Sunday, May 31, 2009

Sotomayor Exposed II

A fifth reason to oppose Ms Sotomayor has surfaced. It has now come to light that even post-Heller as a card-carrying liberal she continues to fight the plain reading of the 2nd Amendment:
In Maloney v. Cuomo, Sotomayor signed an opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that said the Second Amendment does not protect individuals from having their right to keep and bear arms restricted by state governments.
Her logic in this is quite convoluted, reflecting her "considerable" jurisprudential skills. She claims:
that even though the Heller decision held that the right to keep and bear arms was a natural right--and therefore could not be justly denied to a law-abiding citizen by any government, federal, state or local--the Second Circuit was still bound by the 1886 case, because Heller only dealt indirectly with the issue before her court.
Yet the Supreme Court itself in the landmark Heller case said the 1886 Presser case does not apply:
Presser said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations,” the court ruled. “This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment.”
Even the 9th Court of Appeals, one of the most liberal in the land, gets this right:
Sotomayor’s ruling ran to the left of even the reliably liberal San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in the April 2009 case Nordyke v. King that the Second Amendment did, in fact, apply to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, heavily citing the Supreme Court in Heller.
We continue to see how this "wise Latina woman", now nominated to sit on the highest court of the land, clings to her discredited and unconstitutional views, disregards current law, and pushes her liberal, activist agenda from the bench. Send her back to NY, now.

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Sotomayor Exposed

Underneath the tidal wave of gushiness for Her Honor there appear to be some real coral heads upon which her nomination should (but probably will not) flounder.

First is her basic temperament as a judge. Multiple sources indicate that she is a bully on the bench. Here are quotes from two different sources that speak to this:
Lawyers who have argued cases before Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor call her "nasty," "angry" and a "terror on the bench," according to the current Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- a kind of Zagat's guide to federal judges
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")
Allegations such as this have derailed previous Supreme Court nominees, but I do not expect that to be the case this time. Too many Republican Senators will play by the unwritten rules rather than "Bork" Her Honor as she should be.

Second is her view of the role of the judiciary in the US system of government. Her comment here about appeals judges being expected to make policy is most telling. Her immediate "denial" or "explanation" is clearly a posterior-covering exercise as evidenced by her comments about it being on tape. IMNSHO she unabashedly considers herself to be an activist judge, out to make law and policy. Not a big surprise, given her hypocritical nominator and his plain statements about his intent to nominate just such judges, but it is something that should be questioned during her nomination hearings, and this time with some tenacity as there is now more evidence of her judicial activism.

Third is the role of her ethic and social background in her behavior as a judge. One has to be deaf, dumb and blind to have not heard about her "wise Latina woman" comment. Ill advised, yes, but I actually do not have a problem with judges using their background and experience to help them to understand the nature and facts of the cases before them; that is part of being human. Where it becomes an issue is when ones race or ethnicity causes one to ignore the clear facts in a case or disregard settled law as the basis for judgment. I've not seen evidence that she has gone this far but the question should be asked and examined.

Frankly, I'm more concerned about her membership in "La Raza". Reportedly La Raza has "promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police" and has supported the more radical secessionist Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan. Ms. Sotomayor's level of involvement in and support for the policies of La Raza should be vigorously examined during her hearing, but I doubt it will be.

Finally is her actual competence as a judge. Clearly she has the requisite education and has punched all the right tickets to be on the Supreme Court, however anyone that has worked in the real world knows that such types of qualifications do not necessarily guarantee actual competence. There is evidence that she actually is not that good a judge. Three of five of her rulings that have gone to the Supreme Court have been reversed and it appears likely a fourth one will be as well. Furthermore her written opinions are reported to be,
"not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss[ing] the forest for the trees."
In addition:
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants.
Clearly there are concerns here that in my opinion should disqualify her. Unfortunately it appears they are being overlooked in the arguments about the more sensational and inconsequential aspects of her nomination.

In the end what I'd like to see is the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee stringently examine Ms. Sotomayor's qualifications, temperament, credentials and competency to be on the US Supreme Court. If they do so in a fair and historically consistent manner I am confident that some or all of them will vote against her. Similarly the members of the full Senate should consider and vote against her nomination when it comes to a full vote. The odds of this happening I think are less than zero.

On the other hand, I do not think a filibuster against her nomination should be attempted at this time. It is likely to fail and there are other more winnable battles in the future for which such large artillery should be saved.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

More Financial Blame-Shifting

Congress Approves Bill Restricting Credit Card Industry
The new restrictions would protect debt-ridden consumers from many of the surprise charges common in the industry, like over-the-limit fees and a charge to pay the bill by phone.
Lack of reading comprehension does not make something a surprise. Read your credit agreement people.
As banks scramble to make up for the lost revenue, cardholders who pay off their balance in full each month could also see annual fees become the norm and lucrative rewards programs canceled.

On the plus side for consumers, card holders who see their interest rate skyrocket because they have been late on a payment would get a chance at their older, lower rate if they pay their bill on time each month for six months.
This is yet another example of law-abiding, responsible citizens bearing the burden of the financially irresponsible.

Scarier Than the Original

And I thought the original song was kind-of creepy...

Monday, May 18, 2009

Biden's Lips Sinks Ships

Continued evidence that the ineptitude of the POTUS is only exceeded by that of his VP: Biden Reveals Location of Secret VP Bunker.

If I revealed that kind of information I'd be out of job in a heartbeat and blackballed from the entire industry I've worked in for almost 30 years.

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Where Have You Been

Between work travel, visiting family and cross-country vacations as a child I've been to most of the continental states.

visited 42 states (84%)
Create your own visited map of The United States or Best time to visit Bosnia and Herzegovina
found via Weer'd World Arrr

Monday, May 11, 2009

Double Standard

What's good for the goose:
Golf Analyst Feherty Sorry for Pelosi Joke in Dallas Magazine
"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player who grew up in Northern Ireland, has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and he created a foundation to help wounded soldiers.

"This passage was a metaphor meant to describe how American troops felt about our 43rd president," Feherty said in a statement. "In retrospect, it was inappropriate and unacceptable, and has clearly insulted Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, and for that, I apologize. As for our troops, they know I will continue to do as much as I can for them both at home and abroad."

Should be good for the gander:
Obama, Comic Wanda Sykes Headline D.C. Correspondents' Dinner
Former Vice President Dick Cheney couldn't make the dinner, Obama joked, because he was writing his memoir, "How to shoot friends and interrogate people."
and Wanda Sykes: Rush Limbaugh was the '20th hijacker'
“Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails. So you’re saying, ‘I hope America fails.’ You’re like, ‘I don’t care about people losing their homes, their jobs or our soldiers in Iraq.’ He just wants our country to fail.

To me, that’s treason. He’s not saying anything differently than Osama bin Laden is saying. You know you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker but he was just so strung out on Oxycontin he missed his flight

“Too much?

“You’re laughing inside, I know you’re laughing.

“Rush Limbaugh — I hope the country fails. I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?

“He needs a waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

Where's the apologies from these 2 comedians; making fun of people being accidentally shot, wishing kidney failure upon others? Oh I forgot, it's a White House function; The media's One won so the rules do not apply, again and again and again.

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

No Honor Among Thieves

Party Switch Costs Specter His Seniority on Senate Committees
The Senate last night stripped Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) of his seniority on committees, a week after the 29-year veteran of the chamber quit the Republican Party to join the Democrats.
Bwahahaha. Welcome to the party of Hopenchange. Couldn't happen to a nicer fella.
The loss of seniority could prove costly to Specter in his campaign to win reelection in 2010, denying him the ability to distinguish himself from a newcomer in his ability to claim key positions.
He who lives by the sword (of politics) dies by the sword (of politics). Put that in your re-election pipe and smoke it.

Friday, May 01, 2009


from the Dread Pundit Bluto: