This is a page from the official, non-commercial, and nonprofit web site of “Mark Andrew Dwyer” whose only goal is educating and informing. 


Although all material contained or referenced on this page is copyrighted either by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” or by other parties (all pictures are from the Internet and are copyrighted by third parties), it is being offered here solely as an educational tool to increase understanding of global economics and social justice issues for 'fair use' of copyrighted material as provided in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.


Please, send your comments to  (See also readers’ comments after the article.)







By “Mark Andrew Dwyer”


July 15, 2009


This is as absurd as it gets. Several high profile "conservatives" repeat this moronic mantra: "President Obama has won the election and judge Sotomayor is qualified, so the Prez has the right to see her seated as a Supreme Court justice."

Yeah, right.

Roll back to 1987 when President Reagan nominated judge Bork to the Supreme Court. Judge Bork was undisputedly qualified and no one questioned validity of Reagan's election. Yet the Democratic senators launched a series of vicious and relentless attacks on judge Bork during his confirmation hearing (see [1]) that could be fairly characterized as slander and character assassination, and, eventually, derailed his nomination. The argument that President Reagan then had the same right as, ostensibly, President Obama has now, somehow slipped attention of the vicious hyenas that brought Bork’s nomination down.

Judge Sotomayor is a product of engineered diversity that has been in works in the U.S. since mid 1960-ties. Although she graduated from Princeton and Yale, one wouldn't have guessed that she did based on her answers (if one can call a bunch or repetitive evasive statements "answers") during the confirmation hearings and her brief (if not cryptic) and often flawed opinions (later overturned) that she wrote as an appellate judge. One can imagine a group of "concerned" faculty at these finest universities doing whatever they could to assure that she did graduate in flying colors despite some of her unimpressive academic capabilities, meager communication skills and difficulty with carrying on complex logical argument being two of which. (Thanks a lot, professors!)

And her loyalty (something that the "she is qualified"-mantra morons always forget to mention) to the Constitution and the law as they have been written, as opposed to using the Supreme Court bench as a launch pad for imposition of progressive "Liberalism" and ethno-centric agenda - as it was indicated by her "wise Latina" (apparently, "wise" enough to doctor the truth during her confirmation hearing) comments and her membership in the National Council of The Race ("La Raza") - on the white majority, leaves a lot to be desired.

Contrast this with judge Bork's impressive knowledge of the law, his outstanding record of mainstream constitutional scholarship, his brilliance while specifically answering tricky questions that were asked of him during his confirmation hearings, and his unquestionable commitment to the Constitution and the core values that have been the cornerstones of the American Republic.

Well, he wasn't "Hispanic", nor was he a woman, and even if he were, his contempt of "Liberalism" (a result of his attachment to the letter of the Constitution) would be enough for his Democratic assailants to tarnish him as they did in 1986.

So, it is really funny that the "conservative" morons of today invoke the "right" of President Obama to see his nominee of dubious qualifications and questionable loyalty seated on the Supreme Court bench, as if there were a shortage of outstanding judges committed to this country and its legal cornerstones, even among those whose political orientation might be described as Liberal. She may be "qualified" (which I personally doubt), but it doesn’t mean that she is good enough. It would be a shame if the same U.S. Senate that rejected mainstream judge Bork confirmed controversial judge Sotomayor.

There is a disturbing pattern here.

Just like it usually is the case with "affirmative action" appointments, a lackluster candidate with marginal accomplishments and serious weaknesses is given a pass (morons applauding) while an outstanding one with stellar record of achievements and job strengths had been eliminated based on the "minority" status of the former and/or a lack of clear "Liberal" inclinations of the latter. The artificially implanted dilemma of "qualified" vs. "not qualified" (with respect to whatever flimsy or bureaucratic standards) is the sworn enemy of "the best" vs. "acceptable". It has been imported into traditionally competitive America in order to give mediocre "minorities" a chance to advance to the positions of influence and power once reserved for the brightest, the most accomplished, and the most loyal.

As a result, we end up with a substandard quality appointees (not that they will not find, later on, enough arrogance and combativeness in themselves to impose their half-baked or outright wrong ideas on us) whose bad judgment, a lack of clear thinking, and strong attachment to trans-national "Liberal" ideology, push the country step-by-step in wrong direction, while the ones who got eliminated could have used their wisdom, knowledge, experience, and commitment to the American Republic for the betterment of this nation, making it more free and prosperous.

This damaging trend is the reason why this once greatest nation that the planet has ever seen is slowly deteriorating, inching closer and closer to the point of social and economic decay. And all our "conservative" "elites" seem to be worrying about is to not appear argumentative or rude while scoring defeat after defeat and losing office after office to packs of ruthless "Liberal" hyenas that do not have scruples of any sort.

Note. As to Sen. Lindsay Graham's appeasing remark "You will be confirmed ..." let me remind what kind of skillful doublespeaker is he. At a La Raza event in South Carolina in May 2007, Graham delivered a fiery speech in defense of “Hispanic“ illegal aliens (see [2]). In his fallacious argument, he tested the limits of nonsense when he questioned the very fact that America belongs to actual Americans as opposed to anyone on the planet who claimed to be an American, ending with now infamous "we are gona tell the bigots [the advocates of border and immigration enforcement] to shut up."

Apparently, Sen. Graham is playing on both sides, eying his future electoral base of rapidly growing "Latino" population. They may be ineligible to vote now, due to their current "immigration status" (or a lack thereof), but with a help of devoted Democrats and opportunistic Republicans, the day will come when they will be the ones who decide elections.


[1] The Original Borking

[2] SC Senator Lindsey Graham's insane comments at Racist Event! (video 4:01)

Fast forward to min 3:45 to hear Graham's "we are gona tell the bigots to shut up"


Differences Between Races a Distraction


Readers’ comments:  Send yours to  [top]




Past commentary (July 4, 2009) SARAH PALIN AND THE “"LIBERAL" HYENAS”  


Click here for Disclaimer



Mark Andrew Dwyer's latest commentary (updated) is posted at:

save this link >>>

The complete list of commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” with synopses and readers’ comments ordered by the date of original posting (with the most recent commentary first).

Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at (retrieved by Google)

Links to commentaries by “Mark Andrew Dwyer” posted at

Links to commentaries by "Mark Andrew Dwyer" posted elsewhere (retrieved by Google)

Visit for the most comprehensive and up to date coverage of immigration news and commentaries.



The URL address of this page is: