¡Ay, caramba! Supreme Sotomayor

We’ve just received the wonderful news that Justice Anthony Kennedy will be “retiring” (i.e. he’s on the verge of death and his mental faculties probably abandoned him years ago) from the Supreme Court. This gives President Trump the opportunity to appoint a new white male that could possibly help right some wrongs. Judging by the J-Left freak-out, it should be a done deal. The only roadblock would be if senate Republicans feel helpless enough to strike a one-sided gentleman’s agreement with Chuck Schumer. In that case, the matter will have to wait until after the midterm elections.

If they are considering staying on the path of total loserdom, it would be helpful to take a look at a recent ruling to consider the consequences. The Right has been celebrating the court’s 5-4 decision to uphold Trump’s cosmetic Muslim travel ban, Presidential Proclamation 9645. However, the “wise Latina” proffered a rather revealing dissenting opinion.

Justice Sonya Sotomayor lectured that “History will not look kindly on the court’s misguided decision” because it was “turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering the Proclamation inflicts on countless families”. If that wasn’t sufficient proof of its unconstitutionality, she further asserted that “a reasonable observer would conclude that the Proclamation was motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

The absurdity of citing the “the right side of history” and the feelings of someone from a distant dusty land as valid reasons to nullify authority specifically granted to the President by the Constitution isn’t really the point. Neither is defining a desire to inhibit Islamic terrorism as “animus”. The point is that to a wise Latina, the Constitution itself is pointless. She might as well cite a couple of recipes for fajitas, it doesn’t really matter.

There are constitutions defining governance from the Rio Grande all the way down to Tierra del Fuego, a vast expanse where wise Latinas abound. However, south of our non-border, disputes of the constitutional variety are settled by whatever sum of money that you and a cop/judge/politician agree upon. If a financial settlement to the satisfaction of both parties cannot be reached, then there’s always a bullet. “Plata O Polmo?” I believe that’s how Christopher Columbus phrased it.

Latinos don’t get hung up on matters of principle (especially somebody else’s). Our thing is simply not their thing. In fact, our pesky principles could interfere with their favorite pastimes, like driving drunk on the wrong side of a highway or raping one of their nieces. If they got bogged down by principles, how could they import their extended families to come live off of our tax dollars? Indeed, principles are the White Man’s Burden.

The US Constitution was written by our forbearers to guide the conduct of a nation comprised of their descendants. Concordantly, the average white man gets exasperated when it’s applied in precisely the opposite manner in which it was intended, and consistently to his detriment. Because we share their genetics, we can also to some degree understand their mentality. That’s why the perversion of our patrimony feels so infuriating. The same reaction cannot be elicited from other demographics. For example, to most whites, it’s a document meant for our well-being, but to the average Jew, it’s simply a weapon to be wielded against us.

The refusal to recognize this lack of shared outlook seems utterly lost on Conservatism, Inc. That’s a big reason why it’s the most impotent political force currently in existence. In a sense, Conservatives complaining about how Ascendants could be good Americans if they’d just embrace constitutional principles is like some hapless loser whining about how his wife’s son doesn’t share any of his hobbies. Neither party would get a clue if you forged it out of lead and used it to relieve them of their teeth.