![[Masthead]](http://www.t-g.com/images/nameplate.png)
|
|
Mostly Cloudy ~ High: 81°F ~ Low: 63°F Monday, May 21, 2012 |
|
Supreme Court NomineePosted Tuesday, May 26, 2009, at 8:58 PM
President Obama again demonstrates his total disdain for the Constitution. He has stated he does not feel bound in any way by the Constitution yet he took an oath to defend the Constitution, "So help me God" even. If one cannot believe what he says under oath, how can on respect anything he says.
Lest you think this is an opinion, on the radio in 2001 as a state Senator in Illinois he said of the Supreme Court, specifically the Warren Court, "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution." Can you imagine a person who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution after making this statement? He obviously thinks the has been anointed by some power to discard the Constitution and replace it with his grand vision. Not the grand vision of the Founders! During the campaign he offered to we minions his litmus test for judges. He said, "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." Another grievous attack on the Constitution. The Constitution that cries out for impartiality among judges who rule only on the constitutionality of laws or actions. Remember your high school civics, ( I don't know if civics is still taught today) which outlines the Separation of Powers Doctrine spelled out in Art. I, II & III of the Constitution. In brief we were taught the Legislative Branch make the laws, (read, establishes policy), The Executive Branch executes, I.e., carries out said policies and the Judicial Branch is to interpret the laws only as to their constitutionality. This is rather simple and easy to remember. The primary lesson to be learned here is the Judiciary does not make laws. They are not to, in any manner, set policy. Now comes Obama's choice for the Supreme Court who embodies the exact antithesis of these stated requirements. In a discussion with Duke University law school students in 2005 she made the statement, "the federal Court of Appeals is where policy is made."(She is a Court of Appeals Judge) Astounding! She knew exactly what she was saying and has never backed up. There is no way this statement can be parsed to mean anything other than the plain and obvious meaning of the words contained in the statement.
Judge Sotomayor has been a member of the Board of Directors of the New York City Campaign Board. So much for federal Judges being above politics. Board of Directors, State of New York Mortgage Agency! Imagine that with the mortgage industry being the genesis of our current economic crisis. Board of Directors, Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund! Excellent! Puerto Rican questions find their way into the federal court system on a regular basis. I'm sure her impartiality will trump her empathy on such matters. Former member of New York City Campaign Public Finance Board! No politics here! On 10/26/2001 speaking at the U. C. Berkeley School of Law, she made the following unbelievable statement: "Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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." Judge Sotomayor has often been reversed by the Supreme Court which has a 5-4 leaning to the left. At least one reversal was unanimous. Can you imagine how wrong a ruling must be to have a unanimous reversal? This is the first major step in Obama's stated intention to bury the Constitution. With any luck, she will not be accepted by the Senate. Remember Robert Bork. He was viewed by the left as to strict and his appointment was withdrawn. Let's hope enough "noise" can be made so this nominee will be withdrawn for the reason she is not a protector of the Constitution but has a history of words and deeds that support the notion she will ignore the Constitution and try to institute policy changes reflecting her own subjective, egotistical biases. Most readers of the Constitution see the responsibility of the Judiciary as interpreting Legislative edicts to determine if the statute or action in question insults the Constitution. If so, then throw it out in its entirety, or partially if severability clause is present. If no insult, then leave as written. Do not modify the statute to suit your own subjective notion of what society wanted the Legislative Branch to produce. Such an action is, on its face, unconstitutional. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Near lifelong resident of Bedford County. Will comment on the issues of the day in, hopefully a cogent and certainly an honest manner. Will propose discussions not usually fully addressed in the mainstream media.
Hot topics Narcissism(5 ~ 11:43 PM, Feb 3)
Sentencing
Election 2010
Gambling Update
Gambling Sentence
|
Email link
Read comments (31)
Blog archive
![[Feed icon]](http://www.t-g.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
The wingnuts are going crazy right now. They must have forgotten that their own brought her in when she was nominated to the U.S. District Court by the first George Bush.
That's RIGHT-wing nuts...thank you very much. :)
Maybe our illustrious President should have taken longer to pick a Supreme Court Justice than he did to pick his dog.
Very well written and informational. Thank you for your time. I look forward to more of your insights.
These are but one of many changes on the horizon for the N W O for which Kissinger said that Obama would take control of.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?p...
Get Ready!
While I disagree with Obama's requirements for choosing a Supreme Court justice (as a lawyer, he should definitely know better), I do not think Sotomayor is as bad as some may believe. I do believe that judges should not be activist for conservatives or liberals and should follow the letter of the law. Unfortunately though we have been seeing the demise of that for quite some time now and it looks like that it will not be changing anytime soon. I also believe that a person should be chosen based on their skill and not based on race, gender, or ethnicity just to please a particular group of people. That alone does such a disservice to the job at hand.
Dear Mr. McClanahan:
Congratulations on another fine article. You have again driven the nail home without the slightest trace of hammerhead indention.
To dismiss the stated intent of President Obama toward the Constitution of the United States of America can only be excused under the guise of ignorance. To then ignore his actions, the latest of which is to put forth a disciple of Constitutional destruction as a Supreme Court Justice nominee, can only be viewed as traitorous.
Our society has digressed to the point of allowing ignorance a vote. It is no longer a prerequisite to have knowledge of, or consequential evidence to, the issue. It is now only required to declare yourself some sort of an American, show up at the polls and, cast your vote for the candidate who promises to assure you of further government assistance.
The words of President Obama and his newly appointed Supreme Court nominee must not be ignored. As you say, Mr. McClanahan, "the words speak for themselves".
Actually Michael,
Bush Sr. wants the NWO.
If every president could be as perfect as Mr. Bush!!!!
I'm glad he set the standard high during his eight year term.
"Puerto Rican questions find their way into the federal court system on a regular basis"
I thought the residents of Puerto Rico were US citizens.
It is easy for us all to say what a supreme court justice should be and should have acted like when on a lower court when none of us here are even slightly qualified to run a general sessions court. And, this done by picking out statements and court cases none of us have even seen or heard about until Tuesday.
Since we are such an elite group of linguistic and judicial scholars that can judge a person based on so few scraps we been force feed , surely we can all agree at least such a ultra liberal judge will never be accused of not upholding the first amendment.
...and there was much rejoicing.
I would like to see a supreme court nominee that would actually uphold the constitution and not based on liberal or conservative background. I personally don't care if they are black, white, pink or purple, but I do care that they understand history and will follow the constition.
1. Judge Sotomayor would bring more federal judicial experience to the bench than any Supreme Court justice in 100 years. Over her three-decade career, she has served in a wide variety of legal roles, including as a prosecutor, litigator, and judge.
2. Judge Sotomayor is a trailblazer. She was the first Latina to serve on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was the youngest member of the court when appointed to the District Court for the Southern District of New York. If confirmed, she will be the first Hispanic to sit on the U.S. Supreme Court.
3. While on the bench, Judge Sotomayor has consistently protected the rights of working Americans, ruling in favor of health benefits and fair wages for workers in several cases.
4. Judge Sotomayor has shown strong support for First Amendment rights, including in cases of religious expression and the rights to assembly and free speech.
5. Judge Sotomayor has a strong record on civil rights cases, ruling for plaintiffs who had been discriminated against based on disability, sex and race.
6. Judge Sotomayor embodies the American dream. Born to Puerto Rican parents, she grew up in a South Bronx housing project and was raised from age nine by a single mother, excelling in school and working her way to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton University and to become an editor of the Law Journal at Yale Law School.
7. In 1995, Judge Sotomayor "saved baseball" when she stopped the owners from illegally changing their bargaining agreement with the players, thereby ending the longest professional sports walk-out in history.
8. Judge Sotomayor ruled in favor of the environment in a case of protecting aquatic life in the vicinity of power plants in 2007, a decision that was overturned by the Roberts Supreme Court.
9. In 1992, Judge Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate without opposition after being appointed to the bench by George H.W. Bush.
10. Judge Sotomayor is a widely respected legal figure, having been described as "...an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind," "highly qualified for any position in which wisdom, intelligence, collegiality and good character would be assets," and "a role model of aspiration, discipline, commitment, intellectual prowess and integrity."
Judge Sotomayor is an historic, uniquely qualified nominee to the Supreme Court.
Lest you think this is an opinion, on the radio in 2001 as a state Senator in Illinois he said of the Supreme Court, specifically the Warren Court, "It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution." Can you imagine a person who takes an oath to uphold the Constitution after making this statement?
The taking of, the twisting of, the turning of "words" and "meanings of those words", and "WALLA"; You get a twisted, round about Lie.
:^p
Carl I have no idea what you do for a career, but this kind of commentary isn't your calling.
Sotomayor, out of hundreds of opinions, has had 5 opinions reviewed by the Supreme Court. That is out of over 150 opinions she has written. Of those, 5, 3 were overturned. You do realize that the Supreme Court can pick and choose what cases to review, right? You understand that they don't have to review everything, yes? Please tell me you do.
Ergo, out of 150+ opinions she has written, the Supreme Court managed to only find anything wrong with 3 of them. Moreover, you seem to think that this is exceptionally high which it isn't... out of the opinions that they reviewed of hers, overturning only 3 out of the 5 is actually LOW because the Supreme Court tends to overturn 3 out of 4 of all decisions they review!
But since you think this rate is so high, doesn't that mean that since that the Supreme Court, by YOUR standards, disagrees with her SO MUCH, that she is actually good, since you think the Supreme Court is wrong and anyone who disagrees with the Supreme Court has to be on the right side?
Also, the Warren Court is most famous for having decided Brown v. Board of Education, ending segregation in this country. Are you seriously saying that there was something wrong with the Warren Court's reasoning, and that segregation was okay?
Also, her comment at UCLA about a wise Latina woman coming to a better conclusion than a white male just means that she thinks everyone is equal, and that life experience will put some people ahead. She stated that the Latina woman would have to be wise and have a rich life experience, and that this would give her the ability to come to better conclusions than the white male, not the fact that she is Latina. I think you are reading your own racism into this statement. I'm not surprised, given your position on the Warren Court--the only Supreme Court that had the wherewithal to bring us out of the racist dark ages of segregation.
Get your facts and stats straight before you embarrass yourself like this again.
What iheartlanekiffin said.
I am so glad a woman is the choice. The way things are going, I'd rather have a Latina woman than a white male opinion. She can better relate to me. How can a white man who never had to work for anything really understand what it is like to grow up poor, or to have things taken from you because of what you are, or to raise children without their father...
Where can I get a Sotomayor bumper sticker?
"How can a white man who never had to work for anything really understand what it is like to grow up poor, or to have things taken from you because of what you are, or to raise children without their father..."
-- Posted by Jacks4me on Thu, May 28, 2009, at 10:34 AM
So you are saying that all white men are rich and never grew up poor and didn't have to work for what they have? If so, then this white man definitely must have been bleached as a child because I definitely had nothing given to me and have worked hard for everything I have. Plus, my father worked hard all his life and was poor and he took care of me and my mother was never around and left us when I was three.
What a stupid ignorant comment that was! I am sorry but Latina women don't have a monopoly on rough childhoods or being poor and etc . . . that is shared by all races. I can take you to the Appalachian region of East Tennessee and show you many individuals who are white who have it far worse than most people or I can take you to the inner city of Nashville and show you African Americans who struggle each and every day.
Also, I just read that Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza. From what I remember, that organization definitely promotes a somewhat racist agenda on certain issues.
I will definitely need to read more about her because I had no real problem with her nomination until I read that fact even though her comment about the difference between Latina women and white men was a bit narrowed minded on her part in my opinion.
A Supreme Court Justice should not be in the business of 'relating' to anyone. He or she is to simply interpret the law and not let any other opinions get in the way.
While I do comend this brilliant women from pulling herself out of dire poverty, I have to wonder if she alludes to her gender and race because she realizes that it helped her get where she is now.
Please note that I emphasize helped and that I am implying this is the only reason she excelled. It is clear that the president was looking for something other than the white male in order to produce a more diverse Court. I also wonder that all test scores, GPA's, fraternity/sorority affliiation, extra-curricular activites, and such were equal to a white middle to upper middle class white male or female if Princeton or Yale would have been possible for the white male. She likely got aid that the white guy would not have never had a chance of getting.
Sometimes these Ivy League schools are as out of reach for the brilliant middle or upper middle class student as they are for the brilliant child of poor immigrants.
Being poor, of a minority race, a victim of discrimination or, on the receiving end of any perceived injustice does not releive you the responsibility of applying inteligent examination of the facts to any public matter as important as the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice.
The majority of the above comments on Mr. McClanahan's article would certainly lead any intelligent, concerned American to believe the authors are in dire need of dictionaries. In the case of darrick_4, an addition of several history volumes are in order.
I love it when you all misinterpret and fail to understand what is even at issue. Jaxspike, are you that blind? The words say "a white man who never had to..." To me and anyone else who can read, that is differentiating between a white man who didn't have to grow up poor and one who did have to grow up poor. It is not at all saying that all white people are automatically rich.
Learn to read.
Also, had you taken 10 seconds to google what the "National Council of La Raza" is, you would see its just a charity that tries to alleviate poverty among Hispanics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Co...
This "racist" organization you so ignorantly confuse it with is actually http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raza_Unida_...
Please, do some basic factual inquiry before you embarrass yourself like McClanahan.
Oops, My post should have read 'am not implying'. Sorry.
iheartlanekiffin . . . anyone who uses Wikipedia to promote supposed facts loses any credibility from the start. LOL!
Members of NCLR have been known to fund extremists (aka La Raza) and support illegal immigration as a way of obtaining political power. One year they gave their "Chicano Hero Award" to the person who'd made this statement years earlier:
"We have got to eliminate the gringo, and what I mean by that is if the worst comes to the worst, we have got to kill him."
What group would support someone like that?
Maybe you should read a variety of sources before spouting off from Wikipedia to prove your point. I majored in sociology so I have somewhat of an understanding of ideology and the various forms it takes. Like I said in my comment, I said I was going to read more and investigate further into what I had read on various news articles before making a formal opinion about her. Maybe you should learn to read and not just assume the usual tired political rhetoric that less intelligent individuals usually do.
iheartlanekiffin . . . you embarrass yourself just by responding. So have a great day!
jaxspike,
You truly seem so cynical and anti-everything and pessimistic and just plain hateful and all about putting people down on here lately, I sure do hope they hurry up and make you a new Lord of the Rings Movie or a Buffy Reunion so you will be in a cheerful mood. When I first started reading the blogs I truly did enjoy seeing what you had to say, but you are now just so full of negativity...so crossing my fingers that Spike and Angel show up soon to rescue you from your sour mood ;)
jaxspike you are so sad.
Here are a list of NCLR's corporate contributors:
"NCLR also receives funding from the American Express Foundation; the Allstate Foundation; the AT&T Foundation; the Bank of America Foundation; the Carnegie Corporation of New York; the Annie E. Casey Foundation; the Fannie Mae Foundation; the Ford Foundation; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; the Joyce Foundation; the W. K. Kellogg Foundation; the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; the Open Society Institute; the David and Lucile Packard Foundation; the Rockefeller Foundation; and the Verizon Foundation."
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/group...
You are an idiot if you think any of those organizations would support something that was out to actually kill "gringos." The guy made it in an offhand comment in the freaking 60's, when everyone wanted to kill everyone anyway--when you actually were killed for being a minority. Take the comment in context instead of just being asinine and racist. Regardless, the award was given to the guy by the organization. You act like Sotomayor herself did it.
I think you are painfully stupid and lack any real knowledge or forethought. Also, I will quote Wikipedia all night long when it as sourced and backed up by fact. You, however, throwing up completely unsourced comments shows your lack of intelligence, especially when you berate me for using Wikipedia.
You're right though, I am embarrassing myself. Only its because I am arguing with someone as stupid as you.
iheartlanekiffin . . . it is ok. You can say whatever you want if it makes you feel better at the end of the day. Your posts have proven your immaturity and lack of ability for any real dialogue. At the end of the day, I feel comfortable knowing that I am a better person with more unbiased ways of thinking with a high level of intelligence.
So berate me all you want . . . I can take it and maybe it will give someone else a rest from your insults. Just for the record though . . . I am the least racist person you will ever know.
Look, I can't help it if you are too dumb to understand my points, but just pretending like I didn't say anything of substance doesn't make what I said untrue.
Bury your head in the sand. I'm sure you've been doing it your whole life.
I feel comfortable knowing that I am a better person with more unbiased ways of thinking with a high level of intelligence.
Posted by jaxspike on Fri, May 29, 2009, at 8:28 AM
WOW someone has an awfully high opinion of themselves.....You have no idea if you have a higher level of intelligence than iheartlanekiffin, you just ASSUME you do and well you know the old saying......
Play nice, children. It is only a Supreme Court Justice.
There are eight other highly arrogant, skewed people there already.
Besides it might be fun to watch a latino man hater duke it out with a womanizing black man.
Sounds like my 10 year old and 4 year old arguing. "I'm better than you, no I'm better than you". "I'm smarter than you, no I'm smarter than you". "You are stupid, I know your stupid but what am I".
Besides it might be fun to watch a latino man hater duke it out with a womanizing black man.-- Posted by Runnin' By on Fri, May 29, 2009, at 6:48 PM
ROFL.
Check out her stand on the second amendment. Once it is gone, can the rest be far behind?