Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Hannity Attacks Sotomayor's “Judicial Activism,” Then Demands It To Protect White Rights

Reported by Ellen - May 29, 2009 -

During Wednesday night's (5/28/09) Hannity, Sean Hannity continued his attacks on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, making a special effort to paint her as anti-white. Considering Hannity's own history of friendship toward anti-Semites, anti-African Americans and his zealous advocacy for the rights of white people, it's not much of a surprise. But the hypocrisy was stunning, even for a veteran Hannity watcher, as first he labeled Sotomayor an unacceptable “judicial activist,” then attacked her for following legal precedent in a reverse discrimination case – all in one segment. With video.

In the so-called "Great American Panel" segment, Hannity discounted those who thought it would be a political mistake to oppose Sotomayor's nomination. He said disdainfully, “Republicans should abandon every principle they have and accept a judicial activist!”

Then, a few minutes later, Hannity brought up the New Haven, CT reverse discrimination case, in which a group of 19 Caucasian firemen and one Hispanic fireman were not promoted after placing as top scorers after an exam. Fox's Ainsley Earhardt “investigated” the case from one side only (the plaintiffs' side) on an earlier Hannity show. Judge Sotomayor, a member of the Appellate Court that ruled on the case (it has since gone to the Supreme Court), was part of the unanimous decision to uphold the lower court ruling dismissing the firefighters' case. Funny how Hannity never complained about judicial activism in the rulings until now.

Democratic guest Julie Menin, a lawyer, told Hannity that Sotomayor had “applied the precedent” in that case.

But Hannity was so obsessed with painting Sotomayor as anti-white that he was suddenly for judicial activism. Ignoring Menin's response, Hannity pressed, “Why should (a white firefighter) pay the price for past wrongs and past injustices when he's not responsible?”

Menin answered, “Because prior precedent said...”

Hannity interrupted, “I'm not worried about...” He seemed as though he were about to say “prior precedent” but he caught himself and stopped.

As Menin continued by explaining that prior precedent gives cities the right to behave as New Haven did, Hannity asked, “Isn't that discrimination to end discrimination?” In other words, never mind the law, what Hannity's idea of justice trumped the law. According to Princeton University's WordNet, “judicial activism,” is defined as “an interpretation of the U.S. constitution holding that the spirit of the times and the needs of the nation can legitimately influence judicial decisions (particularly decisions of the Supreme Court).” That sounds exactly like what Hannity wanted.

“But he had a higher score!” Hannity protested. He went on to complain that it was “liberal logic” to say otherwise.

“You have to apply the precedent that's in front of you,” Menin said.

“They don't have to,” Hannity said. “A judge does not have to.”

“But then you're an activist,” Menin said.

Probably because he didn't have an answer for that, Hannity attacked Menin. “You don't believe in equal justice under the law and I do,” he said in his bullyboy voice.

Sure he does. That's why he repeatedly allows a regular guest to make bigoted comments about African Americans. That's why I have never seen a segment on Hannity about sentencing disparities. That's why even the Jena 6 case was presented as an issue of reverse racism against whites.