Judging From Their History Dems Should Be OK With A Delay
Feb 17, 2016 2016 Election, Tyranny
A lot has been going on since Justice Scalia died over the weekend. The liberal left celebrated his death and mocked his life and the job he did in the Supreme Court. They mocked him because he had the audacity to actually use the Constitution when he interpreted law instead of using his feelings or his partisan beliefs like say, Ginsberg, Kagan or Sotomayor.
Barack Obama and Democrats in the Senate, smelling blood in the water and not wanting to let an opportunity to give the court a liberal majority, made demands of Republicans who, thank goodness, hold the majority in the Senate. These Democrats demanded that the Republicans make sure Obama’s nominee gets a shot. They basically want a rubber stamp for whichever left wing socialist America hater Obama nominates.
Republicans, so far, are having none of it. They want to wait and let the next president make the nomination.
The Democrats have a point (besides the ones on top their heads) in that the president, under the Constitution, has a duty to nominate. We can ignore for a moment that Obama has never abided by his duty under the Constitution and focus on what they want. They want Obama to nominate and that nomination not to be blocked.
They seem to forget that the Constitution also says that the president nominates with the advice and consent of the Senate. So the Senate has to consent and they do this by voting yes or no. Obama can put forth all the nominations he wants but there is nothing wrong with voting no on each and every one of them.
Democrats would have you believe this is out of the ordinary and unprecedented but our history shows it has been done before and that one vacancy existed for over two years because the Senate and president did not see eye to eye.
Now that was a long time ago but blocking nominees has happened in the recent past. Hell, Chuck Schumer, a guy who looks like his neck threw up, vowed that any vacancy in the Court that happened during George W Bush’s lame duck term would be blocked. Schumer made this declaration 19 months before Bush’s term would end. No vacancy came up but it was already out there that if one did no nominee would be considered.
In 1960 Democrats passed a resolution that presidents could not nominate during an election year.
Many Democrats now screaming for the vacancy to be filled have records of voting against nominations and of holding up the process. So the reality is there is no reason for Republicans to give in and allow Obama to get another liberal on the SCOTUS.
If they do not like it well that’s just too bad.
But if he does nominate anyone I think it would be reasonable to expose their entire life, make a mockery of their judicial experience, chastise them for their views, pick apart their judicial opinions, and generally make their life and the lives of their family miserable until they decide to withdraw from consideration.
Oh how horrible!
Two words, Robert Bork.
Now liberals, please quit your whining and sit back and accept that which you were so willing to do when you were in the majority.
And Republicans, do not give in to these morons. Mitch McConnell, you have a history of caving to Obama. If you do then you can rest assured you will lose control of the Senate and Trump will likely be the nominee for the Republican Party. Screw us over and we will strike back.
Do not let Barack Obama get another young liberal partisan hack on the court so the rest of us will be forced to live with their anti-American decisions for decades to come.
It is time to sack up and fight.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: delay, ginsberg, kagan, liberals, lies, nominee, Obama, scalia, scotus, sotomayor
Supreme Politics Of Personal Destruction
Jul 13, 2009 Political
This week the conformation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor will begin in what will certainly be a media circus. Sotomayor has a lot of explaining to do with regard to remarks she made about a wise Latina making better decisions than a white man. She also has a few questionable associations that must be dealt with. When all is said and done there is no way 40 Republicans can stop her from being confirmed unless Teddy Kennedy is too sick to vote and Robert Byrd has not made it back from his recent illness.
Sotomayor has a few strikes against her and with Harriet Miers like numbers she will have a tough road but she will eventually be confirmed. She will not change the make up of the court even though she is an activist judge who uses her position to address social issues rather than the law.
He recent decision in the Ricci case was overturned by the Supreme Court and it will be one of the topics covered. Frank Ricci is scheduled to be called as a witness. He is the white firefighter who filed a lawsuit for discrimination. The Supreme Court agreed with him that he and all the others who passed the promotion exam were discriminated against contrary to what Sotomayor’s opinion in the case.
The outcome of this is that groups supporting Sotomayor are targeting Ricci. They are working on destroying his reputation by digging into the two other workplace lawsuits he has filed. The bash patrol will try to discredit him so that the bad decision by Sotomayor is ignored while everyone focuses on Ricci and his work history. This is the politics of personal destruction. Ricci is the bad guy because he dared to stand up for his rights and he dared to win and make a liberal judge look like a rookie.
We have seen the politics of destruction with Joe the Plumber. He asked a question that caused Obama to disclose his true intent of redistributing the wealth in this nation. Instead of focusing on that issue the media and several elected officials went after Joe. Some elected officials committed crimes in order to discredit him and the media worked overtime in order to paint him in a bad light while protecting Obama. Joe was harassed endlessly because he dared to ask the sainted one a question. The answer might be one of the reasons Obama is always using a teleprompter. He needs to keep focused on telling you what he wants you to hear while masking his real intent. Off the cuff answers leave him vulnerable.
I am expecting some heated debate in this confirmation process. This woman needs to be hammered about her racist remarks (I have called her a racist for making them but whether she is a racist remains to be seen. The comment though, was a racist one) and she needs to hammered about her associations. She belonged to a women only club. I don’t care because I think people should be able to belong to whatever kind of club they want but judges nominated by Republican presidents seem to be taken to task for such associations by the likes of Ted Kennedy, of all people.
I want the Republicans to bloody her up. I want all of her dirty laundry aired in public and I want the Republicans to be ruthless. We need to live up to the standard that Democrats have established. In an ideal world we could keep her from being confirmed and maybe some procedural thing will make that a reality.
However, it looks like she will eventually be confirmed. I hope it is not until well after the carcass of her career has been picked clean.
Anyone want to bet that the Democrats will treat Ricci with hostility?
As an aside, I find it interesting reading all the liberals who want her confirmed. They complain about Republicans smearing her and that she should just be voted on and sent to the Court. It is funny that they don’t feel this way when a Republican nominee is on the hot seat. Then it is smear, smear, smear. Bork, Thomas, Alito and Roberts were all treated badly by the libs. We owe it to Sotomayor to ensure she gets the same treatment, in the interest of fairness, which is something she does not believe should apply to white firefighters.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: confirmation, personal destruction, ricci, sotomayor
Sotomayor Fractures Ankle
Jun 8, 2009 Political
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, stumbled at LaGuardia airport and fractured her right ankle. This is a shame and though I don’t want her confirmed I certainly don’t want to see her injured. The only stumbling I want her to do is in the confirmation hearings.
The liberals who comment here might imply that her injury symbolizes the fractured Republican Party (the fractured right).
But I want to know how she broke her right ankle to begin with since she leans to the left.
Of course, now she leans way left.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Did Scalia Makes Sotomayor’s Case For Her?
Jun 5, 2009 Political
Someone at the Taylor Marsh blog has the smoking gun with regard to Sotomayor. Those not living in a cave know that she has stated that judges make law and then said she knew she should not say it. Well, someone who goes by djjl posted:
“Sotomayor needn’t worry about talking about how policy is made at the appeals level on videotape. Why, some justices on the Supreme Court have said the same thing and baked it into their judicial decisions. Like, say, noted leftist jurist Antonin Scalia, who, in the majority opinion of 2002 case Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, wrote:
This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of “representative government” might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to “make” common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States’ constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”
I am no legal scholar but this ruling seems to be different than what Sotomayor was saying. This ruling deals with state court judges and their ability to “make” law (notice the quotes). I don’t think Scalia was agreeing with the idea that it happens. I believe he was saying that they have the power to do it and they do which is why the election of STATE judges became popular.
The issue at hand was a law that prevented judges from discussing issues while campaigning if they could come before the court the person was elected to. The decision by the SCOTUS was that the rule (known as an Announce Clause) was a violation of First Amendment right.
One would have to ask Scalia what he meant but it would be helpful to read the entire ruling to better understand this.
There is no doubt that some of the positions taken by Sotomayor have been taken by others. All people will be influenced somewhat by their experiences and there is no way to get around that. Sotomayor took it a step further by asserting her experiences would allow her to make a better decision than some white guy.
One commenter at Taylor Marsh wrote:
I’ll tell you, it’s a shame that gutter politics has stooped to a new low with this nomination. There is nothing wrong with this nomination and the right wing has to trash her. It’s beyond the boundaries of spirited politics. It’s like everyone who gets nominated better prepare to get trashed. Amazing.
I imagine this is some young easily swayed liberal with a head full of mush. Gutter politics have stooped this low with THIS nomination. Where was this person when John Roberts and Samuel Alito were being confirmed? Alito caught hell from, of all people, Ted Kennedy for belonging to a group that did not like the idea of women being at Princeton (Kennedy belonged to a a group that did not allow women while he was attacking Alito). I don’t want to rehash the issue because it was benign but will anyone make an issue of the fact that Sotomayor belongs to a group that is for women only?
Personally, I don’t care if people belong to groups that disallow certain people. If blacks want to have a group of only blacks (and they have many) then fine. If whites or Asians or anyone else wants that, fine. So long as they are not groups that try to discriminate against people then they can invite who they want.
But back to the point, where was the commenter when Judge Bork was nominated? If you want stooping to a new low, that was it. Ted Kennedy went on the Senate floor less than an hour after Bork’s nomination was announced and said this:
“Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is — and is often the only — protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy… President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.” Wikipedia
This is an attack and it was an unfair and slimy attack. If you want unfair then this is it. The commenter laments that anyone who is nominated better be prepared because of what is happening to Sotomayor. Right, the standard was set by Ted Kennedy and it continues to this day. The commenter is upset at the right wing attack machine. Where was this commenter (and all other liberals) when Kennedy was the left wing attack machine?
I don’t want to hear liberal pukes crying about the way Sotomayor is treated. They were all at Kennedy’s feet kissing his shoes when he attacked Bork. None of them came out and cried about how unfair it was or how things had degraded.
Ted Kennedy had spoken and that was good enough for them.
If Bork were confirmed women would be forced into back alley abortions. I wonder why no one said that if Kennedy were elected women would be forced into the back seat of submerged vehicles where they would die a horrible death while he laid on a bridge in the fetal position crying why me, why me. That would be the most accurate of the two statements.
Anyway, Sotomayor needs to be taken to task for everything. Republicans in the Senate need to grow a spine and attack her on it all. This is a lifetime appointment so we need to hammer her on all points.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: judge, Obama, scalia, sotomayor, supreme court
Sotomayor And The Race
May 29, 2009 Political, Stop the ACLU
According to World Net Daily Sonia Sotomayor, Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, is a member of the racist group La Raza.
As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a “racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S.
Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
I said she was a racist because of her previous statement. I would agree with Ann Coulter who said she did not know if Sotomayor is a racist but the statement was however, the membership in La Raza is a pretty clear indication to me that she is racist. The statement in question is; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Imagine the uproar if a white male had made a similar statement…
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: Obama, racist, sotomayor, supreme court