Having just returned from a visit to the seat of our government, this is particularly disturbing. 

Put aside the fact that Judge Sotomayor did in fact achieve her resume by way of the American Dream as President Obama (or more accurately his press corps) stated. Through the excellent upbringing of her father who passed before his time, and the hard work and sacrifice of her single mother to the countless hours that she and her M.D. brother spent studying in order to obtain grades that would earn them scholarships to the colleges of their choice. She particularly earned scholarships to Princeton AND Yale. As a graduate of those Ivy League schools she served a distinguished legal career which led her to appointments by the First President Bush as well as President Clinton. Judge Sotomayor did not thank the government for its food stamps nor did she praise New York City for its welfare system that allowed her to succeed. She didn't cite affirmative action as her avenue to prosperity. Why not? Because none of things ever helped her along the way. It was grit, determination and hard work that done by her and others around her lifted her up. 

Forget that while sentencing a drug dealer she said, "We all understand that you were in part a victim of the economic necessities of our society, unfortunately there are laws that I must impose." Judge Sotomayor felt the need to apologize to a convicted drug dealer not simply for our laws, but for a society that has forced this person to make the choice to sell drugs. A choice that was not forced on Judge Sotomayor who grew up in a similar situation, or on her brother who became a doctor instead of a drug dealer. Also forget that in another case involving a convicted drug trafficker she said, "It is no comfort to you for me to say that I am deeply, personally sorry about the sentence I must impose, because the law requires me to do so. The only statement I can make is that this is one more example of an abomination being committed before our sight. You do not deserve this, sir." Judge Sotomayor does give cite a reason for this, that apparently the police detective lied in order to obtain a search warrant. While I don't condone the police department engaging in obvious deceit in order to obtain convictions, warrants, searches or confessions, I also don't believe that a judge, given evidence obtained legally or illegally ought to apologize to anyone who is convicted. If indeed the warrant was illegally obtained, could she not have thrown out that evidence? The fact is she can't stand our justice system as it was designed.

Also forget that Judge Sotomayor once said "[W]e who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience or heritage but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate." or that she also once 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.” Ignore that she also ruled against the firefighters in New Haven Connecticut in a case in which the city fire department held a testing session to allow the 15 open leadership spots to be fairly obtained by the most qualified candidates. Tests were designed so as to give the fairest possible chance regardless of race and yet the top 15 candidates were all white and Hispanic.  One of the top 15 candidates, a white man was dyslexic and spent over a year studying for his chance to move up. The city cited the lack of a qualified black candidate as a reason to throw out the all of the tests and promote no one. 19 firefighters ended up signing on to sue the city. At the appellate division, Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters and according to Judge Cabranes, a colleague, her opinion "contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case” and its “perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.”

Throw all of that and more out and look at just one issue, the Constitution. Judge Sotomayor is on tape in 2005 speaking to potential law clerks where she states that "the court of appeals is where policy is made." and adds “And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...” and has also made it clear that “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Judge Sotomayor either does not understand or does not respect the Constitution or America's intended legal system either of which disqualifies her from the bench and I know I will catch flack from the left on this but I can back this up.

                The Constitution is clear in creating three separate but equal branches of government called the Judicial, the Legislative and the Executive branches. Each branch has its own purpose. The Executive branch, at the head of which is the President is tasked with setting policy, commanding the military and to enter into treaties. Basically, the President is supposed to be the face of the government. The Legislative branch is tasked "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." along with other legislative powers. Finally, the Judicial branch is charged with ensuring that laws are followed and if not that the offenders are punished according to the Constitution. 

                No where in the Constitution does it state that any division of the Judicial branch is tasked with making policy or setting laws. In fact, the idea of "blind justice" was so important that two sources can still be pointed to at this time.

                                1.) Lady Justice, the symbol of our judicial system is wearing a blindfold to show that justice is blind to all distinguishing characteristics. She does not care if you are rich, poor, white, black or Hispanic. The only thing that matters is the law which does not change based on the circumstances.

                                2.) The following is the federal judges oath: "I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as (name of position) under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

My question is which is it Judge Sotomayor? Be honest with us, do you not agree with the justice system as intended or do you not understand that oath and the protections the Constitution gives?

I'm sitting here watching Dick Cheney speak about national security and defending the Bush Administration policies.  I also listened to Obama speak this morning.  Listening to both men talk I'm left with a few tough thoughts.  

Obama is a gifted speaker, teleprompter or not, if you listened just to his words, I could understand how you'd be in awe.  He stands upright, looks out to the crowd and seems to catch an eye with each turn of the head.  He's charismatic and he uses words that speak to America's heart and soul.  However, Obama is missing just one thing, facts.  His words are filled with lofty moral rhetoric and radical left wing ideology cloaked expertly in patriotic wording.  He uses the Constitution and the values of our founding fathers as proof that President Bush and his administration were evil and stupid little men and women.  He presumes to hold the moral stick of righteousness over the heads of the previous administration and to persecute them at every turn.  He never stands to take responsibility but instead reflects that he is cleaning up the shattered mess of America left by "the policies of the last 8 years".  President Obama, we get it, you don't like the policies of the past, please move on and take control of your own destiny.

Dick Cheney is not as gifted a speaker as Obama.  His eyes are often down on his paper and when he looks up it's less clear to whom he is speaking.  However, Cheney speaks with facts as his guide and in defense of the policies the Bush administration embarked upon.  Dick Cheney used substantive factual representations, such as the in depth answer given to the question of water boarding.  Former Vice President Cheney was able to name who was water boarded and when and for what reason.  Specifically he named Khalid Sheik Mohammad who was water boarded LEGALLY and who gave information that led to stopping other attacks on American soil.  He pointed out that the tactics used at the time were used specifically with national security in mind.  

From a Constitutional perspective, who was right and who was wrong?  The answer is both were right and both were wrong.  While I sympathize with Dick Cheney (I was a United States Marine stationed in Camp Lejeune, NC when the towers were hit and served in the Middle East) and the Bush Administration on their decision to authorize these techniques in order to protect America, I believe that our rights and liberties were taken away or eroded further by those steps.  Unfortunately, I can say that the Patriot Act and other Bush Administration policies, intended to protect Americans have led to our Constitutional freedoms being stolen.  On the other hand, how dare one President look back on another administration and blame it repeatedly for so many problems?  Isn't that better left to the pundits and the media? These techniques were legal under the former administration.  America can either like it, or not like it but it WAS LEGAL and we must accept it.  Going forward, we must strip our Executive officer of this power.  We ought to have a national referendum within each state to determine how America feels.  50 states, everyone gets a chance to vote on it and majority rules.  Not number of votes but states won/lost.  Up or down we go forward with the decision of the American people.  Either we torture or we don't.  We can work out the details based on PRINCIPLE and VALUES later.  You're not going to see this because the lofty rhetoric of Obama's "transparency" argument will never be fully upheld as intended by the Constitution.  Since Ronald Reagan and perhaps not since Jackson before him have we had a President that actually understood and upheld the Constitution.  Lincoln, for all his brilliance and study was not given the chance to truly uphold the Constitution.  The great war between the states that marred his Presidency demanded that he restrict rights and actually subvert the Constitution in order to preserve the union for which the document was intended to provide law.  

It's time to return to our Constitutional Values.  Hillary Clinton spoke of a reset button on a recent trip to Russia.  America DOES need a reset button.  We need to once again become the men and women our founders asked us to be.  In all of their writings the founding fathers pleaded with future generations to understand that government will necessarily try to expand at every turn and that it is OUR job as citizens to ensure they do not grow beyond the limits set forth in the founding documents lest our liberty be restricted.  In our last election 130 million of 303 million citizens voted.  If you consider that 24.5% of our population is under 18, that means that there are nearly 230 million Americans of voting age.  That means 100 million citizens of voting age are not upholding their part of the Constitutional deal.  Every American has a voice, but we must use it.