A Kangaroo Justice For A Supreme Court

I would have thought after all that was forced into my brain during my formative years that we gotten beyond such mundane concerns as what color skin someone had. But, with the recent election of President Barack Obama and his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor as the next Supreme Court Justice have once again proven how much of that was crap that was shoved into your head. But the people who have a problem with race are not those who you might immediately think do.
I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. Knowing nothing else, what does the prior sentence lead a reader to believe? Unless someone is totally addled, it would lead someone to believe that I held the belief that white men were superior to latina women. Well, our future Supreme Court Justice uttered those exact words, with of course reversing white man and latina woman. Just what does this mean? It means that unless she was just talking out of her rear, and actually in part meant what she said, she harbors the belief that there is an inherent superiority between the races. But of course, if you point this out you are labeled dangerous and racist by our glorious media. Why would they do this?
In an attempt to answer these valid questions, one must attack the problem logically. One must attempt to throw out one's bias, so to further distance myself from the subject, I will refer to her from now on as FJSS (Future Justice Sonia Sotomayor). Well, is FJSS a racist from one comment? Quite possibly, as previously stated, unless she was just blubbering and had no idea in really what she was saying. But I really don't think that is enough to call her a Kangaroo Justice.
I could spend hours researching her prior court cases to determine this, but I have an easier way to go about it. One just has to look at who her friends are. Right now, her most important friend is our dear President. Unless you want to call him stupid or incompetent, he is not going to nominate a Justice hostile to what his end goals are. So, FJSS is going to at minimum have the same judicial philosophy that our Dear Leader does. What possibly does this judicial philosophy entail? Judicial philosophy when it comes to a Supreme Court Justice concerns the Constitution of the United States of America, and how one interprets it. By his actions and words, our Dear Leader sees the Constitution as an impediment to what he wishes to accomplish, calling the document a "list of negative liberties". Don't assume that this is a bad thing. Negative liberties are simply put things that the government cannot do to the people, or what freedoms from government control and supervision that they enjoy. If the reader holds my statement concerning our Dear Leader's intelligence and competence to be true, then at minimum she must also hold this same belief. If she does not, then she must work against his extra-Constitutional programs, and thus he would not benefit from nominating her to the Court.
Does this belief make her a farcical justice? The definitive answer is yes. This idea of the Constitution, where the highest law of the land can be twisted to mean almost nothing, is a corruption of our system of government. Laws by definition are to be immutable. They are a standard that applies everywhere, and are written so all can know what they are. They can be changed, but the task is to be difficult, and this possibility is laid out in our Constitution. The correct way to change our laws is not to have one or nine people decide that they are changed by decree.
The addition of FJSS to our Court will make a mockery of what law truly is. The reason to oppose her is because of her judicial philosophy, which seeks to change what our Constitution says with each passing day. Such actions weaken the authority of our lawful government, and place it at the whim of unelected judges. FJSS is not the first justice to espouse such beliefs, nor unfortunately will be the last. Well, all in all this would make her a farcical justice. To summarize, she probably holds racist (and for that matter sexist) beliefs, and her view of the Constitution is that of an impediment, not a wise framework of government.
With such black marks on her, I bring you back to the question about the media (I did not forget). If they truly painted FJSS in this light, she would never see the light of day. But instead, she has a wonderful life story and anyone who opposes her is "controversial". Well, I am going to ask the question: What does life story have to do with the qualifications of a good justice? Absolutely nothing. When there is nothing good to support about one's position, this is when you see the old ad homeniem attack raise its ugly head. A logical fallacy, but an effective strike. They call those who oppose her names because they cannot answer the charge made by them, and bring up her story to distract from what is truly important.
And then we come full circle. The true racists are those who need to mention that someone's race. You won't find many racists opposing FJSS, but you will find many who defend her. If you notice, and I will lay this out for you, that I trashed FJSS's nomination and qualifications for the Supreme Court, and I never actually stated what her race was. If you lived in a cave without TV or newspapers, you might not actually know after just reading this. And that is the way it should be.