Foxy,
Sotomayor doesn't believe in "Equal justice under the Law."
She practices "Equal outcomes using the Law."
She is a product of affirmative action and she interprets the law from an affirmative action perspective.
In so doing she discriminates against non-minorities on the basis of their race.
Her words and her actions make her a racist, plain and simple.
Oh, I forgot.
She can't be a racist because she's not a white male.
http://townhall.com/columnists/MichaelReagan/2009/05/27/the_future_of_affirmative_action?page=1

There is a war going on for the hearts and minds of mankind, and the major players are Secularists, Atheists, Islamists, and Christians, and the key players in that war are the Judges. Judges rule us. Parliament today thinks it is all powerful, but just as Hitler found that pounding the English with all his airpower, he could not prevail one inch without infantry on the ground, so too any Parliament. The allies pounded Hitler and Germany in spades, with airpower, but it was only soldiers on the ground, who drove Germany to surrender. The infantry in the battle for the hearts and minds of mankind, are the judges. We need to be very careful who we select to be the edge of the government sword.

I was infantry. As infantry it was the job of the ordinary soldier, the squaddies, the grunts, to take and hold territory. The artillery and airforce helped, but the ultimate power had to be carried out, in the absence of nuclear annihilation, by men predominantly, on the ground; the private soldier. The Officers were only there to direct the raw power of the infantry. It has always been the case, since man studied and has applied the Art of War. In the wars for the hearts and minds of ordinary Australians, the infantry is the Police. However does this really work? There was a time when Police only had guns as backup. Now they carry them routinely. Where have we gone wrong?

In another post, there are lamentations about blue collar opinion being worthless. I disagree as a student of Constitutional law. The opinions of the blue collar majority, are essential to the just and fair functioning of any society. Lets examine the four competitors cited above.

Secularists want us all to stay in our Churches and not engage in everyday political action.

Atheists have no belief in a God; They cannot accept that man is made in God’s image.

Islamists, are a variety of the Roman Catholic model, leaving only the Christians.

Christians when effective should not judge, they should be the infantry

I once requested a Christian Judge, in the District Court in New South Wales. They thought I was joking. There are 69 District Court Judges in New South Wales, and they all call themselves Judge. The Supreme Court has 59 Judges calling themselves Justices. Some of these people go to Church at the start of the Law Year, every January. There are 17 Supreme Court Registrars

Are they Christians? Can they be Christians? Not one of these 145 Judicial Officers, feels any obligation whatsoever, since 1970, to offer a jury trial to an ordinary citizen. If they were Christian, they would feel guilty about that. We have countless Magistrates. What about them? Do they feel any guilt when they play God with peoples lives. Are they Christians or a type of racist Legislative Assembly, overruling the will of Parliament on their own arbitrary whims and fancies.

In 1970, the Parliament in NSW legislated Christianity and its justice system out of existence. S 6 Supreme Court Act 1970 made 9 lawyers the Supreme Soviet of New South Wales. They make the rules, and you better obey them. A Soviet is defined in the dictionary to mean: an elected legislative body or council. The New South Wales Soviet is not elected, it is appointed by the Cabinet. Its Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 is its legislation. It allows for an election to have a jury trial.

They are never allowed as of right. A litigant must go with a cheque, payable up front, before a jury trial will be considered. Can a Christian go to a Court. He must go when summonsed. If he is a criminal, he will be given jury trial, but then he is an accused sinner. If he is not a sinner, he does not qualify for a jury.

If any one of these 145 was a Christian, would they do unto others as they would have done to them? Do they love us or hate us? I suggest they hate and despise us all. Until 1970, they had to be Christian. No consent meant no Judge then.

In the Federal Court of Australia there are 49 Justices. They call themselves Judges too. I suppose they feel they can, because the Parliament uses that word. In the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 the word Judge(s) is used forty-one times in the first six pages. It does not appear in the Constitution except after an amendment made in 1977. For the first seventy-seven years of the Commonwealth, the word Judge did not appear either capitalized or un-capitalised in the Constitution. The word judges is there, without a capital letter. Does the use of the word Judge in an Act of Parliament make the Constitution a sham, or does the Constitution make the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 a sham?

When we had Christian Justices in New South Wales before 1970, the Federal Court of Australia could never have come into existence, and neither could the High Court in 1979. These unelected appointees of the executive, are supposed to owe the same allegiance to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second as a member of Parliament. She must be a Protestant Christian. There is no such thing as a Christian Judge. It is an impossibility. Has the High Court become the Supreme Soviet in Australia?

Christianity is democracy. Democracy demands that ordinary people participate in political affairs. These undemocratic individuals cannot be Christian. The Common Law Procedure Act 1899 has a section where in New South Wales anyone who saw a Statute broken could sue for a remedy. Anyone at all, you, me or anyone else, and we had an as of right entitlement to have the case decided by a jury of 12. The Constitution Statute was worth something then.. Today it’s simply a sad joke.

The same Act uses the word Court, another word not present in the Constitution unsupported by an adjective, High Court or Federal Supreme Court. Have we been taken over by a dirty little sect of socialists? Paul Keating’s government thought so. He legislated to make them all pay. We wait with bated breath, Christians to see if KR is really one of us

One more episode in the Racist Judges trilogy. Not only are Judges racist, they are sexist too. By excluding both men and women from the former grass roots political meetings, where the weighty matters of State could be debated, and decided by 12 ordinary people, exercising extraordinary powers, unique to Christian government, they discriminate against women as well as men, Christians as well a Muslims, Atheists and secularists alike.

Christian government presupposes that when two or three come together, in the name of Jesus Christ the supernatural powers of Almighty God will deliver a blessing, upon the just cause. See Line two of the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900: Relying on the blessing of Almighty God. Nothing supernatural can happen with a Judge.

The common law was the practical application of the blessing of Almighty God. It confounded Emperors, it controlled Parliaments, it made each and every subject a valued and treasured member of society, because every one of them is said to be made in God’s image. Every Premier of Every State was subject to the common law. Every government had to be very careful, not to offend common sense, because the home of common sense was the common law court.

When a Judge legislates without a jury’s consent, he is in contempt of Parliament, and should be called to account. When Parliament legislates badly, it is in contempt of the common law and also should be called to account by a jury. Before 1970, the Christian machinery that guaranteed common sense, was law in the Common Law Procedure Act 1899 that allowed anyone, in s 24(c.) to sue for breach of Statute Law, and recover damages for that breach.

Like JC said, if tares are sown into a wheatfield, someone has to harvest the tares and burn them. So it is with bad Statutes, and anyone could bring Statute Law into the crucible of a common law court, that it be tested against the law. The creation of Courts, where Judges preside alone, has stolen our basic civil rights from us. Paul Keating’s government restored them

Dear KMB,

If Sonia Sotomayor practices as you claim,
"Equal outcomes using the Law."
How can that be a bad thing - if the outcomes
are equal? And how can that be discriminatory,
again, if the outcomes are equal?

And if the outcomes are equal as you say - then
isn't that equal justice?