Here’s what I sent to all 19 members of the Senate Judicial Committee, the President’s office. I also posted it in response to every article about Sotomayor in the Washington Post. It was also posted on a blog at the NY Times and at Crain’s New York business.\

—————-

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if a Supreme Court nominee would appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee and make the following statement.

“I believe in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The United States was designed by the Founders to be, not a democracy, but a constitutional republic, a political system under which government is limited and citizens are free.

“The Declaration of Independence says that “. . .all men . . . are endowed . . . with certain unalienable rights, that among these are the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.” The Founders said that this was self-evident. (Note: in later versions the right to property was removed because of conflicts over the status of slaves. Slaves should have been freed. The right to property should not have been removed.)

“Further, the Declaration says, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted . . . .”

“In other words, all men have unalienable rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The sole function of government is to protect those rights.

“If I am confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court, I intend to enforce laws that protect individual rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness.

“I intend to declare as criminal and punishable any violation of these rights be it by individuals or governments, local state or federal. Further, I will hold that any law enacted by Congress or the Senate or any legislative body of any state, county or city that violates these rights to be unconstitutional.

“And further, I will hold that any edict or order, whatever it is called, issued by the Executive branch of the Federal Government that violates these rights is also unconstitutional.

“I will vote to accept all challenges to existing laws and to amendments made to the Constitution since it’s inception where those laws and amendments are in violation of the individual rights the government is instituted to secure.”

Unfortunately, I don’t believe we will hear anything remotely resembling this from Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Instead, we will hear evasive and vague answers to questions, denials of previous statements and claims that we just didn’t understand what she said.

Substituting empathy and Latina ethnicity for objective judgement she has clearly disqualified herself from not only sitting on the Supreme Court, but from sitting on any court.

In her opening remarks, she made a fundamental error. She said that fidelity to the law should be the guiding principle in making judgements. The correct principle is fidelity to the Constitution. Otherwise, how would you declare a law to be wrong if the law is the standard?

Recommended reading list:

Man’s Rights by Ayn Rand*
The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand*

*Both essays may be found in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand.