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
Obama And The Constitution
Oct 27, 2008 Political
Barack Obama is reported to have been a Constitutional law professor though every time I hear him speak about the Constitution I wonder which country’s document he knows well enough to teach. An audio from an interview done in 2001 was released over the weekend and in it Obama laments that the Warren Court did not discuss wealth redistribution as part of the civil rights movement. As it was stated in a Fox article, Obama thinks that when dispossessed people appealed to the high court for a place at the lunch counter, they should have appealed to have someone else pay for the meal. This has been Barack Obama’s MO for a long time. People who have more money should have some of it taken away and given to those who have less money. Socialism.
Most people already know that Obama is a Socialist. His followers know it but they want Socialism because they want to get something for nothing. The wealthier ones will say they want to pay more to help people along but in the end they will find a way not to do so. How many of them donate money to the treasury? People can do that so they could give even more than what they pay in taxes but it seems they have no real desire. Obama followers are the people who run around with their hands out (well one hand, the other is holding a cell phone) and love the idea of screwing some rich guy so they can have more of what they did not earn. The Obama campaign sent an email a few minutes ago asking people to take election day off for Obama. As if most of his followers even have jobs. The balance can probably take the day off but the warden won’t release them to help out.
So, in this interview Obama says that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties:
“It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.
“And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way — that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted.”
“And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,” Obama said. Fox
I think that this professor is sadly mistaken with regard to the Constitution. Starting with the last thing; it is not the job of government, including the courts, to bring about redistributive change. The courts are well within their power to levy fines and rule in civil cases where money is awarded but they have no power and no authority to decide that one person makes more than another so he has to share. We do not suffer because a court did not rule in favor of Socialism, we suffer because liberals have made entire classes of people dependent on government so much so that many do not know how to take care of themselves, an individual responsibility.
Now, on to this idea about a document of negatives that does not tell you what government should do for you. The Constitution explains right up front the purpose of coming together and what the expected outcome of the established government is:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[sic] promote Liberty to ourselves and to our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It is pretty clear to me that the reasons we formed the country are well laid out and the things that government will do, as established in “this Constitution” are clearly indicated and are not negatives. The reason we came together and formed this government as established in the Constitution is to form a more perfect union (not a perfect one), establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, and promote liberty. None of these are negatives. They clearly state what government will do for the people because it was formed by the people. One thing it certainly does not say is that we should redistribute wealth.
I am no law professor and I am certainly no Constitutional expert but I think I have a better grasp on this concept than Obama does. What I believe that Obama meant is that the Constitution is a negative document because it does not follow his idea of what government should do. He is upset because the court did not break free of the essential constraints established by the founders. First of all, if the constraints are essential why would we break free of them? Secondly, the founders knew well that government was a problem and not a solution. They were well aware of the problems with governments and what happens when people rule over the lives of others.
Our founders never intended for us to have a government as big as the one we now have. They never intended for government to be the provider of any more than that which is clearly enumerated in the document. Our founders would not recognize this country and would believe that they had failed if they were here to see how out of control it has gotten.
But for a Socialist like Obama, the founders put constraints on the ability of those like him to rule over the lives of others while keeping them oppressed, like Democrats do to their black constituents. So, like all liberals, he expected a court to right a perceived injustice over which the court has no authority.
The idea that the Supreme Court should have given us redistributive change (read wealth redistribution) should scare anyone who cares about personal freedom. Obama’s 2001 interview clearly verifies that he is a socialist and that his response to Joe the Plumber was no mistake.
This interview also gave us insight as to what kind of people he would appoint to the Supreme Court. The court recently ruled in favor of redistributive change in the Kelo decision. That was not popular and it did not settle well with most people because it gave government the right to take property from one group and give it to another. The kind of judges Obama would appoint will make that decision look good in comparison.
We have to stop this now.
Tags: civil rights, Obama, reditributive change, socialism, supreme court, wealh redistribution
MD Senator Currie Wrong On Gun Ownership
Aug 18, 2008 Political, Second Amendment
Maryland State Senator Ulysses Currie of the 25th district (who is under federal investigation for illegal activities) wrote a piece about gun control. Currie is upset that the Supreme Court reaffirmed what our founders stated by ruling that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Currie takes exception to this and indicates that no other court has ruled this way. Actually, no other court has looked at this issue. The 1939 Miller case is held by gun control advocates as a bellwether for a militia interpretation but the ruling had nothing to do with the issue at hand. It dealt with interstate commerce and a weapon, not who had the right to carry it.
Currie is very upset that the SCOTUS overturned the DC gun ban and, like Chicken Little, cries “the sky is falling.” He asserts that we will have more murders in DC and he further goes to point out that states with more lenient gun control laws have higher death by gun rates. His statistics come from The Violence Policy Center which is an anti gun organization. The raw numbers are misleading and there are many other factors that play into this. What is very interesting is that Currie fails to mention the DC gun death rate which is one of the HIGHEST in the country. How can that be if strict gun laws keep us safe?
It is important to remember that one can make any claim using numbers. It is also important to note that gun death rates encompass a lot of reasons for death like suicide, justifiable shootings (as in the police or self defense), accidental shootings and criminal acts (murder or crimes resulting in murder). Another thing to consider is the number of crimes that were committed by law abiding citizens with carry permits. This makes a big difference because if the crimes are committed by people who should not have guns then the laws forbidding their possession are not working. Currie should whittle down the numbers and point out how many crimes are committed by people who are permitted to carry.
This is important because people like Currie lamented about how Florida would see a marked increase in gun deaths after the state relaxed its gun laws and allowed more people to carry. This has never come to fruition. In Florida hundreds of thousands of permits to carry have been issued and fewer than 20 people with a permit have been involved in crimes (not necessarily involving gun use). Up through 1998 no permit holder has ever shot a police officer but several permit holders have assisted police.
If Currie wants to skew statistics let me help him out. Blacks comprise a small portion of the population and yet they account for a disproportionate number of gun deaths. Cities with the largest number of blacks in the population (like DC, LA, and New Orleans) have higher murder rates than cities with more whites. In 2007 California ranked fourth behind Pennsylvania, Louisiana and Indiana in the number of black homicides. The black homicide rate pushes the rate for each state high because the rate is about four times higher than their percentage of the population. Is it fair to say that removing blacks from the states would lower gun death rates? While we are on the subject, Hispanics account for a disproportionately high number of gun deaths as well. The statistics certainly lay out a case for lowering the death rate by removing the minorities. This approach is as legitimate as using crime statistics for illegal acts as a methodology to ban LEGAL gun ownership. Perhaps we should ban people who live in Maryland’s 25th District from running for office there because 100% of the current Senators from there are under federal investigation. Banning everyone for the acts of criminals is nonsensical. Before anyone tells me that Currie has not had his day in court so he should be presumed innocent, keep in mind that he is assuming that all gun owners commit criminal acts and should not be allowed to own them.
What Currie fails to realize is that the crimes are being committed by people who have no regard for the law. DC, Chicago and many other major cities with extremely tough gun control laws have high gun murder rates. Once again, if the gun laws work why are these places suffering gun deaths? If gun control lowers gun deaths than these places should be the safest places on earth. Unfortunately, some of them have a higher death rate than Iraq and it is in the middle of a war.
People who obey the law do not get permits to carry weapons and then go around shooting people. The facts have proven time and again that law abiding citizens do not commit murders and that law breakers do not care about gun laws because they don’t follow the rules anyway.
Currie has his panties in a wad because the Supreme Court acknowledged that gun ownership is an individual right. This is nothing new. As I have pointed out before, the founders stated that the PEOPLE will be allowed to have guns. It is an undeniable truth. Regardless of the fact that it defies logic to think that the words “The People” mean all citizens everywhere it is used except the Second Amendment, the issue is moot because of the founder’s own words. Walter E Williams has a comprehensive listing of the founder’s quotes on the subject. I defy Currie or anyone else to read them and then demonstrate how they mean anything BUT an individual right. For example:
“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms … ”
— Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
The people of the United States who are peaceable citizens. How can anyone misconstrue this to be anything other than an individual right?
Ulysses Currie is absolutely wrong on this issue. The places that allow citizens to own and carry weapons are the safest in the country. There are some gun control states that have low gun death rates. It would be interesting to see what the demographics of the population are because I would wager they are mostly law abiding people.
Once again, Mr. Currie, law abiding citizens do not go around killing people. Criminals account for the overwhelming majority of the gun deaths and all the laws in the world will not change their behavior.
We call them criminals for a reason.
Tags: DC, gun control, individual right, Maryland, Second Amendment, supreme court, ulysses currie
Why Is Dick Morris So Uninformed?
Jul 4, 2008 Political
A piece by Dick Morris appeared today at the Rasmussen Reports web site. In the piece Morris states that the Supreme Court handed Obama a gift by voting 5-4 in favor of individual rights to gun ownership (which is what every person who debated the Amendment stated when they were writing it). I won’t get into why Morris thinks it was a gift because it is not really important to his basic misunderstanding of the Second Amendment.
In the piece Morris claims the justices made a “sea change” in Constitutional law and he claims:
By demonstrating how willing they are to toss aside decades of jurisprudence in pursuit of a conservative agenda…
I would like Morris, Constitutional scholar that he is, to explain what decades of jurisprudence were tossed aside since the Court has NEVER ruled on this issue. As I pointed out in a previous post, the Court ruled on whether a person’s rights were violated when he used a sawed off shotgun. They ruled that since the weapon was not one commonly associated with a militia (though those weapons have been used by the military for years) the guy (Miller) had no standing and his rights were not violated. As I pointed out though, the Court acknowledged the individual right in Dred Scott v. Sandford when they said that freeing Scott would allow him to keep and bear arms. So the jurisprudence has been in place since 1857.
Dick Morris also claims that gun control laws have no doubt saved lives and lowered crime rates but the truth is places in this country with the most stringent gun control laws have higher crime rates and higher rates of murder. Places where people’s rights are not violated by the government have lower crime and lower murder rates. Look at states where they have must issue laws and compare them with places that have strict control and there is a stark difference. Professor John Lott researched this and his conclusions support this.
Regardless, Morris is usually more informed than this so I wonder what his motivation is.
Perhaps it is because he is hawking his new book and he wants to help with the sales. Morris is smarter than to actually believe what he wrote about gun laws and the Second Amendment so I can only conclude that he is manipulating an emotional issue to sell a book.
I usually like Morris’ insight on politics but in this case he is woefully uninformed.
Tags: dick morris, founding fathers, Second Amendment, supreme court