Sotomayor Nomination

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been nominated to succeed Justice Souter on the Supreme Court bench. Already the quotes are flying. Newsmax has embeded video of the arrogant statement about appeals courts making policy. Viewers can hear and see her telling "potential law clerks":

"court of appeals is where policy is made." "And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it ...".

Policy is made by the President, law is made by the Congress and interpreted by the courts. The quoted statement displays both arrogance and an attitude of judicial activism, both of which should militate against this nomination to the Supreme Court.

Issues of racism & sexism may be less directly related to the appointment, but they do reflect upon judicial temperament. The New York Times has an interesting quote and links to an article with more details. At U.C. Berkeley, in '01, Judge Sotomayor said this.

"While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society."

The issues of race & gender identity politics is clearly raised. So much for judicial objectivity.

"I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging."

The link above is to the fourth of five pages containing the transcript of the lecture. There is plenty of significant detail bearing on this issue; I encourage you to read it.

In the context of a law scholar's quote, attributed to Justice O'Conor (doubted by Sotomayor), she expresses disagreement with a statement that a wise old man and a wise old woman would come to the same conclusion. This quote comes from the fifth page of the transcript.

"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

With that, Judge Sotomayor threw objectivity out the window and took a firm stand on the race & gender platforms. The last two paragraphs give us a great deal to contemplate, including this.

"I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."

At the bottom of each page of the transcript, there is a menu linking to the other pages so that the two links I have furnished above give you access to the entire transcript. I encourage you to read it before advising your Senators how to vote on this nomination.

The ABA Journal has information about two of Sotomayor's important cases. If you have the motivation and patience to delve into her decisions, visit SCOTUS Blog.

Sphere: Related Content

Out of the Closet-A Sixteen Year Old Speaks

Most parents are abnormally prejudiced towards their children (smartest, prettiest, etc.) and I am no exception. Most parents also butt heads with their children over some things (pig-sty rooms, chores, music, etc.) and again, I am no exception.

However.

My sixteen year old and I have an interesting relationship. We butt heads quite a bit over some things, but overall, he's a pretty decent kid who has a habit of pleasantly surprising me at times. He hates long hair, preferring his hair be short (the longer it gets, the more curls he gets and he hates curls), his room to be spotless (how many sixteen year olds STEAM CLEAN their carpets ON THEIR OWN, regularly?), he does his own laundry and...wait for it...actually TALKS to me about things that matter.

On the other hand, he loves to fight with his sisters, teases the dog with his dirty socks (my sympathies lie with the dog), he can be extremely sullen, I hate his "music", his grades are disgraceful (I'm often called for conferences wherein he's insulted a teacher who has refused to answer his questions), he likes to drive fast and wants to put a turbo in my minivan (one reason he still has a permit and not a license) and likes to stay hidden in his room. He also claims to "hate" his nieces and nephew (although he becomes a human jungle gym, giggling and laughing with them any time we're visiting my oldest and her family).

This past school year, he got into some serious trouble both at home and at school. I literally kicked him out (he lived with my brother) and gave the school permission to search him at any time, unannounced. He was found to be carrying pot at school and in a quantity sufficient to be charged with dealing rather than personal use. In Arizona, this is a felony--particularly since it happened during a search at school and he had the drug on school grounds.

However, his principal refused to call the police. Because of his honesty (he is disgustingly honest), he only pulled a 5 day suspension and was allowed to return to school. He is the type of kid who, if you ask him something, will tell you the truth--but you have to know how to ask.

He pulled a book out of his backpack the other day, "Marijuana: The New Prohibition" by John Kaplan (written in 1969 and published in 1970). After all the trouble he had been in, he finally decided to do some research. He also--thinking it would be a way to irritate me--decided he is "politically liberal".

Then we had a long discussion, a question and answer discussion. I asked him why he thought he was a liberal and his answer was because he thinks pot should be legalized--the standard argument of pot vs. alcohol.

Rather than dwell on that particular aspect, I decided to ask him some questions regarding other political aspects, questions about taxation, government waste, duplicate agencies, that kind of thing. Did I happen to mention this kid has been tested repeatedly and continues to test at above-genius levels, even with his disgraceful grades? He also listens to conservative talk radio in the car where I have a captive audience while driving the kids to school and around with me on errands.

Out of the mouths of babes come the most incredible answers.

In our question and answer discussion, I used the example of government waste as far as street repair--how DOT often tears up a street, makes improvements, repaves, etc. and then, a short time later, has to re-do it all again and how that wastes money in the form of DOT, traffic disruption, etc. because DOT hasn't coordinated with the gas company or the water company or whatever and they all work together to get the job done at one time and together instead of tearing up the streets and re-doing them over and over again. His solution was there needed to be the implementation of a central computer where all agencies and utility companies coordinated the jobs together. I told him that's a great idea, but the money that could go into that kind of coordination has already been wasted in doing the same job over and over again in the pattern already set. Again, he responded with, well, then all jobs need to be put on hold until the computer system is in place and jobs can be coordinated, rather than continuing in such a wasteful manner.

I filed that answer away and went to the next topic, duplicate agencies. He stated he was for duplicate agencies in case one safety net failed. So I brought up the point of paying two sets of people to do the exact same job when they could be combined into a more streamlined agency and cut the deadwood. I also asked him who he thought paid for the duplicate agencies. He responded, well, the government pays for them. So I asked him where the government got the money to pay for them. He didn't know. When I explained to him the only way the government can pay anyone is through taxing those who work, from "you and me", he stopped and thought a good long time. Then he said, so you mean when I get a job (oh yes, he's actively looking for a job) the government is going to take money from me to pay these people? I said YES. Well, in his mind, that's just not fair for the government to take his money he earned and give it out to people.

I said welcome to the working world. By funding duplicate agencies, agencies doing exactly the same thing, paying people to do exactly the same job, the government takes YOUR money. He decided it would be better if there were a way to combine and streamline the duplicate agencies instead of having a duplicate safety net.

On to the next topic--the difference in liberalism and conservatism in taxation and fiscal responsibility. I explained liberals like to have all kinds of government programs to "help" those who refuse to get a job of their own and in order to fund those programs we go back to taxation. Conservatives like to keep taxes low and not fund as many programs, essentially forcing people to do for themselves. His response was absolutely priceless.

He decided it would be a good idea to give a "survey" to each person as they registered to vote, actually make it a part of the voter registration process, to clarify where each person stood on basic issues. Hey, these are his words, people. Then, he said, each year when budgets come up, for those who are staunchly in favor of all the government programs (based upon their answers to the survey when they registered to vote), tax THEM more since they want to fund things so badly and tax those who want less government LESS--for those who want big government so badly, let THEM pay for it, don't make everyone pay for what THEY want.

Again, I filed his response away.

Then, he pulled out the book I mentioned above and he read me a passage. Here is that passage, from the Preface (all emphasis mine):

Marijuana to some is the symbol of yet another strain in our society--that of radicalism. Like most of the other symbolic aspects of marijuana use, the nexus is not a completely irrational one. When marijuana use was just becoming a middle-class phenomenon, around the beginning of the sixties, the first middle class users of the drug tended to be far more radical politically than their fellows, perhaps because they were so alienated from society that they could ignore one of its most severe criminal laws. And though, as marijuana use became more widespread, the ranks of the users came to include every political persuasion, it is still true that on the average, middle-class marijuana-users are considerably more likely to be liberal, just as they are more likely to have no formal religion and to come from wealthier and better-educated families.


In any event, regardless of whether it is in fact true, many people connect the willingness to use marijuana in defiance of society's dictates with a willingness to overthrow the established institutions of that society.

That would seem to explain the Hillary's and their love of communism, the leftist liberal bastions of society (such as the majority of our universities), Code Pink, and most of the democratic party not to mention all the treasonists and seditionists this country is faced with.

My son had to think long and hard after our conversation--it's not easy to believe yourself to be a so-called enlightened liberal in defiance of your conservative mom only to be shown to be just as conservative when the mirror is held up to your beliefs and you're forced to face your true feelings. Poor kid, I could almost feel sorry for him.

Take a kid out of the cocoon of public education and he comes out of the closet as a conservative. If it starts with just one, there may be hope for this country yet.

Also posted at Real Clear Politics here and Grizzly Groundswell here.

Sphere: Related Content

An International Embarrassment

Identity Politics...Downfall of America; An International Embarrassment

This right here is too funny in a not so funny way. It isn't funny as far as a HAHA is funny. It is funny in that the Leftinistra are whining...AGAIN! Funny as in, WTF? Funny as in, this is not known? Funny as in, you have got to be kidding me!

Read on.

From Slate:

The Los Angeles Times leads with a look at how the partisan wrangling between lawmakers in Congress has been escalating since Democrats took control and reached a high point last week. Although there was much condemnation of all this infighting, both sides have been turning up the heat, figuring "they have more to gain by warring with their rivals than by working with them." Everyone has much to lose from the deadlock but few expect the mood to change when Congress comes back, particularly since Iraq will be at the forefront again.

Get a load of this headliner:
Los Angeles Times

Partisanship serves parties' interests

And the sub-title is this:

The GOP sees more advantage in disrupting congressional business, and Democrats see no incentive to accommodate the minority.

OK. First off. What is "wrong" with the image running through your mind as you read the title and sub-title? The quote? If you are a closed-mind moonbat, you will readily proclaim the verbiage to be The Truth. If you are someone like...say...me, you will read that and laugh scornfully and proclaim, "So what else is knew?" Someone like me would proclaim the verbiage as "This Is Bull!"

Simply amazing.

For years and years and years and years, since the time of Carter and the few years before him, the Leftinistra have used their badgering techniques on the GOP types that have always maintained or worked hard at maintaining, civil discourse. This has been The Way up until recent years...more so currently.

The GOP Conservatives have FINALLY started to fight fire with fire and some have even taken their gloves off. We can no longer afford to play nice-nice. So, now, it is called "partisanship" when what it really is, and putting it bluntly, is the attitude of STFU! And here is why.

THIS IS MY GUT CALL BASED ON LIFE'S EXPERIENCE...so don't give me a ration of crap because MY gloves have been off for decades and I will trounce and pounce with no mercy. At this point, mercy is tantamount to a stay at Bellevue.

The Democrats MAY have run on the platform of "bring the troops home" but I don't believe that for one minute. I believe that in their heart of hearts, they KNOW that we cannot just walk away, no matter what you call it and the manner of which the "walk out" is termed. It is suicide for the Iraqis and Americans for aeons to come. The Battle MUST be won and THEY KNOW IT!

I believe that they used their moonobat base to win elections in close states in 11/06. They called it "a new direction" in Iraq. They KNEW as most of us knew then as we STILL know now, the then in place ROE was as retarded as Forest Gump. I know it. You know it and so did they. The new direction demanded by the American people was a VICTORY. They knew it. You know it. And so did I. Many conservatives...the hard-core ones and the moderate ones, stayed home. Had they showed up to vote, we would not be in the predicament of which we find the political bodies in at the moment.

The blathered and bantering about of The Vaunted democratic Party has gotten this country where, exactly? Exactly no where? Correct. We are right smack down in the middle of THE WORST Congressioanal Session if the history of this country. The all so hated GWB has OVER 10 times the approval rating as does the Democratic Party led "majority". CONgress has sunk to an all-time low all because the DNC LIED to the base about The War In Iraq.

When you strip down all the rhetoric; when you take the time to dissect the words spoken to various groups across the country from the Politicos; there is no way on God's Green earth that anybody in their right mind is going to pull troops out of Iraq before the job is done.

Anybody that has a head on their shoulders that are of sound mind knows beyond a shadow of a doubt that a "political solution" is NOT possible without a military victory. Cases in point; WWI, WWII, Vietnam, Korea, Grenada, Contra-Sandinista, Kosovo, to name a few. There are more examples.

WWI and WWII and Grenada; political solutions came AFTER the war was won.

Vietnam; "political solutions" lost that war.

Korea; "political solutions" wrought a "tie"...the area, to this day is STILL at war. The war was NEVER settled. The declared war on the South by the North and the declared war on the North by the South has NEVER been rescinded. This is the longest cease fire in history.

Grenada; "political solutions" came AFTER the smallest war in history was won.

Kosovo; "political solutions" have not worked because the war is on-going.

Contra-Sandinista; your guess is as good as mine.

Now, they, the Democrats and RINOs, are using the moonbat base in the SAME way and we see how the KOSmonoffs' convention was a flop if not a total waste of time, effort and money. Just look at the "conflict" taking place between The Fraud Sheehan and The Fraud Pelosi! Pelosi has stated that impeachment of GWB and Cheney will NOT happen. Censure will NOT happen. Why? Because they did NOT A THING to warrant it but it sure does excite the moonbat base.

Look at the "conflict" going on between the top three muts of the DNC. Edwards whines about "they want to shut me up" and Barack said he wants to nuke Pakistan and Hillary says she will bring the troops home. Please. The irony of the ultimate poli-speak jargon is oh so sadly comical.

Keeping the issues simple is the easiest way but it doesn't win elections.

If the Democrats, that KNOW their rhetoric is disingenuous at the minimum would tell their moonbat base to "go to your corners and don't get up until we tell you to" and if the Republicans would clean up their act, The War In Iraq would have been won LONG ago...like 1991.

Rant to be continued I am sure...

Sphere: Related Content