• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower


Sonia Sotomayor is “sad” that people think judges are political creatures

by Jazz Shaw   at HotAir:

“As with most everything in politics these days, it seemed to begin with Donald Trump criticizing a federal judge who unceremoniously put a halt to his original travel ban. Trump accused the judge of something which seemed fairly obvious to many of us in the peanut gallery, specifically of being a liberal activist who was putting a political agenda ahead of a rational interpretation of existing federal law. But was this really something new? We’ve been having this argument for nearly as long as I can remember and it certainly boils up every time there’s a contentious confirmation hearing for a new appointee in the judicial branch.

This clearly makes Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor question the nature of her reality and leaves her sad about the current state of American politics. (Associated Press)

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Thursday that she is saddened to see that many people have lost confidence in judges and believe they are political.

Sotomayor made the comments while taking questions from law students at the University of California, Berkeley. The school’s interim law school dean, Melissa Murray, served as Sotomayor’s clerk when the justice was a federal appellate court judge.

Sotomayor said judges try to be fair and impartial and don’t have rigid beliefs they apply to every case. She encouraged people to view judges as “human beings who care deeply about what we’re doing.”

“So don’t give up hope on us, OK,” she exhorted the audience.

It would be relatively easy to scoff at this complaint, particularly given the rather “heated” nature of her own confirmation process. The “Wise Latina,” as she came to be known, was one of the more liberal candidates put forward for the nation’s highest court in recent memory. (Just as a quick side note to the Democrats, you’ll recall that she still sailed through fairly easily. Something to consider when you are debating the upcoming confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.) But forgoing all of the obvious jokes, the Associate Justice is pointing out something which actually has more than a grain of truth in it.

Historically, it seems to me that we used to go through tremendous effort to pretend that our nation’s system of courts was somehow a sacred refuge which floated above the nasty turmoil of American politics. The old saying, embraced by artists, poets and optimists, was that “justice is blind.” And that’s really how it was supposed to be, at least in the minds of the Founding Fathers. But was it ever really?

It’s instructive to note that Sotomayor urged people to view the justices “as human beings” during her remarks. Judges are human beings, and that comes with a significant weight of baggage which can’t be ignored. The best of the bunch may still be able to set aside any deeply held partisan tenets and rule based on nothing but the strict letter of the law. Sadly, that is far too often not the case. These fallible human beings frequently have their own strongly held opinions just like the rest of us and they hold jobs where those beliefs can put a very heavy thumb on the scale of justice. But even when it’s not overt bias and a reckless disregard for precedent or the pesky details of written documents such as the Constitution and its amendments, the word “interpretation” always comes into play.

Whether you’re talking about abortion, health insurance, “hate crimes” or whatever else, there is much in the body of American law which was never specifically spelled out in the Constitution. That requires the exercise of individual judgment and the application of instincts when interpreting the law. The mixed bag of results which we frequently get in Supreme Court cases which come down to 5 to 4 decisions “along party lines” seems fairly predictable in light of all this. With that in mind, I suppose I join Justice Sotomayor in her sense of sadness because there really wasn’t supposed to be any consideration of political parties or ideology in the operation of the courts.

But as I said above, these are human beings we’re talking about and it’s a group of people who have spent their professional careers steeped in a study of subjects which are permanently interwoven with politics. How are we to expect them to arrive at their positions without some baggage trailing behind them? So don’t blame the American people for having the opinion that the courts are politicized. The fact is that they are.”


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

%d bloggers like this: