U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Friday that greater diversity on the


U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said Friday that greater diversity on the high court is important, in comments made shortly afterPresident Barack Obama once again urged a vote on his Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.
“I, for one, do think there is a disadvantage from having (five) Catholics, three Jews, everyone from an Ivy League school,” Sotomayor said during a talk at Brooklyn Law School, adding that several of the justices are from New York City and none of them have a background in criminal defense law outside of white-collar crime, the Associated Press reported.

Sotomayor: What the Supreme Court really needs is more diversity « Hot Air

Do we need another left wing person on the Supreme Court under the guise of diversity? The answer is clearly no. It is bad enough we have an imbalance of the court by those favoring the left. Do we place a muslim on the court that would support Sharia law over the constitution? Don’t we have enough judges who do not interpret the law but make it?


What the supreme court needs is better qualified members.


Let’s place Cruz on there. He’s Cuban, he’s neither Catholic, nor Jewish. He’d also be the first senator to sit on the bench in over 70 years.


The Supreme Court needs more conservatives.


The Supreme Court needs absolutely NO “Diversity”, it need 9 Justices that ALL respect the Law as written and ZERO who think their job is to “Write Law”.


President Hillary will nominate Obama, and with Democratic control of the Senate (thanks, in part, to the ongoing GOP civil-war), he’ll sail through.

There, two problems solved: diversity, and getting a liberal on the bench. Justice Obama! I love it!


As the old saying goes: Be careful what you wish for…


If Obama winds up on the SCOTUS, I’ll be buying a house in Costa Rica (or someplace else warm and OUTSIDE of what USED to be the United States.)


obama is to lazy to work. I have a feeling once he leaves office the DNC will move on and forget him since he was a pawn to further their agenda. I read Michelle wants to earn money doing speaking engagements. I can hear it now. "America is evil and the people are racists.


What I would like to know is, what does “diversity” have to do with a Justices’ job which is to enforce the text of our Constitution and its legislative intent which gives context to its text?


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it.***_____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


Diversity is a buzz word to create a situation in which a juror can undermine decisions by performing something akin to jury nullification. Sotomayor has a history of voting to “right” what she felt was wrong in spite of the law. If more like her are on the Supreme Court we would have in basis the same as we have on the Ninth Circuit which gets overturned all the time for their liberal views.

To give an analogous example the United Nations has committees like the Human Rights committee that is filled with nations which support terrorism and are blatant abusers pronouncing judgement on others thus we get ruling like Israel is guilty of human rights while the Palestinians are ignored.

The similarity between the two is both have the same purpose to undermine any relevant decision.


I agree with your post and this is why it is so important to teach our children the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction is to enforce the text of our written constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to the text. This rule is summarized as follows:

***The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.***— numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.

Those who reject and ignore abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.


“The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


I don’t disagree with you on this–BUT (and it’s a BIG “but”) opinions by any individual court do NOT change or become “part” of the Constitution. The Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to abortion on demand and the founders would laugh you out of the building if you’d suggested it. Neither does the Constitution allow the SCOTUS to change the words in a law passed by Congress in order to MAKE it seem “constitutional.”


I agree with you and would add neither does the Constitution allow the SCOTUS to change the meaning of words in our Constitution as was done in the Kelo decision.

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:

while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed “use by the public” as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the “use by the public” test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.***

The irrefutable fact is, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:

The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

And what is the fundamental rule regarding the meaning of words and phrases in our Constitution?

***“Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption… ***(my emphasis), see: 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language


“If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?”***___ Justice Story