Snatching the Blindfold Off Lady Justice

I haven’t really been that interested in Supreme Court nominees since the Clarence Thomas debacle.  Well, not until this current administration.  My objections to the Sonia Sotomayer nomination were grounded in her decision in the Connecticut firefighter case and its subsequent overturning by the SCOTUS.  That ruling, as we all know, was essentially what people are calling “reverse racism” but is actually just plain old-fashioned racism (where on earth did we get the idea that you can’t be racist against white people?).

And if that’s not troubling enough, her decision reveals that she is not really interested in what people are calling “equal justice” (where on earth did we get the idea that “justice” is inherently “unequal” and needs a redundant qualifier?).  That was the heart of the problem with her for me.  She met BO’s bizarre “empathy” requirement for a justice of the Supreme Court: don’t be bothered with pesky things like the rule of law . . . when a minority, poor person, or other otherwise socially-, economically- or otherwise-challenged person is involved.  In such cases, toss the law out the window and/or “revise” it via wild and faulty interpretation to make it unrecognizable (no minorities passed the firefighter test ergo the entire test must be racist).  According to BO and Sotomayer, we are indeed a nation of laws–two sets.  One for the white people in “upper income brackets” (like those multi-million dollar firefighters in Connecticut) and one for everyone else.  This somehow translates into the epitome of “fairness” for this progressive nightmare of a president.

This brings me to my current problem with the Elena Kagan nomination.  Not only is she dismissive and derisive of the original Constitution (that quaint document from the stone ages), but she trumpets Thurgood Marshall’s

declaration that “the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was ‘defective.’ … The Constitution today … contains a great deal to be proud of. ‘(B)ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of ‘liberty,’ ‘justice,’ and ‘equality.'” Kagan said, “Our modern Constitution is (Marshall’s).”  (source)

Those pesky concepts of liberty, justice, and equality are sooooo outdated.  They need to be redefined or “refined” as the progressives would have it.  Justice isn’t just if it’s impartial: “Blind justice” is such a sophomoric concept, after all.  Yes, she’s another fairness is treating different people/groups differently type who sees the role of the Supreme Court as providing “special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged.”  David Limbaugh quotes her more extensively:

Kagan clerked for Justice Thurgood Marshall. Following Marshall’s death, Kagan wrote a glowing tribute to him in the Texas Law Review. Two passages from her article deserve particular scrutiny. She wrote, approvingly: “In Justice Marshall’s view, constitutional interpretation demanded, above all else, one thing from the courts: it demanded that the courts show a special solicitude for the despised or disadvantaged. It was the role of the courts, in interpreting the Constitution, to protect the people who went unprotected by every other organ of government — to safeguard the interests of people who had no other champion. The Court existed primarily to fulfill this mission.” Kagan said Marshall told her the other justices had rejected his proposal for a new Supreme Court rule: “When one corporate fat cat sues another corporate fat cat, this Court shall have no jurisdiction,” Kagan wrote. “However much some recent Justices have sniped at that vision, it remains a thing of glory.”

The new definition of “justice”:  two rules of law, separate application of the law, “special solicitation” to one group over another.

Limbaugh goes on to warn that we not gloss over or scoff at the “despised and disadvantaged” descriptor of those who should have a special set of laws just for them:

But don’t just gloss over the leftist buzzwords “despised or disadvantaged.” What groups do they mean by “the despised”? Perhaps they mean those who don’t agree with their radical idea of unconstitutional wealth redistribution “despise” recipients of such extreme wealth transfers. Or maybe they’re implying that conservatives “despise” minorities. Don’t scoff. I’ve heard such toxicity before from leftists.


As Jonah Goldberg notes, “Obama and the vast majority of Senate Democrats believe that Lady Justice should peek from under the blindfold every now and then.”  So much for being impartial.  Or fair.  Or just.

Kagan appears to share BO’s vision of a fundamentally transformed America in which those who are not “despised or disadvantaged” (in their eyes) should be and that it’s up to the courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, to ensure that they . . . um, we are.


(cross-posted at Potluck)


12 thoughts on “Snatching the Blindfold Off Lady Justice

  1. Kagan's dual view of “justice” is Obama's as well.

    The one consistent thread that runs through BOTH Sotomayor and Elena Kagan is their view that “equality before the law” and equality of opportunity NOT outcome” (the two pillars of INDIVIDUALISM) are “fatal flaws” of the Constitution!

    The nefarious concept of “disparate impact” has been used to wage war on American individualism, which along with private property rights is the basis for the U.S. Constitution. Disparate Impact (the idiotic notion that ANYTHING that has a negatively different impact on any “protected group” is illegal) is used to attack proven and long-relied upon standards AND it caused the mortgage meltdown and the subsequent global credit crisis.

    During the 1990s Henry Cisneros of HUD and Janet Reno's Justice Dept sued numerous banks over their using traditional lending criteria that had a “disparate impact” on “low income Americans.” Andrew Cuomo actually called for “Affirmative Action in lending,” which IS what caused the entire home mortgage meltdown in the U.S., which in turn triggered the global credit crisis.

    Here's a video of Andy Cuomo's call for “affirmative action in lending.” It's a great video.

  2. An excellent and very educational post, as usual Fuzzy! The idea of selective justice (peeking under the blindfold) of course, isn't new. I've experienced the short end of it on several really significant occasions (to me) since college (perhaps neolithic age). What is truly frightening about this situation is that it is the court of final appeal.

  3. What do janet neopolitian [ice cream], judge sonia, and this latest SC pick have in common?

    Incompetence, Supreme Incompetence and more incompetence. Has janet said anything yet that should have been broadcast to the rest of the Earth? No.
    sonia has a 65% failure rate where her decisions brought to the SC are overturned, and this latest person has no practical experience with anything. And this is the best the liberals can come up with? They have to be doing this to amuse themselves. Or more likely, kagan is simply a tool who will puppet what the commies want.

    And this is the nice stuff I have to say.

    Is there ANYONE in the obama administration that could be considered 'competent'. Maybe Gates. Otherwise, No.

    Well, other than the fact these hard leftie judges will be around a looooong time, they are 'merely' replacing hard lefties.

    Trestin, man it sure doesn't look like the red team is going to put in the old college effort on this does it. And would it matter? obama certainly isn't going to bring anything but hard leftie to the table. Maybe supreme incompetent isn't the worst thing. Yea, it's hard to believe I'm saying that too. But I'd still like to see them fight it hard, for history if for nothing else.

  4. @ JMK, exactly. The grand irony is that they know, very well, that these are the exact same policies that sparked the Civil Rights Movement–you can't treat people differently based on the color of their skin or on their income level. It's discrimination, it's racism, and it's against the law. The problem is that they've worked their way into our government and justice system and cultural conscience over the past 100 years, and people can't see this truth anymore, and even if they could, the progs hold the power now and will use it to ruin lives and discriminate against people.

    @ Velcro, thanks! 🙂 Yep, that's the point, isn't it? This is the final stop, the “supreme” court of the land, and if they uphold racist actions and laws, there is NO recourse.

    @ Opus, heh. Probably because you are. Their idea of “justice” is more like “tit for tat” or even vengeance against an entire group of people based on the color of their skin. Even if we had a means of knowing the direct descendants of slave holders (which we don't), I'd be opposed to punishing their ancestors–on its face, this is unfair. Your great great great grandfather did X, so now you have to pay! WTF? But to punish everyone . . . simply for being white . . . is an outrage.

    @ Trestin, after a slow start out of the gate, it looks like the conservative blogosphere, at least, is taking notice of what a horror show this woman really is. It may be too late, though, to make a difference. We HAVE to get control of Congress this November, doing so would stop any further crazy appointments if they were to arise.

    @ Kid, they are certainly incompetent in the usual sense of the word, but they are definitely progs with an agenda that they are pretty competent at enacting.

  5. @ Kid, I definitely take your point, but I think that it's a huge mistake to underestimate these people. They're in the WH and Congress and the Supreme Court, on our school boards, lower courts, state houses . . . this has been a decades long, century long, siege on our nation, our Constitution, our values. And sadly, they are winning, they have the cards. We can try to make up the lost ground, and I believe we will succeed and restore our nation, but we won't if we don't recognize and give due credit to our enemy.

  6. Fuzzy, I certainly don't underestimate their capability for destruction. We are still paying huge prices for jimmy carters errors imo.
    No siree.

    But, and you know this of course, 52% of the voters put them there, and in many cases continue to put them there. I think obama will be voted out. For whatever reason, I believe he picked up a whole lot of otherwise intelligent people who simply weren't paying enough attention. November will tell us a lot.

    So, in my mind, it is the larger and larger voting base that is the problem, the obamas are the manifestation of the disease as it were. We can vote out all the obamas that come along but if enough people continue to want to vote them in, we are nowhere.

    I don't know how to cure the disease outside of trying to open one mind at a time when I have the opportunity.
    As I mentioned somewhere, when we were younger, we looked at politicians as BS artists and wouldn't trust them as far as we can throw them. That's different now. Kids today place their trust in government and their anger at capitalism and patriotism – that which brings them anything in their life which is meaningful, necessary, or enjoyable.
    Must have been the school takeover and the communist indoctrination that did that.

    In addition, adults seem to look at government as mommy and daddy and run to government anytime they think Suzy got a bigger piece of pie. That activity just entangles government more and more intimately into our lives.

    So, it's a huge problem, and yes they are extremely dangerous, and it feels like we're on the brink. Good luck to us.

  7. Kid, yes, luckily for us a lot of those people who voted for BO have serious buyer's remorse. That's why we have to watch this year's elections like a hawk. They won't win . . . legally.

    And yes, it's sickening how the young (and the stupid) put so much faith in government. They see again and again that government officials lie through their teeth, and still they trust them. They see that government is a bureaucratic nightmare whose waste, fraud, inefficiency, and incompetence is unmatched, and still they trust them. I really don't get it.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s