Judge Sonia Sotomayor is far more qualified to be on the Supreme Court than is Chief Justice John Roberts — “America’s Dishonest Umpire”.
At his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice Roberts said that “judges are like umpires, simply calling balls and strikes, but not defining the strike zone”. Roberts has said that judges don’t make the rules of law, but merely interpret them.
However, in the four years that Roberts has been on the Supreme Court, he has ruled in every single case in favor of the power structure — in favor of employers over employees, prosecutors over defendants, corporations over consumers — totally, unanimously, 100% — without exception.
If an “impartial umpire” ever called every single pitch in favor of the Home Team and against the Visitors, most people would undoubtedly conclude that this umpire was “on the take”, that this umpire was “bribed”, that this umpire was the opposite of impartial, that this umpire was voting his own personal prejudices and totally not trying to honestly apply the rules of the game.
How does Chief Justice Roberts’ record on the Supreme Court compare to his confirmation hearing rhetoric?
Judge Sotomayor does not rule in exactly the same way in every single case, regardless of the facts of the particular situation. She applies the law to the facts of each specific case. Judge Sotomayor is much more of an “umpire”, and far more qualified to be on the Supreme Court, than is Chief Justice “Robot” Roberts.