The Most Troubling Quote of All

A supreme court nominee in this day and age has very little shot of keeping secrets. The hyper-information age yields quotes and makes it easy for even the casual blogger to do research. Consequently, less than 24 hours after President Obama has nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, her many troubling quotes have surfaced and two in particular are getting a lot of airtime. They are as follows (the New York Times has a good article that covers most of the initial vetting):

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who
hasn’t lived that life,” said Judge Sotomayor.

A “court of appeals is where policy is made.” She then immediately adds:
“And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we
don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating
it. I’m — you know.”

The media has already over-commented on these quotes. Sure, these quotes have their obvious issues: racism and judicial activism to name a few. But the most troubling quote of all reveals Sotomayor's foundation for all other views of law. The following quote should disturb all Americans most deeply (from NY Times):

She also approvingly quoted several law professors who said that “to judge is an
exercise of power” and that “there is no objective stance but only a series of
perspectives.”

This philosophy is blatant postmodern relativism and should be rejected on all fronts. This philosophy is not exclusive to liberals as many conservatives hold it as well, so my criticism is equal-opportunity (something Sotomayor should appreciate). If there is no objectivity, why is there even law? What's to make a sociopath's morality just as valid as a normal citizen? This is an outlandish example to be sure, but I am pointing out that Sotomayor's foundational perspective is morally egregious.

It is sadly disappointing that someone who is supposed to uphold the pinnacle of law (the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights) sees those documents as an act of judicial power and not eternal moral truths. Freedom of speech? Nope, that one's a constructed truth according to Sotomayor and not a foundational moral principle that all government should abide by.

If there are only a series of perspectives and no eternal moral truth, then law is a fruitless exercise. What makes Sotomayor's perspective better than a white person's? She makes a self-refuting argument (as all relativistic thinking ultimately is). Furthermore, if all law is only a series of perspectives competing for power, then we have the foundation for totalitarianism.

True moral reformers believe in absolute truth and eternal moral principles (ie "all men are created equal). But in Sotomayor's perspective, there isn't even room for Martin Luther King Jr. because his perspective was just one of many competing for the law. His perspective, in its foundation, really can't be better than anyone else's in Sotomayor's views. That's why she can never be as great as King Jr. and why her nomination and probable confirmation is troubling.