There’s on-going news every day about President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayer, the Latino circuit court judge.

There’s a great deal of publicity over her remarks and rulings. There are those who criticize and condemn, then there are those who express approval and make excuses for her verbal remarks and court rulings. The two factions, pro and con, are having a field day on the radio, on television, newspapers and internet.

One item causing a lot of attention is her remark: “I would hope that a wise Latino 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.”

Some look at a doughnut and see a hole and some see it as a delicious dessert to eat and enjoy.

Here’s what I hear when I read that remark: Father does not know best and men tend to be a bit stupid. An attitude of superiority comes across to me. Conveying an underlying notion a Latino woman is smarter than the rest of us. Plus a sort of finger-shaking image, saying listen to me, I’m smarter than you.

I don’t think so.

Secondly, much discussion about her rulings in several cases, not the least of which concerns the “Didden” case. A case dealing with eminent domain, and a man named Gregory Waser used threat of condemnation, used to force another businessman to pay $800,000 or give him 50% of his business. As I understand it the government forced the transfer of land in a Circuit court ruling, in which Judge Sotomayer was involved.

This country is supposed to be a nation of laws. And despite the fact we as individuals are all different and unequal, there’s supposed to be an “equal application of the law.” In the government courts, decisions and rulings are supposed to be according to the Constitution. Supposedly objective, but we know in reality many rulings are subjective and are politically based.

Fundamentally the Constitution is supposed to guarantee individual Rights of property ownership. And most if not all the rulings in the court system deal with property rights. Whether or not the case deals with an individual’s life, his land, his home, his business, his money, or whatever, the issue boils down to ownership.

And ownership deals with control. One does not own anything they do not control. In this connection, more and more court decisions deal with the takeover of private property ownership by the government. And that’s apparently what happened in the Didden case. The court usurped the property ownership of one to arbitrarily give to a non-owner. And apparently Judge Sotomayer ruled against the rightful owner of the property, as I understand it.

We are living in an era when the centralized political government is taking over more and more control of all properties at an alarming rate. With this direction, actions and mindset, the courts are just one of the tools used to accomplish the takeover of private property control by the government.

In this country, where the free market capitalistic system, individual Freedom, and private ownership of property once reigned supreme as the desirable state of being, by the manipulations of the politics of a centralized government, it is no more. And so much of this “takeover” has been accomplished through the legal system. Simply by declaring something legal which was previously illegal, clears the way to take property from the rightful owner without a shot being fired.

The clash between property rights and the power of political government, has been going on for quite a long time.  However, there was a time when individuals could take their property rights battles to the courts and expect more equitable decisions in favor of the individual property owner than today. Even if one lost in a lower court, there was always hope for justice in the Supreme Court decisions.

Therefore all this hoopla over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme court boils down to a fundamental issue of individual property rights and personal Freedom. Whether if seated or not, she will make rulings to further advance power of government over individual freedom and personal property rights whether or not she supports and will vote in favor of personal property Rights.

When she dons the robe of a Supreme Court justice, it does not matter if she’s male or female, black, white or Latino. It will not matter what her prior decisions have been.  The only thing which will matter to us as citizens of this country is whether or not she makes decisions based upon the Constitution, by upholding individual Rights, or whether or not her decisions will favor further erosion of those Rights.

Considering her confirmation, a reasonable person must take into account her past decisions as a sitting judge. Because her future actions can be judged by her past behavior.  It is ludicrous to assume donning the black robe and sitting down on the Supreme Court will drastically change her direction of any past rulings. The responsibility for this decision rests with the members of Congress.



Share →


  1. Judging by her admitted hatred of private gun-ownership, I expect a further neutering of the right to own and to carry firearms. I’ll continue to be an outlaw, either way.

  2. A fascinating discussion iss definitely worth comment. I believe that you ougt to write more on this subject,
    it maay not be a taboo subject but typically folks don’t discuss
    these issues. To tthe next! All the best!!