You don't get the govenment you want, you get the government you deserve
While President Obama was touting his “Beer Summit”, Sgt. Leon Lashley of the Cambridge, MA Police Dept. penned a letter to Obama and Prof. Henry Louis Gates. He asked his friend and colleague, Sgt. Jimmy Crowely to personally deliver the letter for him at the White House Happy Hour. If ever there was a teaching moment on race relations in our nation, it was provided by Sgt. Lashley. Everyone should pay attention to his words.
Maybe Republican Senators should take off the kid gloves and, as they say, “grow a pair”. Sonia Sotomayor has an established and documented judicial record, which puts her in conflict with our Constitution on many issues. For those Republican Senators to give her a free pass in the hopes of Democrats returning the favor at some future date is an injustice to the constituent who elected them to office.
Fred Thompson hit the nail on the head when he stated,
…For some time now everyone has understood the name of the game: Take as much off the table as possible as inappropriate for discussion. Then, dance around the rest. When you get a question that you’re expected to answer, try to sound as knowledgeable as possible, but play for time and never say anything committee members would find objectionable.
So the process is basically for the purpose of giving the nominee the opportunity to commit a gaffe of other unforced error. Then the nominee may be denied confirmation, not so much for their lack of qualifications or even their judicial philosophy, but for their not being clever of artful enough to win the game.
I would suggest that for a person to be judged on the basis of a few days of practiced, self-serving comments iand obfuscation, instead of their entire life and record is absurd. And to think that their service on the Supreme Court would be consistent with their statements before a committee they will likely never sit before again, instead of their record is inconsistent with both logic and experience…
The concern over Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation are not just coming from conservatives. Liberal law professor Louis Michael Seidman called her out for pretending to believe in something no liberal in good standing does: the ability of judges to apply the law to the facts before them. He decried her hypocrisy:
I was completely disgusted by Judge Sotomayor’s testimony today. If she was not perjuring herself, she is intellectually unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. If she was perjuring herself, she is morally unqualified. How could someone who has been on the bench for seventeen years possibly believe that judging in hard cases involves no more than applying the law to the facts? First year law students understand within a month that many areas of the law are open textured and indeterminate-that the legal material frequently (actually, I would say always) must be supplemented by contestable presuppositions, empirical assumptions, and moral judgments. To claim otherwise-to claim that fidelity to uncontested legal principles dictates results-is to claim that whenever Justices disagree among themselves, someone is either a fool or acting in bad faith. What does it say about our legal system that in order to get confirmed Judge Sotomayor must tell the lies that she told today? That judges and justices must live these lies throughout their professional careers?
Perhaps Justice Sotomayor should be excused because our official ideology about judging is so degraded that she would sacrifice a position on the Supreme Court if she told the truth. Legal academics who defend what she did today have no such excuse. They should be ashamed of themselves.
The makeup of our Supreme Court will likely determine if we will continue to be a Constitutional Republic. The Senate, especially Republicans, should do their sworn duty and soundly reject Judge Sotomayor.
The Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, begin today. The big question is not whether she is or is not qualified to sit on the bench of our nation’s highest court, for clearly she is not, but whether the Senate Republicans will fulfill their sworn duthies and block her confirmation. From all indications, it is more probable that they will sheepishly bow to President Obama’s nominee in quest of future political capital. This is a mistake that America will pay for for decades.
The Washington Times has reviewed Ms. Sotomayor’s legal resume as a judge. It is a collection of troubling decisions that should cause concern for all that believe in the sanctity of our Constitution.
The Senate Judiciary Committee today opens hearings on the most radical Supreme Court nominee in memory. Despite her compelling story of personal accomplishment, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has proved by her own words and actions that she is unfit for the nation’s highest court.
On gun rights, we learn from U.S. v. Sanchez-Villar that Judge Sotomayor sees no “fundamental right” at issue. On property rights, we learn from Didden v. Village of Port Chester that she thinks a town can seize land from its owner to give to another private developer for the same basic purpose, without a public hearing. (She also ruled, bizarrely, that the original owner would have had to sue before the land was even seized in order to meet the statute of limitations.)
On abortion, the New York Times describes Judge Sotomayor as “an involved and ardent” supporter of the legal efforts of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while serving 12 years on its board — efforts that included repeatedly filing suits arguing that government should not “in any way restrict” abortion “rights.” The group argued that the Constitution mandates that public funds must be made available for abortions and that states cannot require parental notification or consent, informed consent or waiting periods. Those radical positions are outside the mainstream of American public opinion, and they put her more in favor of unrestricted abortions than is Justice David H. Souter, whom she would replace on the Supreme Court.
On voting privileges, Judge Sotomayor ruled in Hayden v. Pataki that currently imprisoned murderers and rapists have a constitutional right to vote. On racial discrimination, she ruled in Ricci v. DeStefano that firefighters who earned a promotion can be denied the promotion merely because they are white. On lawsuit abuse, we learn from Merrill Lynch v. Dabit that she can be so biased in favor of jackpot justice that a unanimous Supreme Court — liberals included — slapped her down.
On environmental issues, Judge Sotomayor seems to think deleterious economic effects of regulations should be ignored. The Supreme Court reversed Judge Sotomayor 6-3 in Entergy Corp. v. EPA, when she tried to force the Environmental Protection Agency to ignore the economic costs of superstrict regulation of water use at power plants.
Finally, in several cases, the Supreme Court has unanimously castigated Judge Sotomayor’s legal reasoning even when some of the judges have agreed with her results.
We know from The Washington Post that experts say Judge Sotomayor often pushes right up to the edge of propriety in exhaustively second-guessing the fact-finding of lower court judges. However, from our own analysis, when her decisions are particularly controversial and unpopular, she tends to hide behind short, perfunctory orders that avoid serious discussion of the constitutional issues involved.
From numerous speeches, public appearances and writings, all read in context, we know that Judge Sotomayor believes that:
- Objectivity, impartiality and neutrality are virtually impossible.
- It is a “public myth” that law should be consistent and predictable.
- Judges are justified if they “choose to see” only certain facts and not others.
- A judge’s ethnic and gender identity can determine which facts are chosen.
- Appeals courts (not just legislatures or governors/presidents) are where “policy is made,” and judges are justified on their own in “push[ing] the law in a new direction.”
- American judges should take foreign law and opinions into account in their legal analysis so as to “cobble together a culture of justice-seeking” and not “lose influence in the world.”
- Most infamously, “inherent physiological and cultural differences” help ensure that a “wise Latina … would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male.”
From top to bottom, this record is extremely troubling. In an interview with The Washington Times on Friday, Sen. Jeff Sessions, Alabama Republican, put it all into perspective:
“The thing that overrides all of this is the president’s stated view that a judge should show empathy in deciding cases. That’s not a legal standard. It’s more politics than law, and [Judge Sotomayor's] speeches seem to go in that direction, perhaps even further so than the president. At the core of what we’ll be talking about is whether or not this judge will be committed to objectivity and impartiality in the conduct of the office. I think it’s a modern legal heresy that personal background and experiences can legitimately impact a decision of a court.”
Mr. Sessions is as correct as correct can be. That’s ample reason to defeat the nomination of this impressive woman, who is a demonstrably bad judge.
The left is already trying to discredit any opposition to Ms. Sotomayor. As Michelle Malkin points out, one of the targets is Frank Ricci, the lead plaintiff in the Connecticut firefighters’ discrimination case. Stand by for a masive display of Chicago style politics.
In their quest to save the world, enviro-wackos who tend to act before they think, have created a worldwide toxic hazard. Our own EPA and Obama Administration have wholeheartedly jumped on board, and as the Washington Times reports, there is cause for great concern.
What’s lit up isn’t a great idea
If you use fluorescent bulbs, says EPA, you will need an evacuation plan in the event of a break. “Have people and pets leave the room, and don’t let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out,” says EPA’s directive. “Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system if you have one.”
When you can safely return, says EPA, start throwing away your belongings. “If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or the bedding should be thrown away,” says the directive.
Never clean any washable thing — no matter how costly or sentimentally valued — if it has been near a broken fluorescent bulb. “Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage,” says the directive. Imagine: The mercury in these bulbs is so bad it is bad for your sewage…
And just how much will breaking one of these CFLs cost you to cleanup in your home? Fox News covers the story of one family’s costly encounter with a CFL,
How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.
Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia.
According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.
Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.
More and more the attempts to “green” the world are coming at a high cost, whether in dollars, or as in this instance living with highly toxic hazardous materials in your home. Perhaps the grand plan for greening the planet is sending humans into extinction.
America is at a crossroads, facing a choice between a government enriching itself and one that seeks to empower the people. I’m running for U.S. Senate to uphold the great tradition of passing down to the next generation a stronger and more prosperous America than the one I grew up in. Join us and stand with our movement to renew America through the power of conservative principles.
The Obama Administration continues to placate pacifist anti-war supporters and in doing so, places our nation at greater risk. The notion that unlawful enemy combatants captured on the battlefield must be advised of their Miranda rights, further proves that the Obama Administration, and President Obama in particular, are incapable of prosecutuing a successful war against terrorists. Yesterday during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney General David Kris stated that these terrorists are entitled to protection under the U.S. Constitution.
At a Senate hearing Tuesday on the use of military commissions to prosecute terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay, some members of the Armed Services Committee took offense at the Obama administration’s view that the detainees should have the same legal protections under the Constitution as U.S. citizens.
Ranking member Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) questioned Assistant Attorney General David Kris about his remarks on the appropriateness of administering the Miranda warning to terrorist suspects captured abroad. “It is the administration’s view that there is a serious risk that courts would hold that admission of involuntary statements of the accused in military commission proceedings is unconstitutional,” Kris said in his opening statement.
“Does that infer that these individuals have constitutional rights?” McCain asked Kris.
“Ah, yes,” Kris answered.
“What are those constitutional rights of people who are not citizens of the United States of America, who were captured on a battlefield committing acts of war against the United States?” McCain asked.
“Our analysis, Senator, is that the due process clause applies to military commissions and imposes a constitutional floor on the procedures that the government sets on such commissions …” Kris said.
“So you are saying that these people who are at Guantanamo, who were part of 9/11, who committed acts of war against the United States, have constitutional rights under the Constitution of the United States of America?” McCain asked.
“Within the framework I just described, the answer is yes, the due process clause guarantees and imposes some requirements on the conduct of (military) commissions,” Kris said.
Until we have a Commander in Chief who can grasp the reality of the enemy we are facing, the men and women we send into battle will continue to be handicapped by bureaucrats and politicians. For all of the screaming by the Left during the Bush Administration that this war is another Viet Nam, they sure as hell are attempting their best LBJ impersonation.
Apparently, CA Assembly Speaker, Karen Bass believes that the voice of dissent is an act of terrorism. In an in terview with the Los Angles Times on Saturday, Ms. Bass expressed her opinions about conservative talk radio critics.
Q: How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?
A: The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.
Quite a profound statement and telling statement, which gives insight to either her lack of understanding, or her total disregard for The First Amendment. But, the next question and answer also shed light on Ms. Bass and her politics.
Q: Do you get especially exasperated when your own people — Democrats — don’t agree with you?
A: You know, I was a community activist, so I’m used to standing out in front of an elected official’s office and protesting.
A community activist, the first cousin of the community organizer. Hmm, where have we seen this scenario? So, as a community activist, dissent whether by protest or speech, was just fine with Ms. Bass. Just make sure you’re on her side of the debate. it certainly seems that Ms. Bass is emulating the political tactics of the Obama Administration. SignOnSanDiego.com has a list of reasons why Ms. Bass’ attitude is “mind-boggling”,
This is mind-boggling for many reasons. The short list:
1. It is anti-democratic to liken criticism of elected officials and organized, peaceful attempts to hold them accountable for their decisions to “terrorism.” Bass would prefer a state full of sheep who just dutifully accept tax hikes and union payoffs. Earth to Karen: This is a democracy. If you want an obedient public, move to Pyongyang.
2. The “terrorism” remark makes the utterly idiotic presumption that conservative talk-radio hosts are the only reason there is anti-tax sentiment in California. Earth to Karen Bass: Voters of all parties don’t like tax hikes. Measure 1A failed in San Francisco, for God’s sake. Talk about being in a bubble. Karen Bass and George W. Bush: peas in a pod.
3. The “terrorism” remark is pathetic on a personal level. Karen Bass’ biggest critics are two talk-radio conservatives in her hometown, John & Ken of KFI-640 in Los Angeles. Instead of just trotting out the usual cliches used to knock such hosts — they just want to create controversy to boost their ratings, etc. — she calls them “terrorists.” This is obnoxious. It’s a lot closer to hate speech than what John & Ken are doing to Republican turncoats like Anthony Adams.
4. Finally, it could not be more obvious that Bass (and her interviewer, too) think she has firm grasp on the moral high ground.
This from an elected official who went along with blatantly dishonest ballot language on Prop. 1A hiding its $16 billion in new taxes.
This from an elected official who lets union leaders write legislation so it prevents fraud from being investigated in huge programs staffed by private union members.
This from an elected official whose party blocked attempts to let hundreds of thousands of needy families use the Internet to sign their kids up for free state health care because it might have led to the loss of jobs for clerks in county welfare offices.
This from an elected official whose party has blocked almost every last single education reform over the past decade except the one — classroom-size reduction — that vastly increased the size of the California Teachers Association. (And hasn’t worked.)
This from an elected official whose party blocked attempts to stop sleazy lawyers from using nuisance lawsuits alleging violations of trivial state rules to extort small businesses, especially those run by minorities with poor English skills.
I could go on and on and on in this vein. I could also offer at least 80 harsh adjectives to describe Bass’ repellent remarks. But I will settle for this conclusion:
Karen Bass should be ashamed. Likening people who loudly object to the Sacramento status quo to terrorists is as obnoxious and contemptible as it gets.
When it comes to Obamacare, it appears what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander. In another, “let’s rush this legislation through before they find out what’s in it” campaign to nationalize health care, the Democrats are banking on the public not knowing what is contained in this legislation. Unions are being exempted from compliance due “contractual obligations”, and as John Fund explains in the Wall Street Journal Online, Congress won’t be bound by these new laws.
Beware Obamacare’s Fine Print
Congress’s Health Care Double Standard
In a desperate scramble to pay for the soaring costs of President Obama’s health care plan, the Senate Finance Committee is contemplating taxing for the first time the health insurance benefits workers get from their employers. One approach would tax the benefits only of workers earning over $100,000. An alternate proposal would tax the value of health care benefits that exceed a cap.
But the taxes wouldn’t be applied equally. Union members serving under collective bargaining agreements would be exempt, even though they often have the richest and most extensive packages of benefits. Union officials have told Democratic leaders of Congress that because collective bargaining agreements can last several years, they should be exempt from any tax because contracts can’t be changed quickly enough to avoid it.
The real reason, of course, is that unions have political clout and are exercising it. The exemption is “a means of making sure that unions are foursquare behind any reform bill that comes out,” Henry Aaron, a Brookings Institution scholar, told the Washington Examiner.
There’s a reason the Obama health care plan is being rushed through Congress this summer — because the American people would likely never support it if given time to absorb and understand such fine print. If the union carve-out isn’t sufficient to excite public anger, wait till you hear about the version of the Obama plan prepared by Senator Edward Kennedy, which would specifically exempt Members of Congress from many of its provisions.
As the U.S. Office of Personnel Management notes, Members of Congress “enjoy the widest selection of health plans in the country.” According to page 114 of the Kennedy bill, a similar array of choices would not be available to other Americans in the future. Instead, they would be shunted into health insurance plans under the straightjacket of whatever the government decides is a “basic” plan.
The goal would be to restrict care for the general public in order to control costs, while making sure Congress gets the gold-plated attention it’s accustomed to. Ultimately, the rest of us would be asked to trade a private insurance company as gatekeeper for a government gatekeeper. The difference, of course, is that most of us can fire our insurance gatekeeper. Just try to do that once the government fills that role.
–John Fund
Just as a leopard can’t change his spots, Barack Obama has now shown just how little regard he has for our men and women in uniform. As reported by Matt Burden at BlackFive, here are the details,
David Borden Jr. was wounded in Iraq on January 19, 2008. A suicide bomber rushed him and detonated, and Borden was hit by over 200 pieces of shrapnel. He lost right leg (below the knee) and his left arm was severely damaged. He was in a coma for over a month…
…According to the email below from his father, David Borden (Sr.), David Jr. had an uninspiring visit from the President of the United States:
Since Dave Jr. has been injured he has met and been overwhelmed by many, many political and military “celebs”. The list includes Bob Gates, Sec. of Defense, who came into his room and told him 3 or 4 times that if Dave Jr. had any issues to call his cell phone number. It includes Gen. Petereus who sat and talked with Dave Jr. for almost 45 minutes. The General recalled vividly all of the circumstances around the events that led to fighting that Dave was involved in. It includes Sen. McCain who arrived late on a Saturday afternoon during a thunder storm, unannounced, and talked to Dave Jr. about how similar their experiences with fate. It includes George Bush when Dave Jr. was invited to attend the very last Christmas party at the White House for the White House Staff. President Bush and his wife entered the ballroom and immediately went to Dave Jr.. President Bush knew Dave Jr.’s name as well as when and how he was injured. Dave Jr. had a picture taken with Laura and the President that he has framed and ill cherish forever. The list goes on and on of people coming in to meet Dave Jr. and the other wounded warriors at Walter Reed and Bethesda.
Yesterday. Dave Jr. was ordered to be at the National Naval Hospital with another 12 soldiers and Marines to meet with Obama. Obama was supposed to arrive at 11:30 AM. He finally got there at 3:00 PM. He entered the room with the wounded warriors and quickly shook each of their hands. He never asked their names, where they were from, or how they were injured. Then he left.
Dave Jr. has met the people who really care about the military. All he remembers from Obama is a weak handshake. The others in the room, younger and less exposed to the people that Dave Jr. has met, were so disappointed. Word about Obama’s “insensitive” visit has spread to the MATC ( the rehab facility) at Walter Reed and throughout Bethesda. The military sees through his phoniness.
All I can say is that it is such a disappointment that this man is Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces. He is an embarrassment to our Nation.
Regards,
Dave
Someone in the Obama Administration must have checked the list that said you must visit the wounded troops. This will damage the morale of the troops and undermine his authority as Commander in Chief, two things you really don’t want happening while at war. Now I’ll wait for the, “it’s all Bush’s fault” defense.
