Questioning Sotomayor

The talk of the week has been the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor. But when we consider that the Democrats have way more votes needed to seat her on the bench, it seems like an incredible waste of time and taxpayer money to keep up this charade.

Between her failure to recognize the purpose of the judiciary and her lack of knowledge of the law, I think she is questionable at best. But when you consider that she is a member of the radical group La Raza (HT: AOW) in addition to her lack of qualities, I think it becomes an even worse choice.

La Raza, you may recall, is the group that wants to take back parts of the US that were lost by Mexico after the Mexican War. Here a the map (also courtesy of AOW) that shows the areas they consider Mexican territory.

When we read the op-ed piece found at the American Spectator yesterday, it outlines a clearer picture of Ms. Sotomayor:

Is Judge Sonia Sotomayor a product of grinding poverty and beneficiary of affirmative action, and now a victim of its unintended consequences? Or has she instead cynically embraced affirmative action and romanticized her past as a way to further her judicial career?

As the confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee continues for Sotomayor, President Barack Obama's pick for the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court, with a lifetime appointment at stake, a review of the evidence shows she has changed her position on affirmative action and fictionalized her past to serve her own purposes.

It is a better focused image, one that is created solely by fluff mastering. It shows us a more in depth picture of the character (or lack thereof), and it shows an Administration that has relied on PR for the bulk of its successes. This is the kind of thing Hollywood likes to generate, the same kind of the thing the USSR used to communicate to the people under their control.

First, she was never in the target audience affirmative action was designed to help. Second, while in school she vehemently disavowed affirmative action as playing any part in her educational advancement. Third, as her career played out on an increasingly public stage, she rebranded herself as "a perfect affirmative action baby" and an ardent supporter of racial quotas willing to engage in activist judging—and even ethically questionable judging—to advance that agenda.

Sotomayor's basic résumé is well known. To hear her tell it, she is a product of the "third world" territory of Puerto Rico, raised in public housing projects in the Bronx. She was socially and economically impoverished. She didn't meet admission test requirements at Princeton University and Yale Law School because of "cultural bias" in the testing. But she was accepted at those schools anyway because of affirmative action. Her success has led her to believe ardently in racial quotas.

This is the kind of thing that dreams are made of, right? But as we all read on, the article paints a different picture:

A closer look at her background tells another story, however. She was born in the United States. The projects in which she was raised, the Washington Post reported, were "pristine," virtually crime-free, and racially mixed. A mere 10 percent of the residents were on welfare. The rest had jobs. Sotomayor's mother was a nurse.

"These were not the projects of idle, stinky elevators, of gang-controlled stairwells where drug deals go down.… Far from dangerous, the projects were viewed as nurturing," the New York Times wrote. "I never perceived myself as a poor child," Sotomayor said in an October 1999 housing authority publication, the Post reported.

The truth, whatever it may be, is once again elusive. Who knows what it is?

It seems like another fine instance of the old smoke and mirrors game for political expediency, if you ask me. But I think we should be asking ourselves another question, somewhere along the way. If the goal is to get a Hispanic woman on the bench, is this the best one we have? If so, it begins a whole new line of questions.

But then I would ask, who has the courage to ask them? Certainly not the rubber-stamp Democrats in Congress. We cannot depend on them to be vigilant, especially when the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee insists on rewriting history during the hearings:



That's what he said, but that's not what she said. Her exact words were:

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

A word here and a word there can really distort the true message and certainly alter the truth. And believe when when I say this, we all know that people who have been in government as long as Leahy are very likely to use words to distort, exaggerate, and fabricate. He does himself no favors when he engages in this kind of action and further cements himself a dishonest legacy.

But as I implied earlier, this is the kind of tactic the Left must resort to when they settle for someone as controversial as Sotomayor. If they really wanted a better candidate who happened to be Hispanic and female, maybe Christine Arguello would have been a better choice. I don't know much about her or her record. But surely she isn't as inept or radical as Ms. Sotomayor.

Maybe Sotomayor would be better suited as a TV judge, call it Judge Sonia. But then again, maybe not.

Justice La Idiota?

Among the liberal elitists, there is this gross misconception that the function of the judicial system is to make laws, make policies, etc.. Most of them will not come right out and admit it, but that's the way they view it. But now, we have a SCOTUS nominee who finally admits it publicly:



Note how she says this, then instantly knows she has screwed up and tries to retract it. What brilliance!!

Look, I have no problem with Obama replacing a liberal justice with another. In fact, I expect it. But do we need someone who has no understanding, no comprehension that the judicial system's primary function is to INTERPRET the law, not make it?

As we may surmise, this will not be enough to prevent her from taking her place on the bench. In fact, it would not surprise me to learn that she has cheated on her taxes. This seems to be a prerequisite in the Obama led government. Why should this be any different?

Let's just say it will be interesting to see what kind of secrets the Right will dig up, during the vetting process. Obama's team doesn't seem to do a very good job of screening their nominees very well. So for now, just being an idiot will not be enough to disqualify her. (Case In Point: Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.)

The bottom line here is, she has a story. She came from humble beginnings, in the Bronx. Her daddy died when she was nine, her mother worked two jobs, blah, blah, blah.

That's impressive, to be sure. But that still doesn't tell me she is the best person for the job. My parents worked their asses off too, my father was a decorated soldier and airman from two wars. Mom worked evenings, to make ends meet. But that doesn't mean I am qualified. Does it?

In spite of the fact that I have no background in law (other than when I had to testify in Federal Court for the State of Indiana, once upon a time), I do know the function of the courts and would never make such a bonehead statement as she did in this seminar with her peers. But that's just me.

Reaction To SCOTUS Handgun Ruling

Getting back late last evening caused me to be too exhausted to post anything on this topic. Spending what I consider to be an inordinate amount of time in traffic, I got to hear Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's reaction to the SCOTUS ruling on DC's hand gun ban, ad nauseum.

An “outraged” Mayor Daley this morning denounced a U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning Washington D.C.’s handgun ban as a “frightening decision” and a “return to the days of the Wild West.”

Daley predicted that Chicago’s 1982 handgun freeze would be next in the crosshairs of the powerful gun lobby and that gun violence will surge if they’re successful.

Daley must be a prophet, because that is precisely what is happening. The Illinois State Rifle Association immediately filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn Chicago's now unconstitutional handgun law. And the NRA's action will be following there, and other places too.

The Illinois State Rifle Association filed a lawsuit with just that purpose in mind at 9:15 a.m.

"We want to overturn this ban. It's pretty onerous. It takes the right of self-defense away from every Chicago citizen," said Richard Pearson, director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.

The National Rifle Association also plans to file lawsuits in Chicago and several suburbs, as well as San Francisco, challenging handgun restrictions there based on Thursday's outcome.

John McCain stood with the court, while Barack Obama waffled, tap-danced, and otherwise straddled the fence. His inability to take a principled stand one way or the other may have something to do with his recently outed comments, about Pennsylvania citizens clinging to God and guns. At the same time, he must be careful not to upset the George Soros crowd that wants to disarm law-abiding citizens, leaving them unable to protect themselves.

As PYY regular Greg points out on the last thread, the frightening thing about this ruling is the 5-4 margin of the decision, This means that if BHO is elected President, he could appoint a liberal justice that will swing it back the other way should the anti-gun lobby become emboldened again And you know they will.

One thing about the anti-gun lobby's arguments you will never hear is their lack of proof that these bans reduce gun violence. Florida relaxed laws on carrying concealed weapons awhile back and a noticeable drop in gun violence has been noted. DC has had the ban for 32 years and it continues to rise.

Common sense should dictate to us that if a criminal does not know who is carrying and who is not, he/she may very well think twice about trying to attack or rob a person. Likewise, if a person does not know which homes have guns in them which do not, he/she may think twice about burglarizing or staging a home invasion. But I have never used the words common sense and anti-gun activism in the same sentence. And I am not about to start now.

Gun Rights On The Line With SCOTUS Decision

Not a lot of time to expostulate, but today we are looking for the US Supreme Court's decision that may impact gun rights for years to come.

The case, District of Columbia v. Heller, which was argued nearly four months ago, could settle the decades-old debate over whether the Second Amendment grants individuals the right to own firearms.

When I read the Constitution, I read this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Shall not be infringed seems pretty plain to me. Now we'll see how the Court sees it. Meanwhile, we will be touring the Chicago Stockyards, when the decision is likely to be announced.

Have a great day.

League Of Women Voters Files Lawsuit Against Indiana Voter ID Law

From the Evansville Courier-Press comes this gem of a story:

The League of Women Voters of Indiana filed a lawsuit Friday challenging the state’s voter ID law as a violation of the state constitution.

The new challenge comes less than two months after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Indiana law and found that states may require photo identification at the polls.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled, this law is constitutional. Yet, for some unknown reason, these people seem to want to re-invent the wheel at every possible turn. Instead of accepting the SCOTUS decision, they want to place more burden on the taxpayers of Indiana by filing another frivolous lawsuit from another angle.

The league’s challenge, naming Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita as defendant, is based on a section of the state constitution requiring changes in voting eligibility to be enacted only by amending the constitution, said the group’s president, Joanne Evers.

“The law hinders and discourages Indiana voters from participating in our representative government of checks and balances,” she said.

What a crock. Ms. Evers should get a real job somewhere, as she obviously has very little meaning or purpose in her life right now. The fact that she is using this same tired old argument of disenfranchising voters, tells me she has trouble accepting decisions, in which she cannot claim victory. Instead of accepting the fact that none of the many claims by opponents of this law have been upheld or otherwise validated, they press onward with an idiotic agenda.

Welcome to Indiana's version of "Ground Hog's Day".

SCOTUS Votes 5-4 To Allow Gitmo Detainees Access To Civilian Courts

From the AP comes the story of the day:

In a stinging rebuke to President Bush's anti-terror policies, a deeply divided Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign detainees held for years at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba have the right to appeal to U.S. civilian courts to challenge their indefinite imprisonment without charges.

I disagree with the decision. I think at some time, they must have hearings. But I think it's better served in the military courts, when the time comes. The time is not now, the time is not while conflicts are still going on.

But, let's be clear here. This does not mean the prisoners will automatically be released. It simply indicates that these thugs must be allowed access to the federal courts.

There are those that would love for us to release these people, so they could go right back to fighting and planning terror attacks against the U.S. and the entire West. There are those that want them in the civilian courts, so they can make lawyers rich. Some of these people will claim victory, others will say it doesn't go far enough for their likings.

But in all of their whinings, one thing has to be established as an immutable truth in this issue. The ones who have complained loudest about this particular court, can no longer claim it is a Bush rubber stamp.

Supreme Court Upholds Indiana Voter ID Law

Here is the story from the Indy star.

The Supreme Court, in a fractured decision, upheld an Indiana law today that requires voters show a photo ID issued by the federal or state government.

“States should have the ability to implement appropriate and constitutional steps to protect their electoral systems from fraud,” Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter said in response. “We can move forward in Indiana with a process that provides constitutional protections to its citizens protecting their vote from potential fraudulent activity.”

Naturally, MSNBC is reporting that Obama has weighed in on the decision.

Obama said he was disappointed today in the new Supreme Court decision that has upheld Indiana's voter ID law, calling it "wrong," and emphasizing that the law could suppress turnout among minorities and poorer voters.

"I am disappointed by today's Supreme Court decision upholding Indiana's photo identification law -- one of the most restrictive in the nation," Obama said in a written statement.

Translation: Now we will be disenfranchising the poorest demographic of all voters, the dead voters.

He referenced his decision to file an amicus brief when Indiana's voter ID law was first challenged, saying he did it because he believed that "it places an unfair burden on Indiana residents who are poor, elderly, disabled, or members of minority groups."

Malarkey.

The state is offering state IDs to all that cannot afford them, for free, no charge. Nada, zip, none, zero. Just fill out a form, sign your name, and presto change-o abracadabra, you will have an ID card. You can then, take that card to the polls and vote, provided you are registered.

When you cash a check you need an ID. When you rent a movie, you need an ID. To get into a bar, you need an ID. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that voting requires one too?

But the saddest argument of all? Many of the opponents are saying this puts an undue burden on these "poor" people. Because now, they will have to find a ride to get the ID. They will have to take time out of their busy day (while waiting on the mail to bring their government checks) and go get it. They may even have to ask a family member or friend to drive them down. I know gas is high, but it only has to be done once.

I guess desperate people say and do desperate things, when they're wrong.

Good for the Supreme Court, for getting one right.

Supreme Court Hears Indiana Voter Identification Law Case

The cases Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party vs. Rokita will be heard today in the U.S. Supreme Court. In essence, Democrats are challenging the law because they feel it hurts their party more than Republicans. And since the law was enacted by under GOP majority, you know this has be unsettling on a couple of fronts.

The Indy Star has coverage here.

For a Democratic viewpoint, you can read this piece by Marie Cocco.

On Wednesday, the justices will hear a challenge to Indiana's strict law requiring photo identification in order for a voter to cast a ballot at the polls. The state claims the law is necessary to stop voter fraud. Yet no one -- not Indiana officials, not the U.S. Justice Department, which has taken the state's side, nor any commission -- has come up with a single case in the state's history in which an imposter showed up and cast a vote.

Evidently Ms. Cocco hasn't heard one of the fastest growing demographic of voters also known as, the dead vote. Maybe she doesn't think illegals are voting in some areas, but who would bet against this?

For The GOP side, you can read the Star editorial page.

U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, in a 2006 ruling, demolished arguments put forward by the Indiana Democratic Party and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana. "Despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting,'' Barker wrote at the time.

Think about that: The plaintiffs failed to find a single voter who couldn't cast a ballot because of the ID requirement. If no was injured, is there really a case?

The obvious answer to this is no. All citizens that want to vote can get an ID card, if they do not have a drivers license. There is no excuse whatsoever, for feeling disenfranchised.

Yet, the big comeback is always a concern, "the poor cannot afford an ID". But what they don't tell you is, by law anyone in Indiana can get it free.

Then, we get the "but the shut-ins like the elderly and the handicapped cannot get around town very easily" objection. I say, if they can get to vote, they can certainly go to the local BMV and get an ID on one of the other 364 (or 365 days) of the year. Certainly the same people that make sure they get to the polls can get them to the BMV, can they not?

I have often wondered, when people cry the loudest about new safeguards to stop people from breaking rules, if they aren't the ones breaking them.


UPDATE:

With all of the excitement you would find at an insurance seminar, here is a discussion on this case. (Warning: It's not a short video.) As I post this update, I am not quite a third of the way through listening to this and it's obvious the leanings of the panel (at least thus far). The first two speakers are clearly against this law and yet, they have come up with no logical reasoning as to why it should be ruled as unconstitutional.


ANOTHER UPDATE (1-10-08):

AC of Fore Left has left a link in the comments that goes with this post. Take a look at this little gem.