Key Obama question answered by Sotomayor
Print Friendly and PDF
The nomination of professional Hispanic Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court goes a long way to answering the most pressing question about the Obama Presidency:

Did America elect a racist left-winger or a left-wing racist?

Steve Sailer in his seminal book on Obama America's Half-Blood Prince was inclined to the latter conclusion. The choice of Sotomayor supports him.

In discussing Professor Kevin MacDonald’s description of the Jewish effort to get Solicitor General Elena Kagan the nomination, I suggested that Jeffrey Rosen’s New Republic pre-emptive attack The Case Against Sotomayor May 04 2009 could be seen as supporting evidence of such a campaign.

While this is probably true, not being Hispanic or Black Rosen could not just say Kagan should be appointed because she is of his group. He had to deploy arguments. And in the context of his preference for leftist judicial legislators on the bench he developed perfectly sound ones.

What was needed, Rosen suggested, was

a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court….

Adding in his subsequent defense of himself

For the next Supreme Court seat, the president needs to be sure that the nominee's temperament and abilities are not merely impressive but absolutely stellar. She—and the next justice should indeed be a she—must be ready to challenge the conservatives and persuade her fellow liberals from the very beginning.

More Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen The New Republic May 08 2009

Since no one seriously pretends Sotomayor is anything special as a judicial mind, Rosen turned to the distasteful task of documenting the doubts about her temperament. This he did by quoting

Sotomayor’s entry in the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary, which includes the rating of judges based on the collective opinions of the lawyers who work with them. Usually lawyers provide fairly positive comments. That's what makes the discussion of Soto mayor’s temperament so striking. Here it is: Sotomayor can be tough on lawyers, according to those interviewed. "She is a terror on the bench." "She is very outspoken." "She can be difficult." "She is temperamental and excitable. She seems angry." "She is overly aggressive—not very judicial. She does not have a very good temperament." "She abuses lawyers." "She really lacks judicial temperament. She behaves in an out of control manner. She makes inappropriate outbursts." "She is nasty to lawyers. She doesn't understand their role in the system—as adversaries who have to argue one side or the other. She will attack lawyers for making an argument she does not like."

(Hat tip TPMMuckraker -

What this means of course is she is likely to offend the eight other monsters of conceit who lurk on the Supreme Court - and so impede the advance of Leftism.

Rosen’s judgment is sound. Obama may well, alas, get other chances to nominate one of these Priest-Kings. But horrible things happen to Presidencies, very quickly, and his power is unlikely ever to be greater. The next time more Americans will understand Obama —and Congress is fickle. This was his best chance to effect real ideological change. Wisest to nominate a blatant radical leftist now; resort to racial mau-mauing later.

Instead, he succumbed to the temptations of race-baiting and the politics of the visible. Dissing the White man came first.

From a narrow point of view, Sotomayor is a relief. With Hispanics themselves vulnerable to Hate Crime charges, and she having a less clear record on the subject than Kagan and her friends, maybe we will be free to operate a while longer.

(The comment threads on the two Rosen articles are to be recommended. Even though the pieces are eminently reasonable and polite, he received the most amazing vilification. One would think he was Charles Murray or Peter Brimelow!. And from fellow leftists! No one can read them and not be struck how much emotion and how little reason supplies modern Liberal/Leftism.)

Print Friendly and PDF