Racism is racism is racism

At the heart of the Civil Rights movement was the demand that people be judged NOT by the color of their skin, or whether they were male or female - and most importantly that our government had no right to explicitly single out a race or gender for special treatment.  The genius of Martin Luther King, Jr. gave the modern Civil Rights movement the voice it needed to press hard for the goal of equal treatment under the law, and what takes the cake is he led the movement to non-violent protest and it worked beautifully.

Contrast that to today.  "Civil Rights" leaders today have been pushing for "hate crimes" legislation (which, in fact, singles out a particular group for special treatment under the law).  Phrases like "social justice" and "judicial empathy" are the verbal soup du jour....when the implementation of those aims perverts the purpose of law in a vain and destructive attempt to guarantee "equal results" instead of "equal treatment under law".  In a recent post on NBC regarding President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor, the writer's even questioned "would Republicans dare vote against the first Hispanic?"  What happened to judging someone by their merits and abilities?  If a Republican or Democrat in the Senate votes against this nominee, that somehow makes them racist/anti-Hispanic?  And if that Senator is listening to a majority of constituents who happen to say "no" to her confirmation, does that make those citizens racist?  I contend that the elitists in our culture are still looking down their nose at the average American as ignorant and racist.  How dare they label anyone racist when they, apparently, are the ones obsessed with categorizing everything along racial lines.  How ironic that these elitist racists pine for days or real equality, when they are the very ones labeling anyone with a legitimate difference of opinion as racist.

Don't get fooled by all this talk of "empathy" and "caring" when it comes to judicial appointees.  What we need are people who will interpret the law with (pardon me for yelling) IMPARTIALITY!  Our executive and legislative officials can conjure up all the tears and empathetic responses they want.  However, once the law is written, it needs to be interpreted in a consistent and impartial manner.  The fact that our courts have strayed far away from this view of the law (especially since the "Warren Court") is a direct culprit of the capricious nature of court decisions today.  Ask yourself, why do businesses not want to take most cases to trial, and instead prefer to settle even if they are 110% sure they are in the right?  They have no idea what kind of judge they will get - and since law is not being interpreted consistently and impartially, they can't gamble their fortunes (literally and figuratively) on the whims of someone who may think it's their job to right all the real or imagined wrongs of society instead of simply applying the law to a concrete situation.

It is incredibly dangerous for judges to embed & entrench their own bias in the law.  It undermines both the reliability and predictability of our judicial system, as well as erodes the democratic process by drowning out the voice of the people and their elected officials who made the law to begin with.  A judge that wants to "make policy" is in the wrong job.  They should have become a legislator...or a lobbyist.