Tuesday, July 14, 2009

Sonia Sotomayor is a liar

I don't want to take time to analyze it right now. I just want to get this off my chest: she is perjuring herself. She is lying.

Well, dang it, I have something which needs saying, so here goes a rant, and I don't plan to edit, b/c it's late at night. So, make some allowances, please.

Sotomayor has been disingenuous, i.e. has lied, in multiple areas. The one area I take special note of, b/c I studied it extensively, is the "Wise Latina" quote. Rather than defend the quote, Sotomayor is now lying about what she said (in 6 different speeches!) by hinting various innocuous misunderstandings, instances of her words being taken out of context, and, finally, that she was inartful in her language. Bull. Bull. And Bull. She said exactly what she meant all 6 times she said it.

Sotomayor is convinced Latinas have significantly been kept down and disadvantaged by prejudice amongst Americans who run business and government. I'm confident there is some truth to this sentiment.

Sotomayor's solution, however, is problematic: racial quotas will get enough Latinas into positions of power so that Latina numbers will counterbalance the numbers of prejudiced persons making decisions. What she said in "Wise Latina", what she does and says in many areas (including Ricci), must be understood in this context.

Sotomayor wants a rationale for racial quotas for judges. If all judges rule according to law, there is no rationale for racial quotas. Therefore, Sotomayor's rationale is that a wise Latina - based upon her life experiences - will rule more wisely than a white men. Do you see? If a Latina doesn't rule differently, then there is no justification for racial quotas. Sotomayor is committed to racial quotas. This is the key thing to always remember about her. Therefore, a Latina must rule differently, and better. Must. Otherwise, the justification for racial quotas falls apart, and Latinas continue to be unjustly oppressed, with no solution in sight. In Sonia Sotomayor's opinion.

Today, Sotomayor pointed to Justice O'Connor's statement: "A wise old man and a wise old woman will come to the same decision in a case." Sotomayor says: Justice O'Connor couldn't have meant that, b/c sometimes wise persons disagree. Sotomayor is twisting what Justice O'Connor meant.

Wisdom only occurs in the moment, and wise persons sometimes do foolish things. In a legal case, there is always a best way to rule: always a truth about how the case ought be ruled. An old man or old woman who fails to see the truth is not being wise enough in the moment of decision. Justice O'Connor was clearly arguing against gender making a difference in judicial decision-making. Sotomayor, in her 6 speeches, was arguing that gender and race make a difference, and that O'Connor was wrong.

It's easy for Sotomayor to do this, as she doesn't believe objective truth exists. She believes truth is an opinion. There is "her truth" and "your truth". Actual truth is a rumor. This is why Sotomayor can characterize O'Connor as she did.

Here's the thing Sotomayor doesn't understand, the thing Sandra Day O'Connor does understand, and a thing which is important for every human to understand: truth exists. In many situations, we humans may not be able to ascertain truth. Yet, truth does exist. It exists separately, on it's own terms, whether or not we understand it.

In any situation, there may be your opinion about what is true, and there may be my opinion about what is true. Yet, truth exists on it's own terms, and has nothing to do with our opinions. There is no "your truth" or "my truth". There is only truth. And there are only our weak human efforts to ascertain it.

Truth is not an opinion. An opinion is an opinion. Truth exists on its own terms, separate from opinion. That's what is important to understand, and that is my late night rant.


Ace of Spades:
She's denying that there exists something called "theory of jurisprudence," which includes such doctrines as originalism, strict constructionism, and, of course, the ever-flexible and ever-expanding doctrine of the "Living Constitution." As she doesn't want to admit she's an adherent of the latter, she claims there's no such thing as judicial philosophy whatsoever.
On the other hand, someone like Sotomayor does not stop her inquiry simply because she finds that she has no authority whatsoever to make a ruling that binds anyone. She then looks to international law; the always-popular "changing social mores and norms;" "public policy considerations;" anagrams of Ricky Martin song titles; etc.

So, yeah, she's lying.

Andy McCarthy:
It's not the easiest thing for a simple white guy — at least this one — to keep up with a wise Latina, I'll grant you that."

Ace of Spades #2:
Thankfully palin steele, the non-partisan, states the stupidity for me:

Sotomayor can't be lying because only she knows the intent of her words. DrewM, don't you realize it doesn't matter what her words means prima facie. It only matters what she INTENDED, and you can't prove her intent beyond what she is now saying she meant. So you can't prove she is lying.

Posted by: palin steele (the only non-partisan on AoSHQ)

It is indeed difficult to prove someone is lying about what they meant. That does not, however, mean it's impossible, or mean that they're telling the truth even if you can't prove they're lying.

That's why this form of perjury is so popular. See Hillary "I can't recall" Clinton lying about Whitewater (where she later "explained" that she'd said she'd never worked on Whitewater at all, despite billing records proving she worked on it for dozens of billable hours, because she didn't know the development was called Whitewater; she only knew it according to its three-letter billing code) and Bill Clinton, who didn't believe, he said, that he was "alone" with Monica Lewinsky while using her as a human humidor.

But one's intent is indeed a factual matter just as their actions are a factual matter. Almost every crime requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the criminal had criminal intent. Intent is, indeed, defined as a fact of the crime which must be proved.

We can prove that Sonia Sotomayor is lying: She said the same thing at least six times and a simple familiarity with the English language and semantic logic tells us what she meant.

She is now telling us that everything she said previously was said in a made-up childhood language called "Opposite Talk," where everything she says means the precise opposite.

This is a lie.

If I were to be sued for libeling Sonia Sotomayor, I could attempt a defense that each time I called her a liar, I was not in fact calling her a liar and had no intention to do such a thing; indeed, when I called her a liar, I meant a "wise truth-teller."

I could attempt this defense, but I would lose, at it is absurd. Everyone knows what my words mean and therefore my intent in using them.

No comments: