also our primary strategic enemies, you know the ones, the ones loaded with oil cash, the ones with 10 cent an hour labor and legal systems that  shoot first and ask questions later.  They just were told they can buy the United States, not just our government, but our military, and the lives of our soldiers.  They can now make our laws, raise our taxes, decide on our civil rights, where we can live, if we can own guns, how late we stay up, where and what we drive and, eventually, how we think.  The Supreme Court has given foreign owned corporations the eventual power to silence us all.

When a corporation commits a crime, nobody goes to jail.  When wars come, they don’t fight, they simply rake in cash.  When children are poisoned or workers are killed, they seldom even pay a fine.  However, when they want something, billions in tax money for “bail outs” or fat contracts or special laws, they have always gotten it.  It  has been a battle to control corporations for 140 years.  Sometimes the American people have lost, sometimes they have won.  Our greatest presidents are the ones who reined in corporate power and kept the influence of money over humanity in check.  Think of Theordore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John Kennedy.

Without them we would be living in work camps, stuck at machines all day, our children at our sides.  We would be paid in beans and salt pork, dying at 40 in filth like people around the world who live in countries controlled by corporations.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

Based on the justices that we want prosecuted being Reagan/Bush “conservatives” you would think this is a liberal/conservative issue.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Nothing less “conservative” has ever been done by a branch of our government.  There is nothing “conservative” about our Supreme Court going insane and abandoning our Constitution and making medical decisions, not to give life to a fetus, but to a bank account.

This is nothing but an extremely unAmerican and unpatriotic group of thieves believing that Americans had given up so many of their civil liberties in silence during the Global War on Terror scam that opening the “Pandora’s Box” of class conflict could now be done with nobody saying a word.  Their “corporate person” is now a Baron or Duke, the great landlords of the medieval period.  Americans are now destined for serfdom.  Their political and economic theories, what are they?  Is it conservatism or feudalism?

We are already burdened with a representative government that has tied itself to the money spigot because of the incredible cost of media exposure in campaigns.  People running for office in ancient Rome would purchase thousands of animals for slaughter in the arena.  Mass executions were staged as media events for political campaigns.  In fact, the arenas in every Roman city were built for that purpose, today replaced by television and the internet.  We thought we had changed since that time.  We were wrong.

The framers of the Constitution created the Supreme Court, the Electoral College and originally had Senators appointed, not elected, to protect the wealthy from having their money and land seized by the masses who would otherwise have controlled the government.  This was the 1780s.  The only “democracy” we knew about was ancient Athens, where the majority of the people living there were slaves.    27 Amendments later, including the Bill of Rights, we have worked to define justice and decency.  Generations have fought and died to keep life in our imperfect system from 1780.  Who would have thought that 5 people could destroy it all?

Political debate in America is sometimes extreme, often bordering on violence.  Feelings are high.  How many times have you heard people threaten to leave the country because “their America” no longer exists.  We know that few really mean it.  When faced with a real threat, no people on earth are to be feared like Americans.  When help is needed, no people on earth are to be trusted and relied on like Americans.  This is the pride we have in our country and ourselves.  We never agree on anything.  We aren’t supposed to, we are Americans.

Everything we built has been based on a balance, race, religion, ethnicity, social standing, political beliefs, regional interests, all striving and compromising to build something we are all secretly very proud of, something all of us are willing to fight for and many are.  Americans all agree on one thing, that our government in Washington is out of control and has been for some time.  We all have different ideas on this but agree on the fact itself.  We wonder where the politicians come from, men too often “less great” than those of the past, in fact, less great than average.  Decisions are continually made that most find puzzling and, in fact, are driven by a rotten underbelly of corruption and self interest.

Now, 5 members of the Supreme Court, people none of us voted for, a group that is answerable to no authority and, seemingly, no law or moral code, a group famous for immoderation, poor judgement and low personal integrity has, either through blindness, avarice or insanity clearly done something so malicious, so unjust and so utterly inconsistent with our Constitution that they, themselves, have become an “enemy of the people.”

What is their power?  What they have done is not within the scope of the authority given through the Constitution.  Their acts are outside the law, their acts are those of a conspiracy, their acts are meant to diminish our freedoms, our sacred institutions and even endanger our lives.  Typically, such acts are called crimes and those who commit them are criminals.

What could drive judges, albeit judges appointed with little thought as part of a cheap political ploy, to abandon any American consitutency?  Corporations have no religion.  They care nothing for the unborn.  They have no allegiance to a flag, a family or any moral ethic.  They serve no person, owe no loyalty other that to stockholders, shadowy groups of Russian oligarchs, Chinese banks, corrupt dictators grown fat on the spoils of their people or the international consortiums of bond and currency speculators who have, for decades, abandoned any economic law to build the etherial “house of cards” we call the “world economy.”

The control of the American electoral process has been given to them.  No serving politican can survive now standing against them.  Years ago “they” bought our newspapers and our television networks.  Fact and truth became whatever they wanted us to believe.  “They” gained control of what many thought and what almost all of us see and hear.  That wasn’t enough.  They wanted it all.  As their control has grown, so has terrorism, continual war, economic poverty for millions Americans and insensitivity to justice and humanity.  Who would expect anything else from a corporation with no blood, no heart and no face?

The Founding Fathers led America on the path to freedom and eventual democracy.  The Federalists limited the ability of an impetuous electorate to seize power and “reform” America into chaos and anarchy.  This system of government was predicated on the belief that love of country would always burn brightly in America and with progress, freedom and bounty was the ineviable reward of our industry.  It is only now too obvious that so much has happened that was unforseen.  It is not a denial of our traditions to correct wrongs when we find them.  This was how America was created.  We are drowning in wrongs, we all finally agree on this.

The time is now.  Party politics have failed.  Political theories are little more than empty rhetoric meant to mislead and misinform.  State has become church and church has become state.  State is less just and church less godly.  All we have left is “we, the People.”  This is how we began and it is now all we have to move forward.  It is time for the states to call for a Constitutional Convention to establish, not just a Republic, but a Democracy, by and for the people, the American people, rich and poor, a nation loyal to itself, not tied to corporations, a vast military industrial complex or endless foreign alliances.

If it is to be a genuinely conservative nation, one with individual freedoms, a small government, fewer taxes and more opportunity, a nation as intended, then we will all have to live with it.  The bloated corpse we are creating in Washington is emitting a stench we can no longer abide.  We will be saying goodbye to our Supreme Court, our seniority system in Congress and our political machines pretending to be “parties”  and hello to paper ballots, a free press, term limits and the ability to yank a scoundrel out of office when we catch one.

Research related links

  1. Supreme Court rejects domestic wiretap appeal
  2. The Supreme Court Scare
  3. Supreme Court Rules Against Fourth Amendment
  4. Manchurian Candidates: Supreme Court allows China and others unlimited spending in US elections
  5. Supreme Court to Rule on Second Amendment
  6. NRA Asks Supreme Court To Strike Down Chicago’s Gun Ban
  7. Berg to U.S. Supreme Court this Afternoon
  8. Alex Jones Triumphs as Supreme Court Rules in Favor of First Amendment
  9. Supreme Court rules on 9/11 case
  10. Supreme Court Guts Due Process Protection
  11. US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked
  12. Will Supreme Court take case on Obama’s citizenship?


Posted in New World Order, News, Stupid Government Tricks with tags , , , on August 24, 2009 by truthwillrise

By Chuck Baldwin’s Son: Timothy Baldwin
August 21, 2009

[Note: My son, Tim, writes today’s column. He is an attorney who received his Juris Doctor degree from Cumberland School of Law in Birmingham, Alabama. He is a former prosecutor for the Florida State Attorney’s Office and now owns his own private law practice. He is author of a new book, published soon by Agrapha Publishing, entitled FREEDOM FOR A CHANGE.]

Yes, yes, we have all heard the remarks from those who would call themselves conservative, libertarian or the like concerning the nomination and now swearing-in of Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court, which took place on August 8, 2009. Yes, yes, books have been written by those conservative and libertarian editorialists and authors who have explained to us that the United States Supreme Court (US S CT) is “out of control” and how we must elect “conservative” Presidents to appoint “conservative” judges. Ironically, this infatuation with the federal government, and specifically with the judicial branch of the federal government, has actually (at least in part) created the growing enslavement of the people of these States United.

Certainly we should care about who sits on the US S CT bench. However, the time has come in our Confederate Republic (the USA) to acknowledge and understand that the power to govern ourselves justly and constitutionally is in the hands of the people of the several states of America–NOT in the hands of the branches of federal government. What most people in America have been duped to believe is that the US S CT is the final arbiter in all matters concerning government actions related to the US Constitution.

When it comes to US S CT rulings that contradict the US Constitution and that reject the historical facts and principles of our Republic, people feel hopeless and think that regaining freedom somehow means replacing the “liberal” judges with “conservative” judges. Such an approach to preserving freedom is not only un-American; it is fruitless and ineffectual. History now proves this. Additionally, this approach proves that the vast majority of Americans have been indoctrinated into the centralist-ideology imposed on us by not-so-innocent advocates of such a political belief system.

Let me state this clearly: the US Constitution does not grant to the US S CT the power to interpret the Constitution in contradiction to the terms of the Constitution, and it does not strip the powers of the States to actively arrest and resist tyrannical federal actions. The US S CT can no more violate the Constitution than the Legislative and Executive branches can. What sense does it make that the US S CT is bound by an oath to support and defend the Constitution and then has the power to interpret it however the heck they want to? Do you think our founders were so near-sighted and unlearned that they would have given to the US S CT this unchecked and unlimited power in the very document that states its purpose is “to secure the blessings of liberty”?

The framework of our Confederate Republic was clearly understood by those who advocated its ratification, namely, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay: the writers of the Federalist Papers. These are the men who some today would argue advocated for a centralist government, reducing and eliminating the power of the States to resist and arrest federal usurpation of power. Obviously, these advocates of centralism would not have you aware of what these founders said on the subject, nor would they like to admit that the US Constitution formed a league of states, which was acceded to by each independent and sovereign act of the states, and which secured the right and duty of the states to actively guard against the encroachments of the federal government they created for the security of the blessings of liberty.

It must first be admitted that the US Constitution never gave to the US S CT the power to substitute their will for the intentions of the Founders of the Constitution. This is easy to prove. Alexander Hamilton admits this in Federalist Paper 78:

“It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature . . . The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.”

Here, Hamilton points out the fact that, in our Confederate Republic, the US S CT MUST apply the Constitution to all federal laws as intended by the Founders. They are NOT to place their will above the will of those who framed and acceded to the US Constitution. To suggest that the US S CT has the power to alter, change or amend the Constitution at will is to place the US S CT above the Constitution: they can no more do this than the legislative branch can pass an unconstitutional law and the executive branch can carry out an unconstitutional law. Or as Hamilton puts it, putting their will above the Constitution will “equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body.” Neither is acceptable and neither is constitutional.

One cannot credibly and correctly argue that whatever the US S CT says goes. I should not even have to restate this maxim, but in America, it has been held true that any unconstitutional act is null and void. This applies to the US S CT as well. Thus, the question becomes, what can and what must the states do when all three branches of the federal government ignore the Constitution and trample over the intents of its foundational principles? The authors of the Federalist Papers give us some guidance on the subject.

In Federalist Paper 16, Hamilton explains in detail the states’ right to actively resist federal tyranny and usurpation of power. Listen to Hamilton:

“The plausibility of this objection [that the states will at any time obstruct the execution of federal laws] will vanish the moment we advert to the essential difference between a mere NON-COMPLIANCE and a DIRECT and ACTIVE RESISTANCE. If the interposition of the State legislatures be necessary to give effect to a measure of the Union, they have only NOT TO ACT, or to ACT EVASIVELY, and the measure is defeated. This neglect of duty may be disguised under affected but unsubstantial provisions, so as not to appear, and of course not to excite any alarm in the people for the safety of the Constitution. The State leaders may even make a merit of their surreptitious invasions of it on the ground of some temporary convenience, exemption, or advantage.


“But if the execution of the laws of the national government should not require the intervention of the State legislatures, if they were to pass into immediate operation upon the citizens themselves, the particular governments could not interrupt their progress without an open and violent exertion of an unconstitutional power. No omissions nor evasions would answer the end. They would be obliged to act, and in such a manner as would leave no doubt that they had encroached on the national rights . . . Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, UNLESS IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY.” (Emphasis added.)

Here, Hamilton clearly recognizes the states’ ability to actively intervene against the federal government “in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.” Hamilton also expounds upon the natural protection that the new system of the US Constitution provides, in that states will not so easily and readily interfere with federal action when such interference must be made actively and openly against the federal government. Certainly, where at least three-fourths (the percentage needed to amend the Constitution) of the states disagree with the State actively resisting the federal government, that State will consider the risks and costs to be too great to carry out and thus would not resist actively; instead, that State would use its VOICE and not its ARM to communicate its discontent. However, as told by Hamilton, “IN CASES OF A TYRANNICAL EXERCISE OF THE FEDERAL AUTHORITY,” the states most certainly would use their ARM to arrest such tyrannical actions.

Hamilton describes the use of this ARM of the States in Federalist Paper 26:

“[T]he State legislatures, WHO WILL ALWAYS BE NOT ONLY VIGILANT BUT SUSPICIOUS AND JEALOUS GUARDIANS OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZENS AGAINST ENCROACHMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent . . . “[T]he people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.” (Emphasis added.)

Hamilton goes so far as to say, if the federal government has usurped its powers and the people of the states feel it necessary, the states should secede from the union, dividing “themselves into as many states as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.” This is not I stating this: this is one of the most well-known Founding Fathers in American history. Hamilton further expounds upon this states’ right and duty to check federal usurpation of power in Federalist Paper 28. He says,

“Power being almost always the rival of power, the general government will at all times stand ready to check the usurpations of the state governments, and THESE [THE STATES] WILL HAVE THE SAME DISPOSITION TOWARDS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. The people, by throwing themselves into either scale, will infallibly make it preponderate. IF THEIR RIGHTS ARE INVADED BY EITHER, THEY CAN MAKE USE OF THE OTHER AS THE INSTRUMENT OF REDRESS. How wise will it be in them by cherishing the union to preserve to themselves an advantage which can never be too highly prized!” (Emphasis added.)

Very clearly, Hamilton sees the brilliance of our Confederate Republic system of government, whereby the states can check the federal government and that where “rights are invaded” by the federal government, the people “can make use of the [states] as the instrument of redress.” Hamilton continues in this discussion, saying:

“It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that THE STATE GOVERNMENTS WILL, IN ALL POSSIBLE CONTINGENCIES, AFFORD COMPLETE SECURITY AGAINST INVASIONS OF THE PUBLIC LIBERTY BY THE NATIONAL AUTHORITY. Projects of usurpation cannot be masked under pretenses so likely to escape the penetration of select bodies of men, as of the people at large. The legislatures will have better means of information. They can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil power, and the confidence of the people, THEY CAN AT ONCE ADOPT A REGULAR PLAN OF OPPOSITION, in which they can combine all the resources of the community. They can readily communicate with each other in the different States, and UNITE THEIR COMMON FORCES FOR THE PROTECTION OF THEIR COMMON LIBERTY.” (Emphasis added.)

Even as expressed by the centralists’ hero, Alexander Hamilton, the states were not left impotent regarding federal tyranny and were not stuck with the fruitless redress only through the US S CT. Hamilton clearly suggests that the states have the sovereign and active power to arrest the exercise of federal tyranny.

Again, the question here is not, does the federal government have the power to act within its delegated powers, for we all would concede that the federal government has the power to do what we the people in the several states delegated to the federal government. We acknowledge, as Hamilton expresses in Federalist Paper 27, “the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land.” Rather, the question is, what are the states going to do in response to the usurpation of powers that have been tyrannically taken by all three branches of the federal government? The question is, what are the states going to do when the federal government has passed, upheld and executed laws that are not “enumerated and legitimate objects of its jurisdiction”? After all, such laws are by definition NOT the supreme laws of the land and consequently, the people of the states and the states themselves are not bound to them. (Of course, this necessarily implies that we the people understand the Constitution, the principles of our government and the true character and nature of our government.)

Are the people of the states to sit back and let the federal government trample over the rights, principles and structure of our Confederate Republic? Is every State to shirk its responsibilities and duties to actively protect, preserve and defend the freedoms of its sovereign (the people of the State) against federal tyranny? Are the people of the states to live and be governed in tyranny with the only hope that we will hopefully elect a President who will hopefully appoint a US S CT justice to the bench so that the Court can hopefully hear a case on the direct issue so that the Court will hopefully rule the correct way? Nonsense!

The time has come that the people of the several states of America wake up to the truth of their history: they are citizens of independent and sovereign states; the US S CT is NOT the final arbiter in matters of freedom; the federal government is not the source of our freedom; the states have the duty to resist the encroachments of federal usurpation; and freedom can be restored when the Confederate Republic is restored. To that end, we must not fear Sotamayor; rather, we should insist that she fear the states–and obey the Constitution!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.

© 2009 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

E-mail This Page

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts
E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale

Chuck Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of Crossroads Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida. In 1985 the church was recognized by President Ronald Reagan for its unusual growth and influence. 

Dr. Baldwin is the host of a lively, hard-hitting syndicated radio talk show on the Genesis Communications Network called, “Chuck Baldwin Live” This is a daily, one hour long call-in show in which Dr. Baldwin addresses current event topics from a conservative Christian point of view. Pastor Baldwin writes weekly articles on the internet and newspapers.  

To learn more about his radio talk show please visit his web site at: When responding, please include your name, city and state.


GOP Senators Ignore Sotomayor’s Criminal Activities

Posted in New World Order, Shadow Government, Stupid Government Tricks, Tyranny with tags , , , , on July 21, 2009 by truthwillrise

Devvy Kidd
July 21, 2009

As the confirmation hearings of Supreme Court Justice nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, proceeded last week, one man could not understand why not one of the seven Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee would question Sotomayor about her criminal activities. It’s understandable no Democrat would ask Sotomayor to explain herself since each and every Democrat in the U.S. Senate is so ethically bankrupt, they would seat Satan on the high court if it would further their agenda. Their only concern for a justice on the highest court in the land is gender and ethnicity; these pusillanimous hucksters go for future votes. The law and truth be damned.


But, the silence by Sessions, Graham, Coburn and the others is beyond perplexing. Bill O’Reilly remarked last week at the end of the hearings that the Republicans will vote to confirm Sotomayor possibly to “garner favor” with Latino voters for the next election. Sounds like a good excuse as any for their cowardice in not taking Sotomayor to the box on Dr. Cordero’s evidence.

I first became aware of Dr. Richard Cordero’s documentation a week ago. As with any other investigation, one has to spend a great deal of time studying all the evidence and Dr. Cordero has it. It took about nine hours of reading to get through his evidence, i.e.,  this 236 pages laying out the fraud. This humble man is like so many other Americans who believe in the rule of law, only to find out that some are above the law due to their political clout. In my email exchanges with Dr. Cordero, and when he was a guest on my radio show last week, I could detect no political bias, only a desire to stop the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor.

Read entire article

White House Struggles to Defend Sotomayor’s Race Statement

Posted in Legal, New World Order, News, Stupid Government Tricks, The Constitution with tags , , , , , on May 28, 2009 by truthwillrise
Thursday, May 28, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer
White House ( – Critics of President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court should be careful how they conduct the debate, warned White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Wednesday, as he struggled to explain a 2001 comment by Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
Obama nominated Sotomayor on Tuesday to fill the vacancy of retiring Associate Justice David Souter.
Among the controversies surrounding Sotomayor is a comment she made during a speech at the University of California-Berkeley School of Law in October 2001.
In that speech, she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Fielding questions for about 10 minutes on Sotomayor’s comment, Gibbs was at times dismissive.
“I think we can all move past YouTube snippets and half-sentences and actually look at her honest-to-God record,” he said at one point during the questioning.
Throughout the press conference, Gibbs continued to tell reporters to look at her record while being pressed to explain the comment. Gibbs finally said, “She has lived a different life than some people have based on her upbringing.”
Gibbs was first asked to respond to a blog-posting by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who wrote, “Imagine a judicial nominee said, ‘My experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
Gibbs responded, “I think anyone involved in this debate should probably be exceedingly careful with the way they decide to describe different aspects of this.
“We’re satisfied that when the people of America and the people of the Senate get a chance to look at more than just the blog of a former lawmaker, they will come to the same conclusion as the president,” Gibbs said.
“When people get a chance to look at her record, partisan politics will take a backseat to common sense and open-minded decisions based on a full examination of the record,” he said.
The presidential spokesman continued that the statement must be viewed in context, and said reporters have not read the entire speech.
“Americans should read all of what she talked about, read a couple of sentences past that,” Gibbs said.
Several reporters immediately said they had done so. Gibbs expressed skepticism toward at least one reporter.
In that section of the speech, Sotomayor was speaking specifically about ethnicity. She also was speaking at a symposium entitled, “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging,” she said, leading up to the more famous statement.
“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases,” said Sotomayor. “I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle.
“I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise,” she added.
At that point, Sotomayor said: “Second, 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.”
She followed that up saying, “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.
“Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group,” Sotomayor said.
“Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown,” she added.