[img]2566|right|David Fontana||no_popup[/img]We know that liberals strenuously objected to this week’s onesided (6-2) Supreme Court decision that allowed sensible Michigan voters to prevail in conducting a mercy killing of “afuhrmatiff akshun” in the state’s colleges and universities.
Three long days later, however, we still do not know why.
Modern-day liberals duck reasoning as if it were their mother-in-law. Or smelly soup. Or, heaven forbid, religion.
Reminds me of our President. He has a foreign policy. I am fairly sure. We just don’t know what it is.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of two dissenters, hoping to attract attention, submitted a 58-page wail that was a pillar to petulant puerility on Decision Day. A triumph of rant over reason, her piece was longer, cumulatively, than the opinions of all other justices.
Lately I have immersed myself in two lengthy screeds that celebrate the previously undisclosed wisdom of Justice Sotomayor. Prof. David Fontana of the George Washington University law school, writing in The New Republic (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117501/sonia-sotomayor-schuette-dissent-national-treasure), and Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, the most inarticulate man on television (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/25/the_court_stacks_the_deck_122409.html) erect shallow monuments to her brilliance. Except for declaring endemic, ubiquitous racism a permanent fixture in American life – a conclusion the leftist authors lovingly bathe in — they never offer a syllable of justification as to why they believe her ranting is a bullseye. She is so, so, so Puerto Rican, they chortle.
The headline over Prof. Fontana’s piece is a gem to cherish,“Sonia Sotomayor Is a National Treasure – ‘The Sotomayor Style’ Is How America Should Talk About Fairness.”
I give up. Why is she a national treasure?
To respond, Prof. Fontana argued, fatuously, it was her persuasive tactical deployment of uncomplicated one-syllable terms.
“What makes this Sotomayor Style different from the style of opinion of other recent liberal justices, though, is its unique ability to reach and persuade regular citizens. Justices have a strategic interest in convincing regular citizens of the merits of their view of the constitution, and a judicial opinion can be a helpful tool of persuasion. If the public is persuaded by a justice’s opinion, then presidents who must be sensitive to public opinion will be more likely in the future to nominate federal judges or other justices who share that constitutional vision. There is also strong evidence that decisions by the court tend to be consistent with national public opinion—meaning that by convincing regular citizens a persuasive judicial opinion could eventually shape the decisions reached by a majority on the Supreme Court.
The Sotomayor Style is able to cultivate public opinion through two unique features. First, she uses practical and therefore easily comprehensible language in her opinion. The usage of practical language in a judicial opinion will reach regular citizens more because it gains more mass and social media attention. I am not aware of any direct empirical evidence, but it is safe to assume that a small number of Americans read Supreme Court opinions. It is safe to assume that many millions more read the media coverage of these decisions. Talking about what the case means in practical language makes an opinion more likely to be covered by the media—and thus more likely for regular Americans to know about it. Once known, the usage of practical language in a judicial opinion makes regular citizens more likely to understand and therefore appreciate and be persuaded by the opinion.”
Justice Sotomayor rose to national acclaim in the leftist press by humbly labeling herself “a wise Latina” — since no one else would.
The common problem with the lengthy essays by these two seasoned left-wing thinkers is that they deliberately drove into the same ditch that routinely traps liberals. They mistook overflowing emotion for mature reasoning. Glowing with enchanting encomiums for Justice Sotomayor, the raving fellows forgot to tell us why she was correct..
The insecure Justice’s brattish reaction — “I am a victim and so is every other non-white in America” – may be excused. You see, she is an “afurmuhtiff akshun” project.
She does not know any better.
She thought debate was something you went fishing with.
Employing her Puerto Rican extraction as a battering ram, she sailed – untested — through classrooms, earning a pass at every stop because she cried racism.
She is an embarrassment to the memory of Dr. King and all other fair-minded Americans.
