What about albino hunchback lesbians of Vietnamese descent?

The nomination of a “wise Latina woman” to the Supreme Court of the United States has signaled the Obama administration’s intent to scrap the Constitution. Whereas SOTUS jurists are charged with interpreting the constitutionality of laws and court rulings, the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Court is the opening salvo in Mr. Obama’s attempt to dismantle the Constitution in favor of a Court that looks upon each individual ruling in light of the appellant’s personal background and life history.

---

Thus it’s legally conceivable that under the tutelage of Senorita Sotomayor and future judges of similar (but equally diverse) philosophy and background, honor killings would be deemed “constitutional”, as they apply to the unique life perspective of some Muslim families. The court will no longer be ruling with the evenhandedness it has since its establishment in 1789, but will apply law on an ad hominem basis, taking into consideration an appellant’s ethnic background, economic standing, sexual orientation and gender. In short, a different application of law for each ruling to ensure that rulings are “fair”. However, a Supreme Court that rules on the basis of identity poses a much larger dilemma for the nation as what once was the world’s melting pot has become so diverse as to demand the Court’s enlargement to accommodate all the diverse backgrounds one might find within the US. Would a “wise Latina woman” be capable of understanding the personal struggles inherent in a transsexual appellant and have sufficient empathy to take those struggles into consideration in deciding that particular case? Also, would a “wise Latina woman” have prejudices against certain individual types within her own background? Would an elderly white man who is economically comfortable get the same consideration from a “ wise Latina woman” judge as would an uneducated and poverty stricken single mother of African origin? Philosophically, the rule of law is descending toward a discombobulation of the set legal principles envisioned by the nation’s founders. These principles signify that the law applies equally to all citizens, regardless of race, creed or national origins. The new principles that are coming into vogue through the machinations of the Obama regime signify that the laws of the land will be applied differently, depending on each individual’s life history. As a political action, the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the Court is brilliant, in that it plays to the hopes and fears of an ever more important group of voters: Hispanic Americans. They are among the nation’s historically aggrieved and getting one their own nominated to the Court will translate into an increased percentage of Hispanic American votes for Obama and the Democrats. But it also marks the beginning of a sea change in American jurisprudence. It’s interesting to note that the Supreme Court has reversed 60% of the cases in which judge Sotomayor wrote the majority opinion on appeal. It’s very likely that her ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano, in which she upheld the decision by city of New Haven, Connecticut to toss out test results for firefighters because not enough minority firefighters passed the test, will also be overturned by the Court. But hey, if equal treatment under the law is no longer a priority of American jurisprudence, then the Constitution no longer matters. But the question remains: could a “wise Latina woman” judge rule fairly in cases involving albino hunchback lesbians of Vietnamese descent?