Empathy. Who doesn’t want some?
I mean, I suppose that some part of me, as a conservative, would love for some judge to come along and say, “There, there, I’ll make sure those mean Democrats don’t do stuff you don’t want. I’ll overturn the election.”
Only that isn’t the direction the “empathy” crap flows. It only seems to flow from the far left. It is a river of molten manure that springs and flows from the radical left and routinely runs its banks over conservatives and ordinary Americans.
In the case of Sonia Sotomayor, that crap river flowed right over New Haven, Connecticut firefighters who made the mistake of playing by the rules against a system increasingly geared toward running all over them as white males. But it is a river that would have ran over every single American to the tune of billions of dollars had the Supreme Court not reversed her decision.
Here’s that story:
Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:56 PM
By: Phil Brennan
A decision rendered by Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, fortunately reversed by the Supreme Court on April 1, 2009, could have been extravagantly costly to American consumers, according to the Steve Milloy’s authoritative Junkscience.Com.
Charging that her nomination represents a potential threat to U.S. Consumers and to the economy in terms of energy and the environment, Milloy reported on her 2007 Second Circuit decision in Riverkeeper, Inc. V. EPA 475 F. 3d 83′
Milloy wrote that in her ruling Judge Sotomayor sided with “extreme green groups” who had sued the Environmental Protection Agency because the agency permitted cost-benefit analysis to be used in the determination of environmental protection technology for power plant cooling water intake structures.
Cost benefit analysis involves the balancing of the total expected costs of a proposal or project against its total expected benefits in order to determine its economic feasibility. Do the benefits outweigh or justify the cost?
According to Milloy, had the EPA been required to abide by Judge Sotomayor’s decision, U.S. Consumers would have been forced to pay billions of dollars more in energy costs every year as power plants producing more than one-half of the nation’s electricity would have had to undertake expensive retrofits.”
Noting that President Obama said he wanted somebody “who has the intellectual firepower but also a little bit of a common touch and a practical sense of how the world works,” Milloy said that in the Riverkeeper case Sotomayor didn’t display too much of a “common touch” and “practical sense” when it came to the cost-benefit analysis.
Senators, Milloy advised, should probe whether Judge Sotomayor “lacks the common-sense realization that the benefits of environmental regulation ought to outweigh its costs — a worldview with ominous implications given the nation’s present rush toward cap-and-tax global warming regulation and other green mindlessness.”
Indeed, writing for the majority decision that overturned Sotomayor’s ruling, Justice Antonin Scalia:
noted that forcing compliance under Sotomayor’s reasoning would make companies spend nine times the amount necessary to accomplish “nearly the same benefit to the environment that cheaper technologies would achieve.”
Spend nine times more for very nearly the same benefit. And liberals wonder why conservatives call them “insane.”
Now, it just so happens that “common touch” and “practical sense” didn’t matter very much when we voted for our president, either. So why should it matter to us when we put yet another black-robed master over us for the rest of her life?
Let’s hear what Obama said he wanted:
“Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”
The guy we voted for as our president said he planned to bankrupt fully half of our source of electricity.
“Empathy” means millions of Americans freezing to death in the dark.
Get ready for it. Because Obama’s and Sotomayor’s crap river is going to flood right down your family’s throat.
Looking over Sotomayor’s record indicates that she doesn’t have a whole lot of legal sense, either. She has had her cases overruled six out of seven of the times that they have come before the Supreme Court. That is how radical, and how incompetent as a judge, she truly is.
• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) —decision pending as of 5/26/2009 [update as of 6/29/09: reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)].
• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
Sonia Sotomayor is a judge who has been humiliated with an 8-0 smackdown of her judicial reasoning. She has been overruled – meaning her legal judgment was contradicted as wrong – six out of seven times. And if that isn’t bad enough, the ONLY time her decision was actually upheld (Knight vs. Commissioner), her reasoning for the decision was faulted by every single judge on the panel.
In the recent Hew Haven Firefighter case (a.k.a. Ricci v. DeStefano), Sotomayor was not only overruled on the close 5-4 as was reported; her underlying legal reasoning that compliance with Title VII justified “race-based preferences” as a matter of summary judgment was tossed aside by all nine justices.
So what do you do when you have a judge who has displayed such a shocking lack of common sense that she would have imposed billions of dollars on the American taxpayer to accomplish virtually nothing had her decision not been overruled by the Supreme Court? What do you do when you have a judge who has been overruled six out of seven times by the Supreme Court?
You put such a judge on the supreme court, where she cannot possibly be overruled, that’s what.
Sonia Sotomayor has said, “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.” And she said it not once, as was earlier maintained by liberals, but seven times. There’s no defense of such a remark made even once, let alone seven separate times. All one has to do to see how racist it is is to replace the words “Latina woman” with “white male” and the words “white male” with “Latina woman.”
And where do you put a judge who is clearly influenced by racial – and frankly racist – thinking? On the Supreme Court, where her racial bias can become a fixed part of the institution for a generation to come.