The Violence Worker!

Elana Kagan

Obviously, I'm against Ms. Kagan's nomination on ideological grounds.  I believe this particular nominee will not change the ideological makeup of the Supreme court, but ideological grounds are not enough.  Ms. Kagan is very liberal and the Justice she is nominated to replace is also very liberal. I also believe she will ultimateley be confirmed and she will be sworn in as the next Supreme Court Justice.

Her nomination troubles me beyond ideology.  First is the fact that she has never been a judge.  She's never even adjudicated a parking violation.  That doesn't mean she doesn't have some idea of what the job entails.  She's a lawyer; she's argued before the Court as Solictor General of the United States and I'm sure she's read a book or two on the subject.  I understand that there is absolutely no constitutional requirements set down in the US Constitution as to who can be a judge.  Frankly, Obama could appoint me to be a judge or a justice.  Obviously it would never happen, but technically, it's possible. 

Secondly, her fight to keep military recruiters off of the campus also troubles me.  On the surface it was over the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, but I would like to know where she really stands concerning the military.  Ultimately, she and her liberal colleagues lost in the Supreme Court with an 8-0 pounding.  She then tried to circumvent that until the Pentagon told her she would get no more money from them and she caved.

Some people are suggesting that she is or might be a lesbian.  I don't know and I don't care.  That is in no way a disqualifier.  That shouldn't even be an issue.  What should be are the two issues I stated above.

I'm not saying she should be fillibustered at this point.  What I am saying is that we must not rush this along.  There is no urgent need to seat her.  Let the process work.  Find out what she's about first.  And then vote against her.  :)  After all, Obama voted against Chief Justice Roberts on purely ideological grounds. 

I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn't like bullies and he sees the law and the court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination.

What's good for goose...

VW

The Sotomayor Nomination

Most people don't realize the ramifications of a Presidential election.  For most people, their lives just go on.  Maybe a little harder, maybe a little easier, but mostly their lives are the same.  If their fortunes change at all, it isn't readily apparent.  This will be the case with the Sotomayor nomination to the Supreme Court.  It isn't going to change the balance of the court just yet, but if Obama get another pick (and he will), it will skew the court left - hard left.

When it changes, however, we'll see freedom slip away even faster.  This person should not be confirmed.  We all know that liberal judges will be selected, but this one is worth fighting.

The problem with Sotomayor isn't her ethnicity or her gender, it's the fact that she apparently sees both as a cudgel to wield in instead of a gavel.

“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,”

Imagine if Chief Justice John Roberts once said that a white man would come to a better conclusion than (insert whatever minority here).  He would be tarred and feathered, run out of town and never heard from again.  Thus the double standard of the left.  However, It's not the double standard that's the problem.  The problem is how will that kind of thinking will change our law and freedoms?

Supreme Court Justices are supposed to base their opinions on the Constitution, not on the basis of their genitalia and/or melanin content.  If that is how her decisions will be based, we may as well pack it in and call it a day for this country.

Republicans should base their opposition on her statements, writings, ethics and decisions.  Leave abortion alone. We will not win on abortion.  All of you single issue ideologues need to understand that abortion as the sole criterion to choose a justice is a battle you cannot win.  Fight this nominee on the substance of her judicial history, not abortion.

VW

She Needs To Go Away

Ginsburg:   US Judges sould consider foreign law

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says it’s ok for U.S. judges to use foreign law for guidance in their own decisions.

The courts four conservative members – Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – oppose the use of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Ginsburg said Friday in a symposium honoring her at Ohio State University, The New York Times reports.

Ginsburg says she’s fine with the idea that a U.S. court shouldn’t consider itself bound by the precedent established in international law.

But she’s also fine with the idea that a U.S. court can be influenced by strong reasoning from overseas.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she says.

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to take into account foreign law has caused its global influence to wane, Ginsburg argues.

The Supreme Courts reluctance to take into account foreign law caused our global influence to wane?  Gee, I though it was Bush’s fault.   Funny how it’s a one way street with the rest of the world.   They don’t take into account our laws but we have to consider their laws during court cases.

This woman wants to interpret our Constitution in light of foreign law and courts.  She has no business being on the Supreme Court.

The 2nd Amendment Lives!

As I'm sure most of you know, the Supreme Court gave those of us who are for gun rights a reason to celebrate.  In a 5-4 (otherwise known as a "split decision") ruling, the Supreme Court said that gun ownership cannot be banned.  As I understand it, it can be regulated, but outright bans for honest and sane (whatever that might be) Americans are unconstitutional.

And that is a good thing.  There does need to be a modicum of regulation to keep them out of the hands of people whose intent is to cause some kind of harm.  Just as there are some limits on free speech, there needs to be some limits on who can legally own a gun.  The Court said that reasonable regulations such as not allowing felons to have them or to ban them from such places as schools, etc. is OK. 

Personally, I don't own guns.  I'm not against them and I am in fact contemplating purchasing a firearm at some point in the future.  I grew up around them.  My Dad was a cop and kept a fully loaded .38 in the house.  For as long as I can remember, I knew where it was kept hidden.  I knew where it was because he showed me where he kept it.  Along with that knowledge came dire warnings of great physical harm if I ever touched it without him present.  I can assure you they were not idle threats and I knew it.  As I grew up, my Dad purchased some rifles and shotguns from time to time.  Again, I knew where they were kept.  On occasion, we would go out and target shoot.  Between the ages of 16-18, a buddy and I even did a little hunting.  It was perfectly legal back then to do so without an adult.  For me, guns are not scary things that, once in my hand, will force me to train it on some poor innocent person and pull the trigger.  Guns are tools.  All tools carry some danger and degree of risk.

The only problem I have with this ruling is not the ruling itself.  I think the Court ruled wisely and I think it was long overdue.  My problem lies in its perceived fragility.  This was not a 6-3 or 7-2 decision.  This was, by every definition, a close call.  If Obama is elected, this ruling could be in danger.  He will appoint judges and justices that think that the 2nd amendment gives the military the right to bear arms and not the citizenry.  He will most likely have the opportunity to select at least two Justices and possibly up to four if he gets a second term.  While it is rare that the Supreme Court ever reverses itself, it can happen.  If they do revisit an issue, they usually try and  disambiguate their previous ruling.  If the ideological makeup of the court is sufficiently shifted, it is possible they could indeed reverse this decision.

I didn't read through the entire opinion.  It's 157 pages of legalese and I'm no lawyer.  Here is the link if you want to slog through it for yourself.  I did scan through it.  It seems as if both sides spent considerable amount of space trying to define "keep and bear arms" 

In his dissent, Stevens used the old liberal idea that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, it's a group thing:  (From Page 83)

This reading is confirmed by the fact that the clause protects only one right, rather than two. It does not describe a right “to keep arms” and a separate right “to bear arms.” Rather, the single right that it does describe is both a duty and a right to have arms available and ready for military service, and to use them for military purposes when necessary.

In other words, the 2nd Amendment guarantees you the right to carry a gun if you are in the military.  Again, I'm no legal scholar, but it begs the question:  Why in the name of everything sacred and profane would you need a guaranteed right to carry a gun in the Army?  If there is anyone who thinks that is what the Constitution is saying, please enlighten me why the framers went to such lengths as to guarantee the rights of the military to have a weapon?   Just being in the military at any level, whether National Guard, Reserves or full time active duty, implies that you will at some point "bear arms". It's the nature of the business, no amendment needed.

The Constitution, however, is focused primarily on individual rights.  In Justice Scalia's majority opinion, he writes:

1. Operative Clause.  (From Page 8 and 9)

a. “Right of the People.” The first salient feature of the operative clause is that it codifies a “right of the people.” The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. The Ninth Amendment uses very similar terminology (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”). All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body.

Three provisions of the Constitution refer to “the people” in a context other than “rights”—the famous preamble (“We the people”), §2 of Article I (providing that “the people” will choose members of the House), and the Tenth Amendment (providing that those powers not given the Federal Government remain with “the States” or “the people”). Those provisions arguably refer to “the people” acting collectively—but they deal with the exercise or reservation of powers, not rights. Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right.

Soon the courts will be filled with cases seeking to define the limits of firearms regulation.  There will be some communities that will try and push the envelope of this ruling.  The more the court rules, the more trial attorneys seek to twist and squeeze contextual meanings and individual definitions not intended by the Court out of the pages of the majority opinion.  Such is our system, I suppose.

In any case, a mighty blow was struck for individual freedom.   Justices Stevens and Breyer are great examples why Obama should not be elected.  We don't need Justices who think group rights trump individual rights.

VW

Monday Meandering

First, the  Supreme Court decision telling a bunch of law schools to go pound sand.  Not only did the ruling say that if you want to suckle from the government teat, you have to allow the military recruiters on to your campus, if you read further, it says that regardless of the Solomon Act, Military recruiters must be allowed on campus.  The Moonbats lost a big one here.  It’s remarkable to note that all three majority opinions of the new Roberts court were unanimous.  It makes you think that Justice Roberts’ considerable intellect is equaled by his powers of persuasion.  While I’m sure that not every decision rendered by a Roberts led court will result in a unanimous decision, it does mark an auspicious beginning.

Next on the plate is Mother Moonbat.

Ann Wright, a former Army colonel and U.S. diplomat, said in a group statement that the U.S. Mission, representing the United Nations' U.S. delegation, refused to send a representative to meet with the delegation and the women refused to leave without delivering the petition.

Mission spokesman Richard Grenell said Sheehan was invited to come in to discuss her concerns, but chose instead to block the entrance to the Mission. "It was clearly designed to be a media stunt, not aimed at rational discussion," Grenell said.

I’m not surprised,  She is nothing more than a media whore.

Brokeback Mountain did not win best picture.  From several fairly objective sources, I’ve heard that other than the controversial gay theme, it was just an OK movie.  My guess is that they gave the director the honors just to keep it from being a total loss.  Sort of throwing the gay community a bone if you will.    Of course there was a howl amongst some gay activists that homophobic Hollywood didn’t want to honor a “gay movie”.  Interestingly enough, one of the co-writers of the movie said it had nothing to do with the gay theme. 

BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN co-writer LARRY MCMURTRY believes urban drama CRASH beat his film to the Best Picture Award, because Academy members discriminate against rural stories.

You can stop laughing anytime now!  I know, it’s hilarious, but I don’t want you to hurt yourself and blame me!  I don’t know if it was a good, bad or indifferent movie.  I don’t know whether it deserved “Best Picture” honors or not.  I don’t particularly care.  I didn’t see the movie.  I’m not arguing for or against it, just observing others’ reactions.

VW

Alito Comfirmation

Why does anyone even give the likes of Biden, Durban and Kennedy an iota of credibility?  Biden lied, Durban looked stupid and Kennedy, the paragon of virtue, was absolutely a freak show all to himself.

It’s too bad we can’t put Kennedy through an inquisition like he tried with Judge Alito.  We could bring up the fact that he was thrown out of Harvard for cheating, or we could talk about what really happened the night he killed Mary Jo Kopechne.  Liberals don’t like to talk about Kennedy most of the time, except amongst themselves.  They know he’s a walking cesspool of depravity and debauchery.  They know he couldn’t be considered for any appointed job in the government.  He is human trash and I for one can’t wait until he hits the curb!

My God, you Democrats should be thoroughly embarrassed by the performance of these guys.  If these are the guys that you hold up as counter to whatever corruption you think the Republicans are engaged in, you people are in sad shape.  Those guys epitomize corruption!

The Constitution says “with the Advice and Consent of the Senate”.  I’m not exactly sure when the words “character assassination” were inserted into the Constitution, but it must be near where they inserted the word "abortion".

In any case, this was the most idiotic display of immaturity I can recall and this from a body that bills itself as more deliberative and mature.  (If by mature, I mean a bunch of screaming, spoiled brats!)

All of that stupidity and it didn’t make one iota of difference.  Judge Alito will be confirmed and all their embarrassing and immature actions only served to show them for what they are.

VW

Stop The Circus!

I’ve been watching this infantile circus called a confirmation hearing and if you think this is any way to hire any one, you are out of your damned tree.  Why anyone would allow themselves to be subjected to this kind of inane inquisition is beyond me.  I understand there is a huge amount of prestige and power ascribed to being a Supreme Court Justice, but at what price?

Judge Alito is a good and fair man.  Even the liberal ABA gives him their highest rating.  He is now being scrutinized by a group of men who most likely couldn’t withstand the same level of inquiry into their own backgrounds.  For Heaven’s sake, look at Teddy Kennedy – a murderer, a womanizer, and a drunk!

In the name of everything sacred and profane, can you tell me why and how Edward Kennedy is qualified to question the judicial temperament of some schmo appointed to be a Justice of the Peace, let alone a Supreme Court Justice!  Talk about a culture of corruption!  Teddy is a walking culture of corruption, all on his own!

I’ve said it here several times.  There is absolutely NO constitutionally mandated qualification for any federal judge.  None, nada, zip, zilch.  To the Democrats, the main constitutional issue seems to be abortion, a word found nowhere in the Constitution and a right made up out of whole cloth by the Roe v. Wade decision.

The problem is there will never be a fix.  Partisanship will prevail.  Each party needs to recognize the fact that the President has a right to appoint whom he wants and it is the Senate’s job to confirm.  The Democrats are not in charge and should not have the right to railroad someone unless there is a glaring character flaw.

And then I see this from Blogs For Bush:

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech? ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question…

This proves my point that Democrats think the word Abortion is in the Constitution. 

VW

DNC Mob Hits Alito

The DNC wrote a disgusting hit piece about Judge Alito that was "not for attribution" except for one small thing. 

First it was written July 7, 2005, implying that the DNC developed these anonymous hit pieces on every possible Supreme Court nominee prior to Roberts nomination. Second, while Prendergrast might have been the original version, DNC research director Devorah Adler was the most recent editor. For someone who was just promoted into the research director position in September, Adler stumbles right out of the gate...

The circulated the Word Document File and left in the Metadata. 

The call him Samuel "Scalito" Alito.  It's an allusion to the way mobsters  have ncknames.  The next thing down is the fact that as a prosecutor, he failed to get some convictions on some mobsters.  Hey, he was just makin' his bones!  How many prosecutors have lost to slick mob attorneys over the years?

The DNC can't win on ideas.  They have to resort to trickery and fraud and that won't get them far.

Read the whole thing at Wizbang!

VW

Confirm Judge Alito

Bush appears to have chosen a solid conservative in appointing Judge Alito.

I had problems with his pick of Harriet Miers. I did not come out against Ms. Miers for two reasons. First, she was the president’s choice. The second, while I didn’t think she was a John Roberts, I didn’t think she was completely unqualified either. It was just hard to support someone with not much more than the president’s say so.

I wound up just staying neutral and for those of you who know me personally, neutral is a place you’ll rarely find me.

So sign me up to support Judge Alito. I think he's a worthy choice. 

I'll have more to say as time goes by.

Hat Tip: Blogs For Bush

VW

Meirs miasma

I was neutral on Harriet Miers and leaning more every day toward being against her and I’m glad this is over.  I think the President got the message that he needs to pay attention to us, his conservative base.

Liberals think the Constitution is only about Abortion.  It never got that far with Ms. Miers, but the Democrats didn’t much care.  They figured after the first week she probably wouldn’t make it to a hearing so they didn’t bother push the issue and waste the capital.  You can bet the next appointee will be scrutinized beyond anything considered fair and their views on abortion will be at the top of the agenda.

As a matter of fact, I predict that the Democrats will try and flex their muscles. Sensing a weakened Bush Presidency with the Delay indictment, the impending storm over the Plame kerfuffle, and the Miers mess, and low poll numbers, they will be in a full-court press.

It’s a fact that he will never please the Democrats unless he nominates someone to the left of Karl Marx, so don’t even bother.  Appoint a solid conservative and start breaking the balls of any Republican Senator who shies from him or her.

In other words, The President and the Republicans in the Senate need to grow a backbone – fast!

VW