Barry In Charge: "When I Endorse A Racist, It's OK"

“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.” ~Sonia Sotomayor

As you can see, when Barry says that he is looking for a Supreme Court nominee who isn't just "ivory tower", but also has "common touch", Sonia Sotomayor is exactly who he has in mind.

Can you imagine if a white man had made that kind of a comment [above]? There would be hissy fits and psychological meltdowns ALL over America by the self-appointed guardians of our civil rights. First of all, though, just what kind of meaning is there to that statement? One assumes that she is speaking of a hypothetical court case involving some Hispanic. So, in other words, if a Hispanic is caught red-handed of murdering someone, Ms Sotomayor would have more wisdom regarding their innocence or guilt than a white justice? How about a black jurist--would they be able to be wise?

Of course, I'm not the only one who questions Ms Sotomayor's "common sense". You can read a leftist magazine bring up the same question here.

If you remember Barry's setup of this pick,you can tell that this Harvard lawyer was already anticipating the criticisms of Sotomayor when he made them. Instead of answering the obvious question of gender and race bias in Ms Sotomayor ("What I want is not just ivory tower learning. I want somebody who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,"), Barry setup the issue differently: has the person had real-life circumstances in their life that gave them "common touch"?

In a nation of majority whites, why is it not seen as common for a white jurist to be picked? If Sotomayor is better at deciding cases with Latinos involved, wouldn't she be simultaneously less than best to decide on cases involving white people?

With that switch of the debate, he will have the press hard on the question of Sotomayor's ability to cry about her court cases, versus what the role of Supreme Court Justices hold by design of the Constitution. That is, whether the role of the jurist is to make law or interpret the law for constitutionality, according to the original intent of the Constitution itself.

How many of you know whether or not our US Constitution allows for judges to make policy or not? Check out the glib way that the judicial elite treat that very basic dictate in our sacred Constitution: