Race Baiters and the Voting Rights Act

The Supreme Court released its decision on Shelby County V. Holder.  This case dealt with only one section of the Voting Rights Act; section 4.  This section used data from the 1960's in order to decide which states/counties/districts have shown acts of discrimination in allowing minorities to vote, ever.  

There is no denying that in sections in the country the ability for minorities to vote was made almost impossible.  In many cases, those areas are in the south.  But the question in front of the court was does the federal government still have the right to micro manage every aspect of how voting procedures are done in all these areas of the country close to 50 years later.  They answered no.  Chief Justice Roberts said that times have changed and the law must change with those times.  

I am not going to sit here and deny that racism exists, it most certainly does.  We have heard recent stories about churches in the deep south refusing to marry inter-racial couples.  But the other side to that coin is that in many of the areas that this section covered have minority voters registered at equitable numbers of their populations.  

Now we have all the racebaiters out in force today saying that minorities will be again denied the right to register and vote.  Where is the proof of that?  Many areas of the south have black representatives at all levels of government.  Is that automatically going to stop simply because one small provision of the act needs to be adjusted?  It is simply ridiculous.  But Jesse Jackson usually is.  

Herein lies the problem.  We are not in 1964 anymore.  Times have changed and the congress was warned years ago that this provisions needed to be updated, not just rubber stamped to continue for an additional 25 years.  This section actually forced the areas it covered to get permission from The Department of Justice if they needed to do something as simple as change a voting location 25 feet away.  How exactly is that going to effect minorities from voting?  If a white person can get 25 feet so can anyone else.  

In one recent instance, one small town wanted to take the party affiliation off the ballot on local elections.  The Department of Justice said that was going to disenfranchise black voters.  All it was going to do was make people actually research who was running instead of seeing a letter after their name and voting based on that.  Since it was a very small town, most people most likely knew them anyway.  But it didn't stop the federal government from sticking their nose into business that had nothing to do with them.  

Congress should have acted on this years ago.  Why won't they?  They are afraid of being labeled racist simply because they admit that many areas of the country no longer discriminate when it comes voting.  The democrats don't get to hold onto they are the champions of minorities and the republicans don't want to get called names.  So what do they do?  They simply act like nothing has changed in 5 decades.  We all know that it has.  

Many on the left are talking about the voting rights act has been gutted.  No such thing is true.  What we really have seen here is that voting rights act has been successful and it is a law that has done what it was supposed to do (the law was always supposed to be a temporary one until things leveled out) and we should be celebrating that.  There may very well still be areas of the country where problems exist.  Lets figure out where those areas are and write laws that make sense.  If this is still such a problem, it should be no problem being able to prove it.  

But of course that will make the likes of Jesse Jackson less relevant.  We wouldn't want that would we?  

Government Allowed to Take DNA without Warrant

The Supreme Court today ruled that it is perfectly acceptable for the police to take your DNA without a warrant.  Oh my.  

In 2009 a man named Alonzo King was taken under arrest and charged with assault, during this arrest the police took a swab and matched his DNA to an unsolved rape.  Mr. King was not taken under arrest for the rape, nor was he believed to be involved at the time of the arrest.  He was charged, prosecuted, and found guilty of the rape.  His attorney's filed an appeal under the fourth amendment of illegal search and seizure.  

The court has decided that DNA swabs are no different than taking a photograph and fingerprints.  It is only a source of identification.  Really?  Giving the government bodily fluids is just another source of making an ID?  

Scalia joined with the more liberal wing of the court and said this in his dissent:

"The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence," Scalia said. "That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment."

But my favorite has to be:

"I hope that the Maryland officials who read the Court’s opinion do not take it seriously,"

Doesn't those on the court understand how this can be abused?  Now, it seems pretty obvious that King is indeed a rapist.  I have zero sympathy for him, zero.  But he isn't really the point.  These cases are always about something bigger than person who brought the case.  When he was arrested, there doesn't seem to be that there was evidence he was guilty of committing this rape.  So why would they have right to take his DNA?  The entire point of our justice system is the presumption of innocence.  By automatically taking DNA swabs of every person who is arrested we have forgone that presumption and walking towards something that will no longer resemble our justice system.  

What is so odd is that it seems that the deciding vote came from Justice Stephen Breyer.  Strange bed fellows indeed.  

But sadly we have gotten to the point in this country that the government's desires and needs are now over taking our rights.  This government was built on the rights of the individual being paramount.  That seems to no longer exist.  

Obamacare Upheld as a Tax

Believe me I am not happy about the mental gymnastics that Chief Justice Roberts did to reach this choice.  But as Ian's Wife below has pointed out, there is some silver lining to our misery.

I do agree with him that it isn't their job to deem something good or bad strictly on a policy basis.  I also agree that it is not their job to save us when we vote idiots into office.  Their only job is to deem something within the parameters of constitutional or not constitutional.

One of the most interesting things I have come across since the ruling is this:

Today’s conservatives frequently complain about the dangers of judicial activism. Perhaps now they’ll be more alert to the dangers of judicial restraint.

The argument being that Justice Roberts is a constructionist.  He believes in the written constitution and abides by stare decisis.  Therefore, he had no choice but to uphold the law.  The case-law is clear, in a tie the government wins.  The constitution was set up to give latitude to the legislators as they were voted in by the will of the people.  They also to go onto to explain that it is very possible that Bork would have voted exactly the same way, or at least would have felt compelled to by his own standards.

Does this mean that I accept the ruling?  Well no, but I also realize that this is the last word on the matter, at least in the manner that Obamacare was being fought out in the courts.  The litagation on this law is far from over.  We have a long way to go, especially when it comes to rights of Church and State.

One of the things that I have found most interesting in all of this is:

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce,

Senator Barack Obama on why he vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts.  In a small way, Chief Justice Roberts flipped the president the bird.  He very clearly crafted his opinion to limit the use the commerce clause.  An issue that always appeared to be part of who he is.  Roberts was a member of The Federalist Society.  Much of his career was spent trying to limit the over-reach of the federal government and protect the rights of the states.  Which in many ways makes this decision even that much harder to take.

I, for the most part, expected to the law to be upheld.  I had hoped that the mandate would go, and the law would stay.  I too felt that they would leave it up to the legislature to deal with the aftermath of the mandate being gone.  I also must admit that I called it tax many times.

The strangest thing in all of this is that they can't mandate us to purchase a product and impose a fee.  But, they can tax us for not buying something that they want us to.  That is an oxymoron is it not?

I had read an article by some left leaning person that made a very compelling argument that it would be Scalia of all people that would uphold the law.  Sadly, I can't find the link to it.  But in this article it went through some case law that had Scalia normally siding to increase the use of the commerce clause.  Something that I had no idea about.  This same article also said that they had hopes that Roberts would vote on their side.  1 out of 2 is not so shabby.

Our job now is to educate the people in this country to what their choices mean.  When we go to the ballot box we are not voting for prom king/queen.  We are voting for people who will be handling very serious issues that do effect our everyday lives.  Obamacare may seem good to some on the surface.  After all they are getting all kinds of "free stuff".  But all these free things have a cost.  These costs will be seen in higher premiums, and entire new class of the uninsured.

CBO and JCT’s projections of health insurance coverage have also changed since last March. Fewer people are now expected to obtain health insurance coverage from their employer or in insurance exchanges; more are now expected to obtain coverage from Medicaid or CHIP or from nongroup or other sources. More are expected to be uninsured. The extent of the changes varies from year to year, but in 2016, for example, the ACA is now estimated to reduce the number of people receiving health insurance coverage through an employer by an additional 4 million enrollees relative to the March 2011 projections. In that year, CBO and JCT now estimate that there will be 2 million fewer enrollees in insurance exchanges. In the other direction, CBO and JCT now estimate that, in 2016, the ACA will increase enrollment in Medicaid and CHIP slightly more than previously estimated (but considerably more in 2014 and 2015), and it will reduce the number of people with nongroup or other coverage by 3 million less and the number of uninsured people by 2 million less than previously estimated.
To recap, the CBO now predicts that Obamacare: 1) will force millions more Americans out of their current employer coverage than originally advertised; 2) will force millions more Americans onto Medicaid than originally advertised; 3) will force millions more Americans to pay fines for not obtaining health care; 4) will force businesses to pay billions more in mandate fines; and 5) will leave millions more Americans without insurance than originally advertised.

So the goal of getting everyone insurance is a fantasy.  It is not going to happen.  It is going to be much more expensive than we were orginally told, and many people (myself included) who did have a policy that they really liked, will not be able to keep it.

Another clear irony of all this, Nanny Pelosi told us we had to pass it to find out what was in it.  Guess what?  It was a tax.  You own it.  It is a tax.  No spin will allow you to get past that.  No spin will allow you to say that you didn't raise taxes on people who made less than $250K, you did.  No spin is going to change the fact that your assurances that the mandate was constitutional were wrong.  No spin is going to change the fact that this is much more expensive than orginally packaged.

The law is still unpopular.  The supreme court decision is not all that much better.  This has become one of the most clear and concise issues of the presidential campaign.  When you vote in November do you vote Obama and keep Obamacare, or do you vote Romney and for any other republican running for a federal seat and to try and get a repeal?  That is the choice.  It is clear and it will decide which direction this country chooses to go.

Live Blogging From Inside the Supreme Court

You can access the feed here:  Many "experts" I heard today are expecting Arizona immigration to be released today (widely believed to be upheld) and no Obamacare until Thursday.  The justices have gathered and the decisions released today should be read from the bench starting at 10am

http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/

Juan Williams Jumps the Shark....Again

The relevant point is that the court may do irreparable harm to is reputation with anotehr highly political split between justices appointed by Democrats and justices appointed by Republicans.  A 5-4 defeat of the healthcare law will erode trust in the justice system.  

So says Juan Williams.  I guess he has forgotten this:

The poll also asked respondents if they think the individual mandate is constitutional or unconstitutional. Seventy-two percent said it is unconstitutional. Though there were some partisan differences, a clear majority of even Democrats, 56 percent, think it is unconstitutional. Ninety-four percent of Republicans and 70 percent of independents said the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

And this has been constant throughout the debate on healthcare.  The difference is that democrats, for the most part, don't seem to care that it is unconstitutional.  They want Obamacare and it matters none if it violates my rights or hurts the healthcare industry in this country.  


The real question that Juan Williams should be asking is why possibly 4 justices that were appointed by dems would so blatantly disregard the constitution and say that the federal government has the right to force us to by a product simply because we are alive?  When you are willing to answer that question Mr. Williams, then we can talk.  

Activism Alert - Immigration Rally at Supreme Court 4/25

Arizona's immigration law, SB 1070 has wound its way through the court system and will be heard by the Supreme Court on 4/25 (Next Wednesday).  The Greater Phoenix Tea Party has asked any and all local groups who care about the rule of law to help support the law by rallying in front of the court on that day.  The American Council for Immigration Reform will also be bringing people.  


There will be a counter rally to be attended by Casa de Maryland, The New York Immigrant Coalition, and the New Sanctuary Coalition of New York City are scheduled to bus in people.  


If you are able to make the rally, the Greater Phoenix Tea Party would greatly appreciate it.  

A Little Study Guide for our Constitutional Professor President on Separation of Powers

We made this real easy.  Look at the picture, and it will show you how the framers set up the government.  It is called separation of powers.  Really, not that hard.  They do get a voice on Obamacare. 

CNN's Toobin Says Mandate in Trouble

Gee, ya think?  Forcing people to purchase a product that they don't need; such as birth control, mammograms, and Viagra, isn't constitutional?  Shocker!!

Live Stream of Obamacare Rally Today in DC - Tune in at 1PM

http://americansforprosperity.org/032712-hands-my-health-care-rally-livestream

For those you can't attend, you can still watch.

I am off to hear some good speeches and enjoy the atmosphere with the unions that have been bused in by the AFL-CIO.

10 Years Later - President Bush Wins

It has been 10 years since the Supreme Court ruled on Bush V. Gore.  The case that made George W. Bush the 43rd president of the United States.  Much has been made of this case and at the time many thought it was the Supreme Court that was deciding the election.  Of course this isn't true, but it did cast a shadow over the Bush presidency that never really went away.

Now, I didn't vote for President Bush in 2000.  At that time Virginia was solidly red as far as presidential elections went, so that freed me up to vote my conscience.  I had issues that I couldn't get passed and didn't allow me to pull the lever for President Bush the first time around.  To be honest I don't remember who I voted for, and it is possible that I just left that blank.  I have done that before and I am sure that the occasion will arise that I will do it again. 

So much of narrative of what happened during this election is completely false and has continued for the past ten years.  The decision that really ended the election was a 7-2 decision not 5-4 that many people think that it was.  The decision that really ended it was about Florida using different sets of standards in order to do the recounts.  (Bush V. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board) Which clearly violates the constitution on the grounds of equal protection under the law.  Vice President Gore and his legal team wanted to use different sets of standards depending on which county you lived in.  He cherry picked heavily democratic counties for the recount and tried to change the rules on what constituted a legal vote.  Federal law requires that the law for how a vote is to be counted must be in place before the election takes place.  In Palm Beach County the law before the election was that "dimpled" chads couldn't be counted as a legal vote.  Yet, Gore and his legal eagles somehow convinced the Florida Supreme Court that they could be; hence a protracted and illegal recount.  One that still showed him as the loser.  Unable to accept this decision, Gore kept pressing forward which then led to the 5-4 decision that most people remember. 

Another big misconception was the job of Secretary of State Kathleen Harris.  She followed the letter of the law, as much as many tried to make her out as some sort of evil character hell bent on illegally handing President Bush the presidency when he didn't deserve it.  That simply is not the case.  Florida law requires the timeline of when the vote must be certified and she followed it.

The final electoral vote count was 271 to 266.  Florida counting as 25 of those.  Another thing that many on the left seem to leave out of the equation is the small pesky little fact that Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, which has 11 votes.  So, had Gore won his home state he would have Florida never would have mattered.  It wasn't Florida that gave President Bush the win, it was Gore being unable to win his home state that cost him the presidency.  Had Florida declared the state to Bush before Tennessee was announced it wouldn't have become the issue that it did.  Florida was the last ditch attempt to hold on after the news that he lost his home state had been announced.  Personally, I think if a candidate for president can't win his home state he doesn't deserve to be the title of President of the United States.  The one thing that was very enjoyable to watch during that time was the left championing states rights.  They certainly aren't interested in them now.  The reality is that even when the AP sent people to do recounts after the election had been called even they found that Bush did indeed win the count in Florida by the narrowest of margins.  As much as the left may detest this, President Bush won the presidency fair and square based on the electoral college. 

Quote of the Day - Anthony Hager Edition

For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth "Circus" is completely predictable. Understandable, no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I'm unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner's death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn't it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.

Anthony Hager on Elana Kagen's first SCOTUS decision.  The court was hearing a case on the safety of a lethal injection drug.  How exactly did this court case make it to the Supreme Court?  Seriously, a lethal injection drug is unsafe?  Uh, yeah, it is meant to kill you, of course it is unsafe. 

I am not an advocate for the death penalty, matter of fact I strongly oppose it.  That being said, what a complete waste of resources to bring this to the high court. 

You can read full article here. 

Justice Kagan - Kagan Confirmed to Supreme Court

Today, during a very violent thunderstorm, the senate confirmed Elana Kagan to be our next supreme court justice.  Kagan who has no judicial experience will be sworn in on Saturday.  While it is great that that court will have a third woman sitting on the bench, is not the choice of conservatives. 

We don't have a great trail to see how she will vote, yet we can pretty much guess.  She will vote along the liberal voting bloc of the court down the line.  I can't imagine her every stepping outside of that box, regardless of the case in front of her.  Sotomayor told the senate that gun rights is settled law, yet voted against it the first chance she got.  Kagan will be no different. 

Five republicans crossed party lines to vote for her confirmation.  With the current make up the senate, at least one had to. 

Lindsey Graham
Olympia Snowe
Susan Collins
Judd Gregg
Richard Lugar

The only real surprise in this is many people expected Scott Brown to cross over party lines and approve her vote and Lugar.  The other four are par for the course of their voting histories.  Another surprise was Ben Nelson crossing party lines and voting nay.  I think that this has to do with his health care vote more than anything else.  He has already upset the people who will re-elect him, so this seems like nothing more than appeasement.  It also becomes pretty easy knowing that she would get in anyway. 

I happen to believe that Kagan was the best of the bunch that was on the short list, but it certainly isn't good news.  I wonder if Justice Ginsberg is reading the tea leaves and will announce her retirement before the mid term elections which will most certainly put Obama in a position to nominate someone that will have to garner more republican support in order to be confirmed. 

Kagan Nominated to the High Court

Elena Kagan has been nominated for the next justice on The Supreme Court according to the AP. Kagan, who may or may not be gay, if confirmed will be the youngest member of the court. No one will be able to say that she lacks qualifications. The woman has had an excellent education and a very impressive resume; including being the Dean of Harvard Law School. She has virtually no written record to scrutinize and publically her temperament is very even-keeled according to the people that she has worked with over the years.



The one down upside that I have found around the blogosphere is that the far left doesn’t seem to like her much. I think that may be because she has not been very open about her personal viewpoints, which can make one question how she really will vote. If you remember, when George H.W. Bush had his one chance at putting someone on the court, it didn’t quite work out as conservatives would have hoped.


I am not sure what exactly President Obama and Vice President Biden asked her during the interview process, but obviously they feel comfortable enough to nominate her. The one thing that I think that people should keep in mind is that time is running short on the far left trifecta that this administration has. The entire house is up for re-election in a few short months and they effectively will be gone after their August break, and one third of the Senate will also be running for re-election.


President Obama has not given up on Cap and Tax or Immigration “reform”; which will be nothing more than amnesty to the millions of illegal aliens in our midst. Picking someone who is considered to be more middle of the road and easily confirmable is saying to me that is exactly what he is planning on doing, as they are fully aware that once January comes along, they will not be able to get much done for the next two years. Even if the Republicans don’t get control of the house, the overwhelming majority will be gone, and the senate will also be, at least, more evenly divided. This of course will force Obama to be more willing to accept Republican/Conservative ideas in order to get anything done. Not something he has been willing to do much of up until this point. Ultimately, the woman will get confirmed. There is no way that Graham will vote against her. Her level of education and her resume will make him feel that she is well qualified and he will vote for to confirm her. The republicans will, of course, still need to question her with vigor, but they must ask themselves if it will be worth slamming her so close to election day. I think that should be saved for the rest of the President’s agenda this summer. I fully expect the President to get as much done as he can for the rest of this summer while he still can. 

It's Official, Justice Stevens to Retire

Justice Stevens made it official, he wil be retiring from the court this summer.  Although Stevens was put on the court by a republican president, he is one of the most liberal members of the court.  For me, this isn't something that I am not going to get my knickers in knot over.  It is going to be a wash.  Of course, I need to leave that door open because who knows who he may come up with. 

President Obama no longer has 60 votes in the senate and has used up a great deal of capital with healthcare, so one would think he will put someone that will be relatively easy to confirm.  But, this is President Obama we are talking about, so I think that is unlikely.  It is going to be an interesting summer. 

A Fallen Soldier and the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court announced three cases it will be hearing in the fall. One is the ability for parents to sue manufacturers of vaccines. Currently it is illegal to sue for any damages that may be caused by the shots, the logic being few pharmaceuticals will be willing to create the vaccines if they are spending gobs of money defending against lawsuits. The law is in place for the “common good”. Another case is based on the extensive background checks performed by NASA in order to obtain employment. The third is privacy vs. free speech issue.



The Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas is a fundamentalist Baptist church. As fundamentalists they take a very dim view of homosexuality. They showed up at the funeral of Lance Corporal Matthew A. Snyder of Westminster, MD. He was killed in March of 2006. These church members have gone to military funerals all over the country wearing shirts that say Godhatesfags.com and carrying signs with slogans such as God hates America, Thank God for IED’s, Thank God for dead soldiers, and Priests rape boys.

Their belief is that soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq are a punishment from God due to America’s acceptance of homosexuality; a vile and hateful point of view. The fallen marine’s family was understandably disturbed and filed a lawsuit on the grounds of privacy violations. The jury awarded the family $11 million for severe emotional distress; the sitting judge lowered the award to $5 million. The church appealed the judgment and the fourth district court threw out the verdict and the award on the grounds of free speech. In the written decision the court said in part “imaginative and hyperbolic rhetoric” is protected by the first amendment.


At stake in this case are fundamental constitutional rights: freedom of speech, the right to assembly, and a basic right to privacy. The soldier’s family expected to be able to mourn in private. Soldier’s families rightfully feel violated and appalled at the behavior of Phelps and his parishioners. These people give good Christians a bad name when they spew this irrational hatred. Especially when you consider children as young as 10 are being brought to these protests. It is beyond despicable.


Our soldiers are heroes. They willing put their lives on the line to defend our constitutional rights. They do this for little money and not much glory. Soldiers deserve our eternal gratitude.


When the Iraq war was not going well, there were protests all over the country. Many took place in my own backyard of Washington, DC. I spoke with a guy who at the time was a Marine. He was recently back from Iraq. He was involved in the initial stages of the invasion; his job was to protect the oil fields. At this time the accusations of war crimes were being hurled by the likes of John Murtha. His response to me was that although he was personally hurt and offended by the comments he would rather live in a country that people were allowed to speak freely than in one where you could not. That was the reason he joined the military in the first place. At the time, I was a little stunned and didn’t fully appreciate his point of view, but eventually I realized he was right. All speech must be protected from censorship; even when it comes from people who are as vile of the members of Westboro.


I would think that we can set up a protest free zone for the families of the fallen so they can say their good-byes in a respectful fashion without violating the rights of free speech that their loved ones died to protect.

Things that make you say hmm, judical edition

56 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of Democrats say the Supreme Court is too liberal. WOW, that is a high number of democrats.  We actually have some common ground here. 







• 55 percent of Americans overall say justices "have their own political agenda."






• 40 percent say the high court is doing a "fair job"; 36 percent say "good"; 7 percent say "excellent."






• 70 percent say justices should base decisions on the Constitution and legal precedents.






• 29 percent say they should be guided by "a sense of fairness and justice." Fairness and justice according to whom?  How would it be fair to everyone?  Is it fair if it benefits you, but hurts someone else? 






• 29 percent say the justices remain impartial; 15 percent are unsure.






Source: A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 likely voters conducted Oct. 22-23

Fighting the Good Fight

Judge Sotomayor will be beginning her meetings with members of the senate today. The GOP needs to decide how they are going to handle this nomination. One choice is to make it as ugly as possible. She can be bloodied, embarrassed, and humiliated not unlike what was done to Bork or Alito. The other choice is to bow their heads and accept the inevitable and vote to confirm. I think an argument should be made for the middle of the road. The American people deserve a fair process that allows us to see if the person is qualified or not qualified.

Some very serious issues have been raised about the qualifications of the judge. These issues must be examined. The comment she made about a Latina woman making a better judgment than a white man cannot be ignored. It would not be if a white man had said it. So, we are doing no favors to race relations in this country unless this question is asked. Everyone must be judged the same for us to truly have equality for all. Another issue that has come up is her judicial temperament. Again, this is a very important issue. This is a lifetime appointment and she must be up to the task. The issue of her opinions being overturned is another important topic that will need to be examined. Especially since in one case the court said that her use of the law was incorrect. If her understanding of the law is not up to par, she must not be given an appointment to seat that effects us all.

This is a fight that the GOP will have a difficult time winning. That alone is not a good enough reason not to fight it. When Sam Alito was up for nomination the democrats had about the same chance of stopping the appointment and they chose not only to fight, but to fight dirty. I think this is a golden opportunity for the GOP to take a stand and show the country how the nomination process should be conducted. Ask the difficult and uncomfortable questions, let the country hear the answers and if the answers show that she cannot handle the position, then vote no. We have lost some very good jurists due to the process that the senate has chosen to employ. I think it is time that senate do the job, advise and consent. Not tear apart, embarrass, or worse yet just delay until the person is no longer willing to wait around. Just ask Miquel Estrada.

Discrimination is Discrimination is Discrimination

I don’t listen to conservative talk radio all that often. Over the past two days I have listened quite a bit, as I was interested in the reactions to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor. The reaction is about what one would expect. The conservative talking heads are all against her. Rush Limbaugh called her a racist yesterday. Rush did this knowing that the AP was streaming his show for his reaction. My initial reaction was that it was a very strong charge and we shouldn’t prejudge based on one quote and one court case. I detest the word racist being thrown about without real thought or proof. It is dangerous and very damaging. Just remember the shameful behavior when Justice Alito was going through the confirmation process.

I am still not comfortable with that term being used to describe the Judge, but I think this may be an opportunity to further the discussion in this country. After all, the Attorney General feels we are cowards on this subject. So, let us have the uncomfortable conversation. There is apparently a theory that states that people of color have basic differences in reasoning and logic based on inherently physiological and cultural differences. Reportedly, the judge feels that this may be valid theory. Based on her quote it seems like that is a fair assessment of her beliefs.

But let us talk about biases that are based on more than just race. Let us talk about the bias based on political beliefs. In 1948, a black child was born in a very small poor town in rural Georgia. The father left the family when he was only 2, and at one point his family became homeless. He moved in with his grandparents who had him working on the family farm. This boy grew up to become Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Yet, another feel good story about someone overcoming all the odds and reaching the pinnacle of his chosen profession. Yet, yesterday President Obama said that the Supreme Court is full of people of privilege. Judge Sotomayor would be the first “real” person to sit on the bench. What about the early life of Justice Thomas is privileged? Is this about the fact that he is a minority who happens to be a conservative? That bias does exist in this country, and that must be part of the conversation. Not all conservatives are old white men.

Another uncomfortable part of the conversation also needs to be the brilliance of the pick of Judge Sotomayor itself. The choice of a minority woman lends itself to the fact that anyone going after her aggressively can and will be called a racist. A cynic could easily say this was part of the thought process that went into the pick itself. “If there is the perception that somehow she is being treated unfairly or they are distorting her record or comments, I think there will be a backlash in the Latino community. All we want is for the process to be respectful and fair. There could be a great resentment within the Latino community if it is seen somehow that she is not being treated with the respect due to a Supreme Court nominee”. This is a statement from the President of National Council of La Raza. If we are truly to live up to the ideal of Dr. King and we judge people based on the content of their character, it would only be fair to ask the same questions that were asked of Sam Alito. He was made out to be a racist during his confirmation hearings solely based on some college clubs and some well chosen cases. At one point his wife ran out of the Senate chamber in tears. President Obama himself wanted to filibuster to stop the floor vote. This statement came after admitting that he was well qualified for the position, his objection was only based on his constructionist views of the role of the Supreme Court.

The question about what the reaction would be if a white man made the statement that he would come to a better conclusion than a Latino woman is a fair one. If we are truly to become the nation that Dr. King envisioned, we must be able to ask the same questions of everyone without fear of recrimination. Discrimination is discrimination no matter who the person is. Men, women, black, white, hispanic, gay, and straight, we are all capable of discrimination. This is why the conversation is so uncomfortable.

Judge Sotomayor Part I

What a great day to be an American. Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman was nominated to sit on the Supreme Court today. Ms. Sotomayor came from meager beginnings; growing up in the projects in a tough neighborhood in the heart of Bronx, NY. She was raised mostly by a single mother after her father’s untimely death when she was only 8. Her mom sometimes worked two jobs to provide a better life for her two children. She instilled the virtues of both education and hard work. Imagine what a moment it must have been for her mother sitting in the east room of the White House today. Being both a women and a child of an immigrant I myself feel some pride in this accomplishment. Judge Sotomayor is living proof that with hard work and dedication that your dreams can come true in this great country of ours. While we are applauding this moment, we cannot allow it to cloud our judgment. The job she may be undertaking is one of great importance as it affects each and every American. A close examination of her record must be undertaken before she is given a lifetime appointment that will have ramifications for a generation.

There are disturbing facts that are readily apparent. A quote from a speech given in 2001 at The University of California-Berkley being one. “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." I, for one, would like to know exactly what she meant by this statement.

There is a video from a conference at Duke University “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience because the appeals court is where policy is made.” This was said with a laugh and the acknowledgement that she shouldn’t be saying it and realizing that her conversation was being taped. According to the constitution laws are made at the legislative level. It is easy to conclude that her true belief is that a judge is actually a legislator that wears a black robe.

A recent case puts her quote from Berkley in an interesting light. In the city of New Haven, CT a group of firefighters took a civil service test to qualify for a promotion. The top sixteen scores receive the promotion and a pay raise. After the scores were tabulated, 15 white and one Hispanic man came out to be the highest. The city of New Haven, afraid of a racial discrimination lawsuit, threw out the test results and gave out no promotions. The sixteen men filed a suit claiming reverse discrimination. Judge Sotomayor gave a one paragraph notice that it would not hear the case, after the judges heard debate and were given piles of briefs. One of her colleagues felt that they were trying to bury the case and has made this opinion on the record. This case has been fast-tracked and a Supreme Court decision on her dismissal should be announced sometime in June. A reveresal of her decision is expected.

Supreme Court Nominee Short List

Leah Ward Sears
Sonja Sotomayor
Elana Kagan
Kathleen Sullivan
Diane Wood
Janet Napolitano

I cannot imagine after the war veterans need to be watched as potential terrorists memo, Napolitano can get approval from the senate. But strange things are happening these days so who knows.

Rumor has it that an announcement could come as early as Tuesday.