By Jean Bush

In TIME magazine’s June 8 issue, the cover showed Sonia Sotomayor, titled with the
words LATINA JUSTICE. These are hypnotic trigger words, designed to instill in
anyone who reads it the subconscious idea that this justice is more powerful,
demanding and certain than the impartial but fair justice our forefathers founded
for us.

Her picture on the cover, as explained inside, “On the cover, illustration for
TIME by Tim O’Brien,” is not even a photograph of her, just a drawing that creates
the illusion of female perfection, softening the heavy, hard and aging look she is
so well recognized for.

Richard Lacayo, in writing this article, fell all over himself trying to make
Sotomayor look almost like a “knight in shining armor” who has just arrived to
save this country from disaster. In his subtitle to the article, he writes: “What
her extraordinary life says about the kind of Justice she would be.” And he goes
on to write one of the most insipid and insidious propaganda pieces in TIME’s most
recent history.

What is so great about her life? Born in 1954 in a “poor Bronx neighborhood,” to
immigrant parents from Puerto Rico. The word immigrant is my addition, not the
author’s. Did they enter the country legally during WWII? Why has no one asked
this? Is it important? I don’t know.

Her “extraordinary journey” in life is no different then the thousands of others

who raised themselves and succeeded in their chosen professions. Her father died
when she was 9 and her mother raised her and her brother on a nurse’s salary. She
managed to go to Princeton and law school at Yale. Yet this article makes no
mention of how she afforded to go to these two prestigious schools. I find this
rather strange. She finally became a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
in New York.

This pathetic article makes her seem like some sort of goddess who has defied all
the odds, including the self-perceived barriers of men and the system, to get
where she is. I am sure nothing could be further from the truth. She worked and
studied hard and with the help of family, friends and perhaps a few mentors, rose
in her field of endeavor.

However, there are many out there that don’t like her. John, my contact in McLean,
VA has this to say: “Well, you asked me what I think about Sonia Sotomayor being a
nominee for the “supreme court” so here it goes. I don’t care for her racist
remarks about “white men.” Sounds like she is your typical reverse racist and
militant La Raza member. Remember Jean, I’m part Italian which means I’m also part
“latin” what ever that means and I really don’t care for hardcore La Raza people.
America is supposed to be the great melting pot of humanity and I feel her views
belong in the trash heap and that she is a divider, not a joiner. She reminds me
of a woman version of Clarence Thomas.”

Many consider her a racist for being a member of the radical group La Raza, or The
Race. Their stated goal is to “reclaim” the entire southwestern United States,
including Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts
of Washington State. This territory makes up and area known as Aztlan, a
“legendary homeland of the Aztecas.” In other words, pure fiction.

Now let us examine the very controversial remark that John mentioned:

“First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a

universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman
with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a
better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

This creature is a Feminist to the core. And in her unbelievable arrogance, is

most certainly referring to herself. It would seem the good and wise Prof. Minnow
has never heard of a dictionary.

Wise: having wisdom; Sage; 2. having or showing good sense or good judgment.
(Merriam-Webster Dictionary)

Why not a Hispanic man? Or a black man? Or an Asian man? Why white only? And why
not another woman? Her experience is beside the point. Any judge will bring to the
bench their very own experiences and knowledge, whatever their race. And she is a
racist.

Let’s look at some professional opinions of her.

The following was taken from michellemalkin.com website: Judge Sotomayor’s

personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002
speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their
“experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she
believes should “affect our decisions.”

Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and

disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her
have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and
who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.
And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial
Confirmation Network:
Memorandum
TO: JCN Members and Interested PartiesFROM: Wendy Long, Counsel to JCNDATE: May
26, 2009RE: Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor
• President Obama has threatened to nominate liberal judicial activists who will
indulge their left-wing policy preferences instead of neutrally applying the law.
In selecting Judge Sonia Sotomayor as hisSupreme Court nominee, President Obama
has carried out his threat.
• Judge Sotomayor will allow her feelings and personal politics to stand in the
way of basic fairness. In a recent case, Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor sided with
a city that used racially discriminatory practices to deny promotions to
firefighters. The per curiam opinion Sotomayor joined went so far out of its way
to bury the firefighters’ important claims of unfair treatment that her colleague,
Judge Jose Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, chastised her.
o According to Judge Cabranes, Sotomayor’s opinion “contains no reference
whatsoever to the constitutional claims at he core of this case” and its
“perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this
appeal.” Even the liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen expressed
disappointment with the case, stating, “Ricci is not just a legal case but a man
who has beendeprived of the pursuit of happiness on account of race.”
o Sotomayor’s terrible decision in Ricci is under review by the Supreme Court and
an opinion is expected by the end of June.
• Sotomayor readily admits that she applies her feelings and personal politics
when deciding cases. In a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it
is appropriate for a judge to considertheir “experiences as women and people of
color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.” She went on to say in
that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of
herexperience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white
male who hasn’t lived that life.” She reiterated her commitment to that lawless
judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of
Appeals is where policy is made.”
• The poor quality of Sotomayor’s decisions is reflected in her terrible record of
reversals by the Supreme Court.
• Sotomayor is a favorite of far left special interest groups. In addition to her
record as a hard left judicial activist, Sotomayor has been recommended for the
Supreme Court by Nan Aron of the very liberal Alliance for Justice, who stated in
a 2004 memo to the Senate Judiciary Committee that Sotomayor had “been through an
initial vetting and fit into the criteria that we believe should be thestandard
for any Supreme Court justice.”
• The White House is sure to argue that Sotomayor is a “bipartisan pick” because
Bush 41 appointed her to the district court: President George H.W. Bush nominated
Sotomayor in 1991 only because the New York senators had forced on the White House
a deal that enabled Senator Moynihan to name one of every four district court
nominees in New York. In 1998, 29 Republican senators voted against President
Clinton’s nomination of Sotomayor to the Second Circuit.

Sotomayor also says that:

In a foreword to the 2007 book, "The International Judge," Judge Sonia Sotomayor
says it is worthwhile to "learn from foreign law and the international community
when interpreting our Constitution ..." She also says it is important to "learn
from international courts and from their male and female judges about the process
of judging and the factors outside of the law that influence our decisions."
In other words, she does not consider our US Constitution the supreme law of our
land, and will mix international laws and decisions of other countries until we
have completely lost our sovereignty. And that is the Illuminati’s agenda for us.
In conclusion, I believe that Sonia Sotomayor may be one of the most dangerous
judges ever to sit on the Supreme Court. She will be allowed to eat away at our
laws and Constitution, thereby eroding what little protection from our corrupt
government we now are left with. Will she be voted in next week? Probably. Do the
people want her? Not by a long shot. Does she have the NWO’s vote? Most
definitely.