In Michael Gerson’s May 29 column in the Washington Post regarding Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, he wrote that Obama developed a “theory that Supreme Court justices should favor socially unfavored groups,” and that he opposed John Roberts for using his skills "on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," while Samuel Alito sided with "the powerful against the powerless." Gerson stated that “Obama made these distinguished judges sound monstrous because they stood for the impartial application of the law."
This is an interesting contradiction. In claiming that Obama was against the appointment of these two justices for favoring the "strong" and the "powerful," Gerson extrapolates that the president thus favors the weak and the powerless. But the evidence indicates that what Obama was saying is that they [Roberts and Alito] favor only the powerful and never the powerless. Thus in consistently favoring more powerful interests, they demonstrate that they are not impartial. How this translates to Obama, and by extension Sonia Sontomayor, not being impartial I cannot fathom.
Sotomayor, as evidenced by her record, has declared for both weak and strong, rich and poor. In her 17 years on the bench, her decisions have been overturned about 1%. Rather a strong record. Certainly an extremely intelligent and fair, impartial one, unlike some we now have on the court.
Quite frankly, I still resent Justice Scalia taking it upon himself to declare who should be president of the United States, thus invalidating my (and your) vote!