Justice Sotomayor and Murderer Advocacy

I have a critique of Justice Sotomayor’s media-ignored but highly revealing Dec. 3 dissent seeking mercy for twice-convicted triple-murderer Benny Lee Hodge. The dissent deserves attention for what it says, what it implies and what it disregards. It is a graphic illustration of the grave danger of confirming justices whose values are contrary to those of a vast majority of the public – and have no scruples about rewriting the Constitution to contain commands nowhere within the actual written document.
 
Sotomayor’s dissent is a call for a highly organized campaign to inform the public about how justices have abused what Justice White famously termed their “raw judicial power” and to vigorously oppose placing more justices such as Sotomayor on the Supreme Court (and lower courts).
 
Essentially, Sotomayor takes the position that "especially heinous" murders cannot and need not be "explained" but can and should be "mitigated," in a quest to find “at least one juror” who can be persuaded to show “respect” and “mercy” for a brutal killer who celebrated slaughtering his victims without mercy. In lecturing the Kentucky Supreme Court that this has been “clear” for 30 years, Sotomayor implicitly admits that it had never been “clear” before that – for the very good reason that such judicial concoctions never before existed because they were and are not in the Constitution.
 
In arguing for “mitigation” and “mercy,” Sotomayor is less than forthright. She complains of "deficient" attention to Hodge's abused childhood by his lawyer in the appealed death sentence for a single murder before the court. However, she omits that Hodge is actually facing two death sentences from two trials, for three premeditated murders and one attempted murder on two separate occasions 27 years ago, not one death sentence for one murder. And she omits that in the trial resulting in the other death sentence, Hodge’s lawyers presented “substantial” so-called mitigation evidence, including referring to his abused childhood.

The New York Times’ Pro-Murderer Mentality

I have a new article at American Thinker: “Pro-Murderer Mindset of The New York Times.” It critiques a recently posted 7900-word article highly sympathetic to a double-murderer and advocating his early release from prison while still a young man. I discuss the huge gulf in values between murderer advocates and victims of barbaric crimes.

Having long pretended merely to oppose capital punishment, the real goal of those who champion the cause of murderers is to minimize any punishment for murder, period. The Times punctuates one more time what has always been realized by capital punishment supporters: the "life without parole" alternative is a sham. Murderer advocates seek to save not only the lives of their idols, but also their freedom.

The media and courts, especially the U.S. Supreme Court, have promoted and furthered the minimization of punishment for murder, while unspeakably compounding the torture suffered by victims.

The Times asserts that there is a “national debate over just what is accomplished by sentencing juveniles to long prison sentences." I dispute that and point out:

The public strongly supports severe sentences for severe crimes. The only debate is in the minds of pro-murderer elitists who have a disproportionately dominant influence in the media and with five justices of the Supreme Court, who have defied the public by imposing their own values on everyone else… On June 25, the Court abolished mandatory life sentences for convicted premeditated murderers almost 18 years old, seven years after abolishing the death penalty for them and two years after abolishing life sentences for nearly 18-year-old non-homicide predators.

I conclude that “all too often, the elite media and elite judges eagerly identify with brutal murderers at the expense of their long-dead victims and the tormented souls left behind.” Nevertheless, an overwhelming public majority identifies and sympathizes with victims rather than their tormentors.

Obviously: “The 2012 election will determine whether anti-victim values will be entrenched on the Supreme Court for another generation.”

New Fox News Op-ed: Serious Questions About Sotomayor and Race: With today's Supreme Court ruling there are even more questions about Sonia Sotomayor

My new piece at Fox News starts this way:

With the Supreme Court narrowly striking down Judge Sonia Sotomayor's decision in the New Haven fire fighter's case, it emphasizes the importance of a single vote and there are renewed questions about her judgment on race. It brings back into focus not only her comments on the superiority of certain racial groups and women, but when combined with her recent comments on the Belizean Grove club indicate a very selective and self serving decisions on deciding when discrimination is occurring.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor can't take back her seven speeches over a decade where she talked about women's (or Latina women's) judgment being superior to men' (or white men's). But, about a week ago, almost a month after her Supreme Court nomination, Judge Sotomayor resigned as a member of the extremely exclusive all-woman club, the Belizean Grove. If she were a Republican man, such a withdrawal would have come too late. Worse, her letter announcing her withdrawal from the organization raises questions about her judgment.

In June 1990, all but one of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee and one then Republican, Arlen Specter, warned future judicial nominees that membership in an organization that determines membership based on gender could be sufficient to deny confirmation. Further, it would be held against the nominee unless they "actively engaged" in efforts to get underrepresented groups into the organization. . . .

Senator Chuck Schumer: President Gets No More Appointments to Supreme Court

Politico has the story on this:

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.” . . . .

Specter causing trouble for future nominees

Politico notes the problems that Specter is aiming to cause:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation.

Specter, who championed their confirmation, said Tuesday he will personally re-examine the testimony to see if their actions in court match what they told the Senate.

"There are things he has said, and I want to see how well he has complied with it," Specter said, singling out Roberts.

The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions. . . . .

"Women, Minorities Top Bush's Supreme Court Short List"

Jan Crawford Greenburg has all the details in a very long article:

Owen, Rogers Brown Back on Short List

Leading Senate Democrats are already warning against solidly conservative nominees, and that could make confirmation difficult in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Still, some of Bush's political advisers believe he would be better off tapping a strong conservative who would rally the base -- especially a nominee with a compelling life story who would be difficult for moderate Senate Democrats to oppose.

In that camp are federal appeals court Judges Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. Both were filibustered by Senate Democrats after Bush nominated them as appellate judges and were eventually confirmed after Senate leaders struck a compromise on judicial nominations.

Either could have been a likely replacement for O'Connor in 2005, but leading Senate Republicans told the White House not to nominate them because they were seen as too controversial at the time. Now that both are on the federal bench, the White House has put them back on a working short list.

Of the two, Owen is the best known in the White House and is generally considered less controversial than the more outspoken Brown.

Owen, like Brown, also has gotten high marks from her colleagues on the federal appeals court. But Owen's friendship with Karl Rove could hurt her, especially in a White House vulnerable to charges of cronyism.

The White House also is looking at Chicago-based federal appeals court Judge Diane Sykes, who is considered conservative but less controversial, sources close to the process said. But Sykes is not as well known inside the administration, which is a strike against her, White House sources said.

Bush does not want to repeat the mistake of his father, who nominated the unknown David Souter, believing he was conservative only to see Souter quickly become one of the Court's most reliable liberal votes. . . . .