Big Dogs House

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.

Share on Facebook

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.

Share on Facebook

Tags: fracture, laguardia, sotomayor

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.

Share on Facebook

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…

Share on Facebook

Tags: Obama, racist, sotomayor, supreme court

Obama Looks For Quick Confirmation

May 28, 2009 Political

Now that Obama has selected the anti gun, empathetic, racist Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee to the Supreme Court he is asking the Senate to make quick work of her confirmation. There is no doubt in my mind she will be confirmed because the Republicans do not have the numbers to stop her. She will only be stopped if there is a major issue or she stumbles. This means that Republicans need to be diligent and take a long hard look at her and her record. They need to do this slowly and deliberately. Obama wants it done quickly before more negatives pop up. We need to take our time and dig as deep as we can.

This judge does not belong on the Supreme Court. Justice is supposed to be blind but she has already admitted that she uses her life experiences to guide her. She does not interpret the Constitution and apply the law, she allows her emotion to dictate her decisions. It is also true that she believes that policy is made in the court which means she lacks an understanding of our system of governance or she does not care about it.

I have demonstrated that she does not understand the Constitution by showing that her view of the Second Amendment is incorrect. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and that is indisputable. Only people who lack intelligence or wish to rewrite history or enact a personal agenda see it otherwise.

Sotomayor is also a racist. People have been accused of taking her comment out of context but I have read the entire quote. It is racist. The assertion is that she will understand the downtrodden before the court because of her background and because she is a person of color. Does this mean that she could not get decisions right if the dispute involved privileged white men? I mean, if she had been on the court in 2000 would she have to recuse herself from Gore v Bush because she did not live their lives and could not understand their issues?

Or is it more accurate to say that justice is supposed to be blind and that it does not matter what color, nationality, sex, or ethnicity a judge is, the law should be applied equally across the spectrum and that the only experience required to get it right is a thorough understanding of the Constitution? Her comment was racist and those who deny it are the same ones who see racism when a noose is hung at a house on Halloween or when someone says that welfare recipients should get off their lazy butts and get a job. The immediate assumption is that the speaker was talking about minorities. I would ask; who is the racist, the one who made the statement or the one who made the assumption?

Sotomayor seems to think that because she is a Latina with a humble beginning that her experiences will allow her to make better decisions and to get it right more often than some white guy who did not live her life. So did her life experiences lead her to mess up Ricci v. DeStefano? Did she have such a loathing for white people that she decided that they did not deserve the same protection against discrimination as a minority group would? Is there any doubt that if this had been reversed and the blacks were suing that she would have sided with them?

This is the heart of the issue. The law was ignored in Ricci and several very serious Constitutional issue were ignored. Evidently, her life issues did not allow her to get it right and the Supreme Court will likely overturn her decision in the case.

That should not be surprising since 60% of her cases that have gone before the Supreme Court have been overturned. This is but one more indication that she does not understand the law or the Constitution and it puts a big dent in her assertion that she would get it right more often than some white guy. 60% of the time she was wrong and this is just in cases that went to the SCOTUS. How many of her lower court decisions have been overturned?

Sotomayor does not belong on any bench much less the Supreme Court. Republicans need to aggressively push her and dig up all the things that she has done that run counter to the way good law is practiced. She might end up being confirmed but the detailed analysis will demonstrate what Obama is and what he is doing to this country.

We also need to target Democrat Senators from red states who have a fairly conservative base. Make sure the gun issues are well played and ensure the gun owners know. Tell these Senators they will be in danger of losing if they support this person who does not understand our rights.

As for you liberals who are whining that she was attacked from the start, Ted Kennedy attacked Bork within 45 minutes of his selection by Reagan and what Kennedy said was not very nice. Democrats have been nasty and played lots of games with nominees of Republican presidents. Now it is time to ensure this nominee is asked tough questions and that she is asked to explain law and her statements.

Let’s see if she can do it like John Roberts, without notes.

But be careful how you discuss her because the White House is warning to watch what you say about her. Gibbs, the Obama butt boy, said that people who are criticizing her intelligence probably did not graduate number 2 in their classes. I don’t question her intelligence but being smart does not mean she knows the law or is not an activist. There are really smart people who passed law school and they are terrible lawyers.

The National Black Republican Association is not happy with the pick either.

Ann Coulter has a great article up.

Share on Facebook

Tags: activist judge, constitution, hack, law, lies, Obama, sotomayor