"New concerns are being aired about Judge Sonia Sotomayor, considered one of the front-runners for the U.S. Supreme Court seat held by retiring Justice David H. Souter, and Exhibit A is likely to be a 2005 speech she made at Duke University," writes Debra Weiss at the ABA Journal.

More from Weiss:

In the taped speech, Sotomayor said, "All of the legal defense funds out there, they're looking for people with court of appeals experience" because "the court of appeals is where policy is made." [emphasis added] Sotomayor then tried to backtrack, saying, "I know this is on tape and I should never say that, because we don't make law, I know. Um, okay. I know. I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it."

Here is video of Sotomayor's comments in favor of legal activism, her attempts to put the activist toothpaste back into the judicial toothpaste tube notwithstanding.

This episode confirms what fair-minded observers have long noted: Secularists and statists rely on courts to create law and impose private, subjective political agendas that contradict the Founding documents and the Founding vision of United States. It's a disaster.

The extremist and authoritarian views Sotomayor advances are a direct assault on the American experiment in liberty.

It should be clear that no president who respects our constitutional system of checks and balances, who respects the separation of powers, should even entertain the possible nomination of such a misguided -- and misguiding -- person for nomination to the High Court.

You can try to sugar-coat this, especially if a judge happens to "empathize" with your particular passion or your group's political passion currently before the court.

But judicial activism is: Legal Tyranny.

It's an offense to any freedom-minded person -- and not just to "conservatives," by the way, as the Weiss article might be read to suggest. And if judicial activism is what Sotomayor currently practices in her court, she's a tryant, not a judge.

Let Sonia Sotomayor withdraw her name from consideration for the High Court. If she wants to make law, the field is wide open: Run for office. If Obama can't wait for the American people to vet her and he wants the judge to make policy now, put her in the White House.

But not on the Court. Please, do you mind? Keep your tyranny off our Constitution.