The Political Fish

Ahhh, the State of the Union address. The time in the political calendar in which we witness politicians falling in love with themselves all over again, year after year. There is so much to take away from last nights speech, but lets start with what has been sticking in my craw, and actually pulled me up out of my chair when it happened.

It was amazingly childish. It was awash in the hyper-partisan aura that dominated the entire evening. Frankly, it discarded the decorum of the evening, and was an act beneath the dignity of the United States President addressing the state of our union. In my time following politics, I have not yet seen something as brazen, but then again for a man who cannot seem to recognize the gravity and the duty and dignity of the office he holds, it came as no real surprise.

It was the blatant calling out of the Supreme Court in the middle of the speech, launching a political bomb at the Court as they sat stony faced in the front row. Politicization of the Court is beneath a President who has been lecturing throughout the evening on the need to discard the politicization of issues in Washington, and work on behalf of the American people. The reaction of the Democrat caucus was even more comical disgraceful, as clearly can be seen in the video. Chuck Schumer exhibits a particular lack of decency as he is almost giving an in your face to the Justices sitting nearest to him, clapping like a seal on the rocks.

From Politico

POLITICO’s Kasie Hunt, who’s in the House chamber, reports that Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words “not true” when President Barack Obama criticized the Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision.

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said. “Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

The shot of the black-robed Supreme Court justices, stone-faced, was priceless.

Oh but wait. We have come to this address to the nation’s version of the Joe Wilson “YOU LIE” moment. Justice Alito, who clearly was not particularly impressed with the Presidents hutzpah, gave a reaction that has set the political world on fire today. Check out the video here.

Well, it wasn’t quite a “You Lie” moment, but it was however a “that’s not true” moment for Justice Samuel Alito, who voted with the majority in the 5-4 decision which struck down elements of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law.

Again, we see the President lying to the American people, using scare tactics to bully his point across, blatantly telling falsehoods to the elation of his parties caucus. As a constitutional attorney, it is almost comical that he did not seem to research out the decision as it was given, neither reading the majority opinion or the dissenting opinion. It was obvious. Even the most novice of us who follow the Washington game can recognize his failure to educate himself on an issue explicitly put in his speech to attempt to discredit the Court and score cheap political points.  For a more detailed analysis, Bradley Smith, who is a distinguished professor of law at the Capital University Law School weighed in on the subject in the Corner, the blog for the National Review.  Emphasis mine.

Tonight the president engaged in demogoguery of the worst kind, when he claimed that last week’s Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC, “open[ed] the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

The president’s statement is false.

The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional. Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibiting from making “a contribution or donation of money or ather thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election” under 2 U.S.C. Section 441e, which was not at issue in the case. Foreign corporations are also prohibited, under 2 U.S.C. 441e, from making any contribution or donation to any committee of any political party, and they prohibited from making any “expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication.”

This is either blithering ignorance of the law or demagoguery of the worst kind

Of course, the Democrat caucus loved it. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) commented afterward to Politico.

“He [Alito] deserved to be criticized, if he didn’t like it he can mouth whatever they want,” Weiner said. “These Supreme Court justices sometimes forget that we live in the real world. They got a real world reminder tonight, if you make a boneheaded decision, someone’s going to call you out on it.”

This actually goes to show the irony of the last name of the honorable representative from New York. The President never mentioned Alito, who in fact did not even write the majority opinion in the case. However, it is good to see that the Democrats have decided to wage war on the Supreme Court. Justice Alito would eat the lunch of any and all on the issue at hand, as he heard the case, researched the case, and adjudicated on the matter. This is not a debate that the Dem’s should try to engage in, it is one they cannot win and one that would make them look silly. But, Weiner apparently wants to make a showcase of the Alito reaction. It won’t play well Congressman.

Randy Barnett from the Georgetown University School of law weighs in.

In the history of the State of the Union has any President ever called out the Supreme Court by name, and egged on the Congress to jeer a Supreme Court decision, while the Justices were seated politely before him surrounded by hundreds Congressmen? To call upon the Congress to countermand (somehow) by statute a constitutional decision, indeed a decision applying the First Amendment? What can this possibly accomplish besides alienating Justice Kennedy who wrote the opinion being attacked. Contrary to what we heard during the last administration, the Court may certainly be the object of presidential criticism without posing any threat to its independence. But this was a truly shocking lack of decorum and disrespect towards the Supreme Court for which an apology is in order. A new tone indeed.

I haven’t been able to find much in favor of Obama’s decision to throw a political grenade at the court. Even the hyper liberal WH mouthpiece NY Times offered up analysis in its blog condemning the decision and the statement, deriding the Presidents clear lack of knowledge on the subject that he wanted to make a point on.

I will have more on the State of the Union address throughout the day, but I felt like I needed to get this one off my chest first. For a general roundup, go here.

Or Check out some of these.

 http://www.riehlworldview.com/carnivorous_conservative/2010/01/video-justice-alito-corrects-constitutional-scholar-prez.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/01/27/not-true-alito-mouths-words-as-obama-hammers-supreme-court/

Far left wack job Congressman Alan Grayson continues to cement himself as the most over the top loon in the House of Representatives.

Recently we witnessed the Supreme Court shoot down elements of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance law as un-Constitutional in its limitations on free speech and the spending of money in political races. Prior to that however, back on January 13th, Rep. Grayson introduced HR 4431. This bill might also be known as “Business should mind its own business Act”. In keeping with Graysons well known “one fry short of a happy meal” reputation, it proposes a 500% excise tax on all businesses that would spend money in a political campaign. Read it for yourself, I couldn’t make this garbage up.

It would be interesting to see how much money Rep. Grayson received himself via campaign donations from businesses in his district and around the country.

I have a feeling he will be gone in the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. See ya Alan.

Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act (Introduced in House)
HR 4431 IH

 

111th CONGRESS 

2d SessionTo amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

 

January 13, 2010

Mr. GRAYSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

---

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 500 percent excise tax on corporate contributions to political committees and on corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This Act may be cited as the `Business Should Mind Its Own Business Act’.

 

SEC. 2. EXCISE TAX ON CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND ON CORPORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS.

 

(a) In General- Chapter 36 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to certain other excise taxes) is amended by adding at the end the following new subchapter:

 

`Subchapter E–Certain Corporate Political Activities

 

•  
  `Sec. 4491. Corporate contributions to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns.

 

`SEC. 4491. CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND CORPORATE EXPENDITURES ON POLITICAL ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNS.

 

`(a) In General- In the case of a corporation, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 500 percent of the aggregate of the following amounts:

 

•  
  `(1) The amount of contributions (as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) made during the taxable year.

 

•  
  `(2) The amount paid for an electioneering communication described in section 304(f)(3) of such Act.

 

`(b) Certain Determinations Disregarded- For purposes of this section, any court determination that such Act does not apply to one or more corporations shall be disregarded.’.

 

(b) Denial of Income Tax Deduction- Subsection (a) of section 275 of such Code is amended by inserting after paragraph (6) the following new paragraph:

 

•  
  `(7) Taxes imposed by section 4491 (relating to corporate contributions to political committees and corporate expenditures on political advocacy campaigns).’.

 

(c) Clerical Amendment- The table of subchapters for chapter 36 of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

 

`subchapter e. certain corporate political activities.’.

 

(d) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to amounts paid after the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years ending after such date.

In the Presidents weekly Internet address, Barack Obama took the opportunity to launch an attack at the recent Supreme Court decision that effectively abolished decades old restrictions on corporate spending for political activites.

“This week, the United States Supreme Court handed a huge victory to the special interests and their lobbyists – and a powerful blow to our efforts to rein in corporate influence,” he said of the Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “This ruling strikes at our democracy itself.”

Obama in his address backed the efforts of Democrats in Congress as he did earlier several days ago and called for Republicans to join Democrats in supporting the measures.

“When this ruling came down, I instructed my administration to get to work immediately with members of Congress willing to fight for the American people to develop a forceful, bipartisan response to this decision,” he said. “We have begun that work, and it will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done.”

Unsurprisingly, the American people disagree. Gallup released a poll today showing that a majority of Americans believe that corporate spending in elections and for political purposes is in fact free speech, which of course Mr. Obama does not agree with.

Americans’ broad views about corporate spending in elections generally accord with the Supreme Court’s decision Thursday that abolished some decades-old restrictions on corporate political activity. Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are. At the same time, the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.

It is ironic actually that Obama is slamming on this decision so hard. You will remember during the 2008 election that candidate Obama decided to forego the federal election funding, opting to go private instead. This of course opened the doors to all sorts of donors, large and small to donate unchecked to his campaign. It also left candidate John McCain holding the bag on his own legislation, handcuffed by his own doing on how much money he could spend on the campaign. Yet, after Obama circumvented the law, he now lashes out at the Supreme Court for their decision against McCain/Feingold. It’s hypocrisy in its purest form.  Speaking of hypocrisy…aren’t the Democrats always the beneficiary of labor union largesse on an almost daily basis? The answer is yes.

McCain/Feingold was unconstitutional on its face. Shame on President Bush for ever signing the measure into law. The libertarian CATO Institute produced a video this week explaining in much greater detail the dangers of the campaign finance bill. You can’t call it censorship, thats a dirty word…but you can call it campaign finance reform. Wrapped in a pretty package, it still limits speech.

One fatal flaw in the logic of the McCain/Feingold bill. Aren’t all news outlets owned by large corporations? As stated in the video, without specific exemptions corporate news and press would be given more first ammendment rights than the rest of the country.

Obama once again shows himself to be disgraceful in his lack of respect for the Constitution. The beat goes on.

Seldom watched MSNBC host Keith Olbermann embarrassed himself in front of his dozens of viewers recently when he concurred with a guest of his, Congressman Alan Grayson (D-Florida), who argued that the recent Supreme Court decision which eliminates restrictions on corporate speech is “the most irresponsible decision by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision.”

For the record, Dred Scott was decided in 1857.  Since then the Court has decided Plessy v. Ferguson, which allowed states to keep black children out of white schools; Buck v. Bell, which allowed for compulsory sterilization of mentally retarded persons as part of a eugenics scheme, justified by Justice Oliver Wendell Holme’s chilling axiom that “three generations of imbeciles are enough”; Korematsu v. U.S., which allowed for internment of Japanese-American citizens during World War II; Roe v. Wade, which created a natural right to the most unnatural of acts; and more recently, the 2005 decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which allows states and municipalities to seize private property for no reason other than hand it over to another private party.

Reasonable people can disagree over whether corporations should enjoy the same right to freedom of speech as individuals.  But no right minded person can disagree that Olbermann and Grayson’s comments were, to use their words, “most irresponsible.”

We are now to refer to her as Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

I am not going to get into the details of why I think this is a catastrophe for our country. You can read my views here and here and here and here….or maybe here and here and here as well.

For a complete list of my Sotomayor opinions, just go here

I am not going to wax eloquent on this blog. She was confirmed, we are now going to be forced to live with her on the Court for many years. We have no one to thank but ourselves. The Constitution is under attack, how long shall we sit and observe it. It does not matter whether she is white, black, hispanic, Chinese, or even not of this world…she has shown in her career that the Constitution of the United States does not serve as her guide in judicial decision making. For that, we should not celebrate her confirmation, but lament the fact that the United States Senate enabled her to take this lifelong appointment.

For me, I will remember the name of Senator Lindsey Graham, the one Republican who sold his conscience on the Judiciary Panel.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor today was cleared by the Senate Judiciary Commitee by a 13-6 vote along party lines, to be moved into the Senate for a full confirmation hearing to the Supreme Court of the United States. Party line vote, except for one….

Senator Lindsey Graham, who all but admitted he would vote against his conscience during his opening statement in the hearing, was the lone GOP vote that allowed Sotomayor to get past the committee and into a full vote. Rule 4 of the Judiciary committee states that the candidate needs at least one vote from the minority party in order to clear through the panel. Senator Graham saw to it today that he was that lone vote. The singular reason she is able to sweep into the Senate, where confirmation is all but guaranteed.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) wrote an op-ed in the USA Today yesterday detailing why he would vote against Judge Sotomayor, laying out clearly that her decisions (the majority of which have been overturned by the Supreme Court) go against the Constitution.

In the end, her testimony served as a repudiation of judicial activism.But pledging “fidelity to the law” and practicing judicial restraint are different things. Which Sotomayor will we get? At the hearings, which were praised for their substance and respectful tone, we looked closely at the record:

 

– Her 2006 private property decision permitted the government to take property from one developer and give it to another.

 

– Her 2008 Ricci decision allowed a city to discriminate against one group of firefighters because of their race. That ruling was recently reversed by the Supreme Court.

 

– Her 2009 Second Amendment decision would give states the power to ban firearms.

These rulings have three things in common. Each was contrary to the Constitution. Each was decided in a brief opinion, short on analysis. And each was consistent with liberal political thought.

I don’t believe that Judge Sotomayor has the deep-rooted convictions necessary to resist the siren call of judicial activism. She has evoked its mantra too often. As someone who cares deeply about our great heritage of law, I must withhold my consent.

Apparently, these clearly articulated Constitutional values do not hold water with Senator Graham. Apparently, the voices of his constituency do not hold water with Mr. Graham. Reagan.org along with a host of other conservative organizations in South Carolina and across the country pushed hard to convince Mr. Graham to vote with the Constitution. He chose today to enable the majority party to continue their slash and burn on our sacred founding document.

Senator Graham today exudes for all of us to see exactly what is wrong with the Republican party. Even moderate voices in the committee such as Senator Chuck Grassley and Senator Orrin Hatch could not bring themselves to vote in favor of Judge Sotomayor. Senator Graham showed a lack of conscience and principle in stating his opposition on ideological grounds, stating his distaste for her judicial philosophy, stating his entire mindset of political posturing and division, and voting her through anyways. Its spineless, and as I have opined before on this blog, dangerous for the GOP and for America.

Well done Senator Graham, your legacy had just changed. And it will live on throughout the career of nearly confirmed, future Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

You can believe that you will be hearing from your constituency today, and when you come back up for re-election.

Interesting line of questioning from Senator Lindsey Graham, followed by basically a non-answer from Judge Sonia Sotomayor…roll the tape!

It appears as if Republican Senators in the Judiciary commitee hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor are going to be left alone to parse her lengthy judicial record. While I personally have been  unable to watch the hearings in its entirety (mercifully I might add) what I have seen has been nothing more than a love affair from the Democrat Senators who find Sotomayor’s story of growing up in the Bronx to be more relevant than how she has decided cases, including her obvious racial and ideological bias’ that she has shown numerous times. We all get it, she was born in the Bronx, the daughter of Puerto Rican immigrants, lived in the projects…its great. But it should have no bearing on how she decides cases. She has shown that is not the case.

Its a disgrace that Democrat Senators have become so far entrenched in partisan bickering that they cannot even properly vet a candidate for the highest court in the land. Its being left to the seven Republicans on the commitee, likely in an effort to make them look bigoted or obstructionist. Junior Minnesota Senator Al Franken has been comical to watch, as he sits there like a silly kid amazed that he has this job. Wes Pruden in the Washington Times wrote an exceptionally harsh, but remarkably accurate piece on Franken today. See the whole thing here.

Al Franken’s vote is not likely to be the margin of victory for any of the schemes now being dreamed up by the Democrats, but the way he got to Washington, and the easy acceptance of fraud, will be remembered as typical of the times, an era when avarice reigned, and the clever swindle was a joke to be played by a clown.

Ahh, love is a wonderful thing. It would be nice if the United States Senate would spend less time being awestruck my Ms. Sotomayor, and spend more time doing their due diligence to ensure that America is not stuck with a judicial activist on the Supreme Court for the next 20 years. I won’t expect the in-over-his-head Al Franken to do this, but the rest of the Senators with a little experience should heed this call. I won’t hold my breath.

At least according to Americans United for life that is definetely not the case. Charmaine Yoest, who will be testifying in the Sotomayor confirmation hearings responded to the assertion made by Ms. Sotomayor today by saying:

This question of Roe as settled law goes to a central point in the testimony we’ll be providing on Thursday morning: Roe is not settled law. The holding in Roe establishing the right to abortion has been substantially modified in subsequent cases – even Casey while reaffirming the central holding of Roe, modified the standard of review applied to abortion regulations. As Roe and its successors continue to be repeatedly reconsidered, it is anything but settled law.

Interesting that this subject came up today after Norma McCorvey was arrested in protest of Judge Sotomayor and her well known stand in favor of abortion rights. Oddly enough, Ms. McCorvey’s arrest was scarcely covered in the news media, regardless of her high profile. Ms. McCorvey has become an extremely inconvenient figure in the abortion debate for the left, as she has obviously seen the mistakes of her youth and has dedicated her life to fight against the abortion issue. More protest at today’s session as well. The video below was from yesterday as Ms. McCorvey was taken out of the hearing…

The GOP has been in attack mode for the last few weeks. The attack machine of the so-called “conservative” party has been in overdrive. Unfortunately, they have been attacking all the wrong things. Most recently, you have the Republican hit machine taking swipes at the fact that President Obama took his wife out on a date this past weekend. The argument can be made (and its a good one) that this was an excessive abuse of his power. It was fiscally irresponsible, and could have even been poor judgement. All these things are probably true. At the end of the day, it will leave no lasting affect on the course of our country. It speaks only to the hypocrisy of our President as he calls on the nation to sacrifice and live within our means. This is obviously an issue for us to pay attention to. But is it really an issue that demands full blown attacks and statements and the “righteous anger” of the GOP? Follow me here for just a minute…

At the same time the GOP machine is taking major swings at the President for taking his wife on a lavish date, the same GOP who is outraged at this “heinous” lack of judgement have come out and basically admitted that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed.  Senator John Cornyn has all but disavowed any criticism from “non-elected” officials and has withheld any statements against the Judge. Does it make sense to have such a strong backbone on something as inconsequential as a Friday night on the town, and then morph into a spineless blob on an issue that will directly effect the Constitution, the citizenry, and the Supreme Court for what is likely to be decades??

Confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is the politically expedient thing for the GOP to do.  To filibuster, or to give her a major fight could possibly anger a growing political demographic. However, it appears to have not harmed the Democrats when they put Miguel Estrada through the ringer. They seemed to have come out on top of that argument.  At some point, politics needs to be put aside to stand for something that you believe in. Why are Republicans willing to compromise on issues that fly in the face of the core values of our country?? The problem with the GOP is that they truly do not believe in anything at all. The Democrats have been successful because everyone knows what they stand for and what they are all about. Their core values fly in the face of everything that is conservatism. Yet the GOP wants to embrace them in the middle of the road on these issues to try and sway the moderates. Its poor strategy. At the end of the day, Dems are likely to continue voting for Dems. As long as the GOP continues to alienate their base, they will continue to be an irrelevant fixture in the 2-party political arena.

When the GOP decides to stand true to its core beliefs, you can rest assured that their will be another “Republican Revolution” like we saw during the Clinton years. The public is fed up with the corruption, hypocrisy, and duplicitous behavior of the Dem Congress. Eventually they will get fed up with the socialistic drive of this president. At this point there is no viable alternative…the GOP needs to become the alternative soon, and if they can’t, dissolve it all together and create a real conservative party.

The Obama spin machine is in full effect these days as the Prez himself is trying to deflect the criticism of his nominee for the Supreme Court seat being vacated at the end of the year by Justice David Souter. As far as spin goes, there have definetely been better attempts, as Obama issued this statement in reference to Judge Sotomayors racist statement that Latina women would be better judges than white men. Obama stated dryly “I’m sure she would have restated it”.  Really. That’s all he has got to defend her. Spin translation = had she known this day was coming she would have lied, and not let the world know that she feels superior to another ethnicity. Obama then proceeded to demonize those who have scrutinized his pick by saying “I think that when she’s appearing before the Senate committee, in her confirmation process, I think all this nonsense that is being spewed out will be revealed for what it is,”. Spin translation = vast right-wing conspiracy, and we will win! He better hope that all this “non-sense” doesn’t get revealed for what it is, or this woman will surely not take a seat on the bench. This nonsense that he speaks of is nothing more than ethnic narcissism that both Obama and Sotomayor clearly hold dear to their hearts. He better hope that is not what is revealed during the Senate hearings.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, not to be undone offered this spin job as he told reporters “I think she’d say that her word choice in 2001 was poor.” Well of course she would now, seeing the firestorm her remarks have caused. Spin translation simply = duh.

Obama added today in his Saturday Internet address “What I hope is that we can avoid the political posturing and ideological brinksmanship that has bogged down this process, and Congress, in the past.” Ironically enough, Barry Obama supported the failed Democratic attempt to filibuster President Bush’s nominee Justice Samuel Alito, who did not fit the idealogy of Obama, but was however a very qualified choice for Supreme Court justice.

Hypocrisy, brinkmanship, spin, and deception. Now thats change we can believe in right?

 Photo Courtesy of

Breaking news from the Supreme Court!!

Lady Justice has been ordered by the Obama Administration, by way of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to remove the blindfold indefinetely. Reports are surfacing that Judge Sotomayor is fed up with this concept of blind justice. It simply does not fit her life experience. More to come…

This is a joke for all the liberals out there with no sense of humor….

Photo courtesy of: sanlorenzolibrary.files.wordpress.com

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs has in a very short time become known for the press conferences he gives. He possesses a very snarky demeanor, with cockiness as his overriding personality trait. He is actually the ultimate mouthpiece for what is becoming a bully of a President. Today’s press conference was no different, as he passed along a veiled threat to the press corp and the American people about how we choose to speak about the dubious appointment of Judge Sonia Sotomayor. For all the inane things we have been forced to listen to from this man, this to me takes the cake. He was responding to a posting on Newt Gingrich’ blog in which he described Judge Sotomayor as participating in gender politics from the bench, adding “A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”  Mind you, Gingrich is now, and has been for a while now a private citizen who does not fear speaking out on the truth of the subject matter. This President has shown in his short time that he cannot handle stern criticism and relies on Chicago-style thug politics and threats to respond to them. This attempt at bullying needs to be stopped.

Judge Sotomayor is in fact all of the things that Mr. Gingrich stated. She only has her OWN words to blame for the label she is receiving. She does in fact by her own admission view the federal bench as a forum to create policy. She is on the record as being motivated by identity politics, stating “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,”.  She has been clear in her message that her latina roots and life experience will be her guide, and not the Constitution. She is clearly a judicial activist, and should not be let out of the judiciary commitee and put forward for a confirmation vote. The case can easily be made that she was nominated because of her ethnicity and gender, and not based on qualifications. She fits the mold of a President who wants to uproot all things Constitutional and remake this country in his own image. She gives no credence to the facts of the cases being heard, only viewing these cases through the lense of her life experience. This is not prudent for the highest court in the land, a place where our country relies on its top judges to be fair, and base their opinions on Constitutional law, not on whims or politics. “The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution” from Article II of the Constitution.

If the President or his mouthpiece think that the American people are going to be quiet, or even need to “choose their words carefully”, they are incorrect. For the American people to stand by and watch our government install into the highest court in the land, someone who doesn’t understand the role, and has not lived by the creed in her time on the Federal Appeals Court would be irresponsible on our part, to say the least. You can bet the PoliticalFish will not be silent. The Constitution is the law of this land, and will stay that way. The tradition of automatically confirming presidential appointees should stop here. There was no problem back in the 80’s when the Dems put a stop to Robert Bork. He was a Constitutionalist, imagine that!! There are nothing in the Judiciary commitee guidelines that state that an appointee is automatically confirmed. They must be recommended by the commitee for confirmation from the entire Senate. The pressure should start being applied now.

We will see what kind of backbone our Senators and the Judiciary Commitee really have. I assume its not much. This note will be passed along to my Senators here in Michigan, and I urge you to do the same.

Technorati Profile

Carrie Prejean said it best at the Miss USA contest…marriage is between a man and a woman. The state of California backed her statement by way of the ballot box. In a move that will surely bum out drama queen Perez Hilton, the California Supreme Court backed up the voters and Ms. Prejean in a 6-1 decision to uphold the voice of the citizens of the state of California.

Unfortunately, the topic will not go away. While Prop 8 passed with 52% of the vote, gay rights groups plan to press the issue forward. They have a major voice in their corner in Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said yesterday in a statement “While I believe that one day either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage, as governor of California I will uphold the decision of the California Supreme Court. Regarding the 18,000 marriages that took place prior to Proposition 8’s passage, the court made the right decision in keeping them intact.” That also stands in contrast to President Obama’s position on the issue, which has disappointed many of the liberal base.

But for now, the issue has been resolved. At least in the state of California.

Today, President Obama made his decision on who he wanted to nominate to succeed the retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter. His choice seems to be a dubious one at best. Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a Federal Appeals Court Judge out of New York City, apparently the type of court that “sets policy“. This is just one of the activist statements she has made in her time on the federal bench, which she was originally appointed to be a federal judge by the first President Bush. Bill Clinton had moved her into her current position, and Obama will move her to the highest court in the land.

Politically speaking, this move does not hurt too much. In Justice Souter, you had a strong liberal voice that could be counted on to vote in favor of the majority of liberal issues. You replace that with a far-leftist like Sotomayor, and the complexion of the court stays the same. The problem is the type of judge she has garnered the reputation of being. She has shown in her time on the Federal bench to be an activist ajudicator. She is most famous for her decision in 1995 concerning the baseball strike, but has recently become famous for being on the record as being racially motivated in her worldview, and her approach to judging. This does not bode well, and should certainly not be welcome in the highest court in the land.

In defense of the pick, at least President Obama was intelligent enough not to pick failed Michigan governor Jennifer Granholm for the position. Strangely enough, she had been mentioned to be on the short list of candidates, despite her obvious lack of judicial experience. Sorry Jenny, no comfy job yet. Keep going to Washington and i’m sure you will be placed somewhere….anywhere but here!!