Tag: Sonia Sotomayor

Categories
judiciary

I Don’t Rule the World

Last week I had some fun with Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s comment to the effect that she was able to make better judicial decisions than a white male because of her experiences as a Latina.

I don’t take offense “as a white male.” I object as a rational human being.

But while Judge Sotomayor continues to catch flak, I must say, bashing white males has become rather commonplace.

Being rational, not so much.

For instance, Kathleen Parker, a usually reasonable columnist, had this to say in defending Sotomayor’s statement:

“Could a white man get away with saying something comparable about a Latina? Of course not. After Latinas have run the world for 2,000 years, they won’t be able to say it ever again.”

So the reason it is open season on white males is because we run the world?

You see, I’m a white male and I’ve never ruled the world. Not even for one minute.

I don’t even want to rule the world. I don’t even want to dictatorially rule my own house — that’s done by a a nice oligarchy of my wife and me, with a barking veto from the dog.

I’d like my freedom, though, and to have a democratic say in my government.

Oh, and to be judged on my demonstrated character . . . not blamed for what some other guy with similar skin hues did two thousand years ago.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
First Amendment rights Ninth Amendment rights Tenth Amendment federalism U.S. Constitution

Sotto Voce Sotomayor

Last week, former Congressman and presidential candidate Bob Barr sent out a simple admonishment to his Twitter list: “Let’s have a real debate on Judge Sotomayor, not hysterics. . . .”

Unlikely. Appellate Judge Sonia Sotomayor is precisely the kind of jurist to divide us. She’s said things that seem racist and sexist and absurd. But, then, if I criticize her for those things, her supporters will call what I say racist or sexist or absurd.

And none of us want racism, or sexism, much less absurdity.

Let’s try sympathy, instead. It’s not easy to promote a constitutional philosophy consistent and widely acceptable at a time when much of what the federal government does belies — abridges — repudiates! — the Constitution itself.

Take the First Amendment. It begins, “Congress shall make no law . . .” No ambiguity. And yet Congress makes all sorts of law regarding speech, including regulating speech about politics, negating the whole point of the First Amendment.

What part of “no law” don’t today’s jurists understand? In many cases it’s the part where the states have power to fashion their own solutions to problems. It’s called the Tenth Amendment. And it’ usually ignored by all mainstream legal experts, along with the Ninth.

I’d like to have a quiet debate on this. Sotto voce, you might say. The opposite of hysterically loud.

That would be more important, even, than a debate about Judge Sotomayor.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.