Sotomayor: Bad on Guns and on the Constitutionby Larry PrattOn Tuesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the nomination ofJudge Sonia Sotomayor and, thus, sent her name to the Senate floor.This is bad news for gun owners, who have much to fear if Sotomayoris confirmed to the Supreme Court. While it is absolutely certain that she is anti-gun in her views, itis also interesting to note that President Obama's pick isessentially the swap of a Republican liberal (Justice David Souter)for a Democrat liberal (Sotomayor). Judge Sotomayor's views of her mission as a Latina judge andwould-be justice are so controversial that her Senate confirmation isfast becoming a referendum on the role of the judiciary in aconstitutional republic. The Senate needs to remember that if it consents to her appointment,Judge Sotomayor will have a seat on the nation's highest court tohold for life, subject only to removal by the House and the Senate byimpeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. This is a decision forlife, with no safety net for the American people. As Thomas Sowellhas observed, a talk-radio host's "choice of words ... and theideas behind them do not change the law of the land, [but he wordsand actions of Supreme Court justices do."Is Judge Sotomayor worthy of such an office of trust? We think not.Senatorial scrutiny has revealed to the public that JudgeSotomayor's views are antagonistic to the rule of law, the properexercise of judicial power, and the meaning of equality in theAmerican constitutional republic. In making his announcement of Judge Sotomayor's nomination,President Obama emphasized that, if confirmed, Judge Sotomayor wouldbe the first Hispanic American to sit on the nation's highestcourt. However, what emerged in the days that followed is that, ifconfirmed, Judge Sotomayor would be the first "Latina" justice ofthe United States Supreme Court. And there is a difference. The appointment of a competent and wise individual who happens to beof a certain ethnic or national origin to sit on the nation's HighCourt would fulfill the commitment of the nation's charter that"all men are created equal," and Martin Luther King, Jr.'sdream that one day people will be judged on the "content of theircharacter" and not on the "color of their skin." But JudgeSotomayor's life message repudiates King's dream. She rejects thenation's pledge that we are an indivisible nation dedicated to"equal justice for all." Indeed, she lacks the essentialattributes that America needs in a judge. First and foremost, Judge Sotomayor does not believe that a judge isduty-bound to administer the law impartially, favoring neither thepoor nor the rich, despite the oath of office that she took when shefirst ascended to the federal bench. Rather, she believes that sheonly need "aspire" to impartiality as to the parties to a case --an aspiration that she has stated is "impossible to realize," andwhich is inferior to her allegiance to her gender and her Latinaheritage. But if Judge Sotomayor cannot do more than aspire, and cannot achieveimpartiality in ruling on cases and controversies that come beforeher, not only should she withdraw her own nomination to the HighCourt, she should resign her seat on the Second Circuit. Indeed,according to the Code of Conduct for Federal Judges, judicialimpartiality is essential for the public to maintain confidence inthe judiciary.Second, Judge Sotomayor does even not believe that a judge isduty-bound to administer neutral principles of law in resolvingdisputes between litigants. Although she claims that she is willingto apply the law as it is written; the truth is that she sees herselfas a policy maker, using her position as judge to represent thosepeople whose interests, values, and needs coincide with her personalLatina experiences. But judges are not representatives of segments of the body politic.Rather, they are to be above partisan, gender, ethnic, or politicalmotive. While judges may not always achieve that goal, they should atleast seek it -- but not Judge Sotomayor. She would tailor the law asa representative of her Latina constituency, instead of abiding bythe rule of law, no matter what the consequences might be to anyspecial interest. Third, while other judges seek equality under the law, JudgeSotomayor seeks diversity imposed by law. Judge Sotomayor rejects thenotion that "affirmative action" must be narrowly tailored only toremedy present injuries caused by past wrongs. Rather, she believesthat decisions based upon race, sex, and national origins must be apermanent feature of a diversity policy designed to ensure thatgovernment benefits and offices are distributed proportionately tothe racial and gender demographics of the larger society. But there can be no more divisive legal principle than hers -- thatthe color of your skin, your sex, and your national heritagedetermine your standing before the law. Again, as Thomas Sowell hasso aptly put it: "The Constitution says nothing about diversity andthe Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, notthe prevailing buzzwords of the times."Judge Sotomayor's views of each of these three essential attributesof a judge -- impartiality, neutrality, and equality -- place hercompletely outside our constitutional commitment to due process andequal protection under the law.Underlying Judge Sotomayor's views about judicial partiality,representative favoritism, and demographic diversity is what couldonly be viewed as an existential legal philosophy grounded in herpersonal experiences as a Puerto Rican female growing up in theBronx. While she attempts to clothe that philosophy in a broader"Latina" cloak, she points to no established Hispanicphilosophical writings by which to measure the rightness or wrongnessof her opinions. In fact, in a 1996 graduation address at Suffolk University LawSchool, Judge Sotomayor endorsed the philosophy closest to her own tobe the legal realism of Jerome Frank, author of "Law and the ModernMind," whereby a judge has no standard by which to measure hisopinions other than his personal predilections. Thus, in her 1996speech, Judge Sotomayor celebrated her view that law is not "staticand predictable," but "constantly overhaul and adapt [bylawyers and courts] to the realities of ever-changing social,industrial and political conditions."While Judge Sotomayor, if confirmed, would be only one member of anine-member court, her appointment would set a dangerous precedent.Having voiced these radical ideas about the type of Justice that shewould be, her confirmation would be a ratification of herillegitimate and dangerous views. And it would signal to PresidentObama and his successors that the door has been opened to othernominees who would misuse their public trust to favor those litigantswith whom they identify and to make policy according to their personalexperiences.We who defend the original right of the people to keep and bear arms,secured by the Second Amendment, are especially concerned about theimpact of Judge Sotomayor's evolutionary philosophy of law. In arecent unsigned decision handed down by a three-judge panel of thecourt of appeals, Judge Sotomayor agreed, without providing anyexplanation why, that our unalienable Second Amendment rights werenot "fundamental," and deserved no constitutional protection froma "rational" New York gun control measure. Given JudgeSotomayor's legal philosophy, it would appear that she believes herlife's experience growing up in the Bronx influenced her decision,even though they should be wholly irrelevant to which rights arefundamental. At stake, then, in the Senate confirmation debates on thisappointment, is not just the future of Judge Sotomayor, but the veryfuture of the federal judiciary and its constitutionally-prescribedrole to "establish justice" and "to secure the Blessings ofliberty to ourselves, and our Posterity." Article II, Section 2 grants to the President the power only to"nominate," but grants to 100 elected Senators the role ofproviding "the advice and consent of the Senate...." Now that thePresident has nominated this judge, we, the American people, must doeverything we can do to urge the Senate to fulfill its role bywithholding consent to this nomination. To accomplish this goal, we must convince Senators to interposethemselves between President Obama and what he would do to the Court.Judge Sotomayor, by her own words, has declared herself unworthy totake the oath of office required of all federal judges to"administer justice without respect of persons, and do equal rightto the poor and to the rich, and ... faithfully and impartiallydischarge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ... under theConstitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."