I agree with Spud also. I say this even with my bias towards Puerto Ricans in general. I used to work in Kissimmee close to Disney World where there was a large Puerto Rican population.The area in which I worked was about 65% Puerto Rican,maybe 25% British tourists,and perhaps 10% native Floridian.Though I know it's not good to make general statements about people as groups,I found them to be pretty much to the person incredibly nice people. It was almost unreal actually.
From what I've heard of Miss Sotomayor,she would be very atypical for a Puerto Rican,at least from my experience. She seems to be a person with a chip on her shoulder much as Obama seems to have one on his.In actuality the minorities Obama seeks have less to do with their color,race,etc.,and more to do with those who dislike our system of government,capitalist economic system,and our constitution.In fact most minorities like the freedom and opportunity found in America,or at least appreciate it's there if they want it.
To understand Obama's decision requires some research into his background and influences.Obama taught community organizing in Chicago from the two books of Saul Alinsky.Unlike the violent anti-establishment radicals of the late '60s, Alinsky instead wanted to alter the American system by working within it to agitate for class warfare.The idea was to convince the majority of voters that the wealthy, or investors who create economic growth (and jobs),were shafting the little guy.These people would then be persuaded to elect by popular vote those who would agree to take wealth and investment capitol from the so called "haves" and redistribute it to the so called "have nots".It really doesn't matter to them that this would actually hurt economic growth.At least whatever money is out there is funneled through the "elite" government who increase their power,importance,and control. The effect would be the masses becoming subservient to an increasingly powerful and authoritarian government while the population becoming less differentiated from one another .The idea is to trade opportunity to advance oneself for the security of a government allowance.Everybody ends up equally poor.This is the best way for an authoritarian government to keep people in their place and to cement it's power and influence over its people.It is a type of enslavement.
It's really IS all about power.Our constitution was put together with the idea of limited government.However,it's not human nature for those wanting power to limit their power after acquiring it.At the very least,If only simply for popularity,many Democrats as well as Republicans fall into the trap of buying votes in this way.It's easy to vote for someone who promises you all sorts of goodies (taken from another).This really is the difference between a power hungry politician and a statesman.
The founders feared a centralized government with too much power.That is why they set up 3 equal branches as a check and balance.One of these branches,however,has found a way around this.They are merely trusted not to overstep their bounds.In recent years those wanting to make radical changes by judicial fiat have infiltrated the judicial branch of government as they are not elected.In fact supreme court judges serve for life and don't answer to anyone.It makes sense that Obama would gravitate towards an angry malcontent activist especially when making choices such as this.Obama has already stated that we need to break free of the essential constraints the founding fathers put into the constitution to effect social and economic justice not written into the document.
The real issue with Sotomayor is her self stated advocacy of judicial activism which is a way to subvert the normal process of policy decision being made by the legislative and elected branch of government. Activist judges like Sotomayor want to bring about change they know would not be supported at the ballot box or by our constitution.Sotomayor has by her own words stated in the past that she feels this unconstitutional activism is the responsibility of the judiciary to effect her,and people like her, personal view of what justice really is.Many judges have violated their oaths taken to uphold the constitutions because of this practice.Twisted,yes,but it really is all about power,isn't it?
olice: :judge:
I'm with you here Spud and frankly it scares me to think about the repurcussions. The governement is now creating much more governement dependance than ever before, It's a vicious cycle I'm afraid has just been given a lot of traction.