Judicial temperament. Plenty of judges are brusque or imperious; by itself, temperament is not a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. But when the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary cites lawyers calling her “a terror on the bench,” “nasty,” “overly aggressive” and a “bully,” that begins to raise some of the same reservations that Democrats in 1987 expressed about Judge Robert Bork when they blocked his promotion to the Supreme Court.

c Lack of impartiality. The judicial oath requires a judge to swear to “administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and … faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me.” In formal speeches, Judge Sotomayor has endorsed the view that “there is no objective stance” and has argued that “the aspiration to impartiality is just that – it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”

c Denial of the need for stable laws. It is a “public myth that law can be certain and stable,” she wrote for the Suffolk University Law Review in 1996. Without legislative guidance, she wrote, judges have a right and even a duty to “develop a novel approach … that pushes the law in a new direction.”

c Ethnic grievance-mongering. Judge Sotomayor on seven different occasions said almost identical variants of the statement that “inherent physiological or cultural differences” may lead “a wise Latina … [to] more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

c Race discrimination. By now the case in infamous: Judge Sotomayor ruled in Ricci v. DeStefano that white firefighters, even one with a handicap, can be denied a promotion they had earned merely because on that occasion no black colleague earned the same promotion.

c Property rights. Judge Sotomayor ruled in Didden v. Village of Port Chester that a town can, without a public hearing, seize private property (for a fee) from an unwilling seller and use it for the same purpose the seller intended. In this case, the force of law was used to block a CVS and replace it with a Walgreens.

The right to bear arms. In U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar, Judge Sotomayor ruled “that the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right.” Judge Sotomayor ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that a state can prohibit private ownership of martial-arts sticks.

c Jailbird voting. Against hundreds of years of tradition, Judge Sotomayor ruled in Hayden v. Pataki that currently imprisoned felons have a right to vote if a disproportionate number of them is black or Latino.

The case is open and shut. Sotomayor is a racist, favoring Hispanics and other minorities over whites. Her opinions are of the radical Left. The Sotomayor nomination must be sunk.

And who could be surprised given his leftist pedigree.  

The Cairo speech is being spun as a great outreach to the Muslim world.  The spin is not curious and neither is the fact that Obama is borrowing from President Bush with the emphasis on democracy and human rights promotion.  Old wine in new bottles.

What is new is the apologizing.  First, with respect to the 1953 coup in Iran.  No president ever should apologize for the actions undertaken during the Cold War.  To do so minimizes the efforts of Americans and our allies who fought the threat of the Soviet Union.  No doubt Obama has no trouble with that.  It also diminishes the valiant efforts of Americans who fought in the twilight struggles in the minds of those born post-Cold War.  Equally, he has no trouble with that.  That is precisely what Obama wants in his efforts to impose socialism on America.

Second, with respect to torture, no president should apologize for the harsh steps the intelligence community had to undertake against terrorists in order to secure America from terrorism.  That Obama would apologize for this and ban the harsh interrogation techniques sometimes necessary is dangerous.  As hard as it is for the Left to accept, sometimes the United States has to torture known and suspected terrorists, or at least have the possibility of torture as a weapon in its arsenal.  To ban it is dangerous, foolish and weakens the counter-terrorism policy of the United States.  The Obama administration is weakening the effort on the war on terrorism. They will rue the day.

The Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court is a contemptuous act.  She is a racist who has and should fully be expected to place the interests of Hispanics and women before other Americans.  She is a product of the cultural Marxist “multiculturalism.”  She will advance the cultural Marxist agenda against Americans and American principles.  

Too little has been made of her remarks concerning why a Latina is better able to judge than a white male.  Had a white male made a reciprocal remark, he would be considered unfit to serve and driven from public life, let alone be nominated to the highest court.  Sotomayor makes a racist remark and is elevated to serve on the highest Court in the land.

What contempt for American principles Obama must have.  

The Republicans must filibuster Sotomayor and do what is necessary to sink her nomination.

Republican Senators now is the time to act.  The American people will support you if you act against Sotomayor as they are tired of the racist “affirmative action” policies of the Marxists.

The time has come to acknowledge that Obama put his finger in the eye of Uncle Sam with the Sotomayor nomination.  And so it is time to say:  NO.  Time to stop the decline of the United States. Time to say no to the Left’s racism.  Time to force the Left to recognize American principles.