President Obama can't let Sotomayer's comments stand for themselves. He must swoop in and try to explain away what she clearly said. "I'm sure she would have restated it, but if you look at the entire sweep of the essay she wrote, what's clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through that will make her a good judge." What?! Struggles and hardships makes one a good judge? Funny, no mention of her love for the Constitution (because she doesn't) and no mention of standing for the rule of law (because she won't). The Constitution is a vice to liberals--preventing them from unleashing a tidal wave of government handouts and feel-good policies.
Hopefully the Conservatives in Congress will have the backbone to make a big deal about this and stop this confirmation!
May 30, 2009
May 26, 2009
Change and Hope
President Obama decided to announce a new justice to replace the tiring, uh, retiring David Souter. Obama says that Sonia Sotomayer is one that has a fair understanding of the law. Sotomayer has spent time as a judge and therefore has the experience, Obama says -- still trying to figure out his experience...
Let's examine some of Sotomayer's cases and see just what we are in for.
1. In 2005, at Duke University, Sotomayer told a group of panelists that "policy is made" in the Federal Court of Appeals. Perhaps the soon to be Associate Justice can read the first Article of the Constitution to find out where policy is made. But, that would mean having a fair understanding of the law.
2. In 2001, at U.C. Berkeley, Sotomayer implied that judicial responsibility should be ruled by one's ethnicity. She said, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society...." "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others...." "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." Ethnic biases are a great understanding of the law! (Quotes from cnn.com)
3. She is for affirmative action. In Feb. of 2008, she ruled to throw out exam results that the city of New Haven uses to determine promotions in the fire department. Only one Hispanic and no black Americans qualified based on the exam. So, naturally, instead of requiring harder work, we just give them the promotion based on their race. But, this isn't racist! Not at all!! Don't you know, only white people can be racist!
Obama is just continuing to show his poor judgment in leading America. Perhaps he is pushing for membership in the EU.
Let's examine some of Sotomayer's cases and see just what we are in for.
1. In 2005, at Duke University, Sotomayer told a group of panelists that "policy is made" in the Federal Court of Appeals. Perhaps the soon to be Associate Justice can read the first Article of the Constitution to find out where policy is made. But, that would mean having a fair understanding of the law.
2. In 2001, at U.C. Berkeley, Sotomayer implied that judicial responsibility should be ruled by one's ethnicity. She said, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society...." "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that - it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others...." "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." Ethnic biases are a great understanding of the law! (Quotes from cnn.com)
3. She is for affirmative action. In Feb. of 2008, she ruled to throw out exam results that the city of New Haven uses to determine promotions in the fire department. Only one Hispanic and no black Americans qualified based on the exam. So, naturally, instead of requiring harder work, we just give them the promotion based on their race. But, this isn't racist! Not at all!! Don't you know, only white people can be racist!
Obama is just continuing to show his poor judgment in leading America. Perhaps he is pushing for membership in the EU.
May 21, 2009
Click it or Ticket
It's summer again and why not usher in one of the summer traditions - busting those seat belt abusers! After all, seat belts save lives; why not have it a law?! When one studies the philosophies of John Locke and John Stewart Mill and Thomas Jefferson, we see a difference as it relates to "Positive Claim Rights" and "Negative Claim Rights". Positive Claim Rights focus on the idea of a person's right to be protected from themselves. Where as Negative Claim Rights focus on the idea that it is a person's right to chose what they wish, regardless of the consequences, but knowing they are responsible for their actions.
Positive Claim Rights are propagated by Liberals alike; and as you guessed, seat belt laws fall into this category. Should something be made a law just because it feels good or is a good idea? Brushing your teeth is a good idea, should it be a law? Showering is a good idea, should it be a law?? Seat belts are a good idea, but should they be a law? No. For one, it cannot be consistently applied - what about motorcycles? Secondly, if safety was the issue, why is the penalty monetary? Just as similarly to speeding, the fine is money. The police will spend more time looking and ticketing serial seat belt violators while my wife is broken down a half a mile away and is getting mugged because there is no police to help her. Well done thin blue line.
Positive Claim Rights are propagated by Liberals alike; and as you guessed, seat belt laws fall into this category. Should something be made a law just because it feels good or is a good idea? Brushing your teeth is a good idea, should it be a law? Showering is a good idea, should it be a law?? Seat belts are a good idea, but should they be a law? No. For one, it cannot be consistently applied - what about motorcycles? Secondly, if safety was the issue, why is the penalty monetary? Just as similarly to speeding, the fine is money. The police will spend more time looking and ticketing serial seat belt violators while my wife is broken down a half a mile away and is getting mugged because there is no police to help her. Well done thin blue line.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)