About Me

Name: BrianR
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Sotomayor, Liberal Thought, and Judicial Activism

Posted by BrianR on Saturday, June 20, 2009 1:32:39 PM

Much has been written about Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, but there are a couple of issues I find persuasive enough to convince me she’s not qualified to be confirmed to the position.

If you read this article you’ll find the following:
 
“Republicans had complained that Sotomayor initially omitted from the records she sent the Senate Judiciary Committee a report she signed urging the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund to oppose reinstitution of the death penalty in New York in the early 1980s.

“The report, which has since been provided, said, ‘Capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society.’ It noted that African-Americans at the time made up 47 percent of death row inmates, but only 11 percent of the U.S. population.”

Using that same “logic”, we can make the following argument: males comprise a little less than 50 percent of American society, but almost 100 percent of inmates convicted of rape. Therefore, American society is clearly sexist in favor of females. Obviously, an absurd proposition, because the fact is that males commit virtually 100% of the rapes in this country.

The reality is that Blacks commit 52% of the homicides in this country according to the US Department of Justice (DOJ report) and thus are actually statistically UNDER-REPRESENTED in the death row population.

Sotomayor’s “reasoning” in the referenced report clearly ignores simple facts and logic, instead relying on emotional rhetoric to find support for the liberal canard of institutionalized racism, in an effort to advance a major plank of the liberal agenda. Why would one think she wouldn’t continue to do the same while serving on the bench? She managed to find “racism” where none exists, just as Roe v. Wade managed to find a constitutional “right to privacy” that exists nowhere in the actual Constitution.

This bias in favor of the liberal agenda over proper judicial action is also clearly illustrated in her opinion in the case Maloney v. Cuomo. This case was decided several months after the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had issued its finding in the case DC v. Heller. In his opinion for the majority (the operative and definitive aspect) Scalia clearly and specifically wrote that the precedent of Presser v. Illinois didn’t apply to the individual right to own handguns (at issue in the Maloney case):

"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation."

Scalia continues: "We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. ... But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home."

Sotomayor, however (and in complete defiance of Heller), wrote: “And to the extent that Heller might be read to question the continuing validity of this principle, we must follow Presser because where, as here, a Supreme Court precedent has direct application in a case, yet appears to rest on reasons rejected in some other line of decisions, the Court of Appeals should follow the case which [it] directly controls.”

In other words, Sotomayor is telling SCOTUS and Scalia that she’s refusing to follow the direction clearly set by the Heller case. This is judicial arrogance and activism of the highest and worst order.

The two issues I’ve raised in this essay, in and of themselves, are enough to convince me she’s not qualified to be confirmed to the Supreme Court. Frankly, I think they disqualify her from the bench at any level. I don’t have any idea why this hasn’t been raised as an objection to her appointment, but it hasn’t.

I would urge all my readers to contact their Senators, and make these points. And feel free to copy and paste this essay should you wish to do so.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (210) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

More GOP Inanity/Insanity

Posted by BrianR on Thursday, June 11, 2009 12:09:08 PM

Here's another great example of how the GOP is a party completely bereft of ideas.
 
"Op-Ed Contributor: Health reform possible without growing government" By Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.)
 
"To be effective, health care reform must include insurance coverage for everyone, encourage prevention measures, and reform the inefficiencies in our system to ensure the future strength of our economy. CPR—Coverage, Prevention, Reform—is a plan I have proposed that sets up a system where every American will be required to purchase meaningful health insurance to ensure each family will be protected against bankruptcy if a family member becomes seriously ill or injured." 
 
WTF?
 
Under what authority does the government FORCE people to buy insurance?
 
I've heard the argument made that people are forced to buy car insurance by law. Not so! That's only required if you're going to operate your car on public roads, and only to cover damage you may cause OTHER people, and on top of that if you can show financial responsibility and post a bond you don't even have to do that! And there's NEVER any legal requirement that you have insurance to cover the damage to your own car.
 
Here's another thing I never hear mentioned under this "mandatory" insurance idiocy: How do they plan to get the ILLEGAL ALIENS to "contribute"? What about the homeless, the "poor", the insane, the unemployed?
 
Those people are already a huge percentage of the cost problem. How's THAT addressed?
 
This is exactly why the GOP is a party that's not worth one lick of support. Yet another example of their limp-wristed approach to politics: yield the agenda to liberals, then offer a slightly less odious alternative. What a bunch of complete wienies.
 
I am SOOOOOOO glad I quit that pathetic excuse for a party and re-registered as an Independent.

12 June Update:
 
Yeah, here we go. The REAL truth comes out, and it's scary.
 
"HHS' Sebelius touts Obama health insurance plan"
 
"Sebelius told Nebraskans she met with that the health reform plan needs to be much broader than just addressing the problems with health insurance because the current system doesn't do a good job of preventing disease and managing Americans' health and wellness."
 
I don't know about y'all, but I do NOT want the government "managing" my "health and wellness", telling me what I have to do because I may not be living up to some damned government-set standard of behavior.
 
Hell, that's one of the reasons I never considered a career in the Army. WAAAAAY too much "supervision", not NEARLY enough autonomy.
 
"Autonomy".... another word for "FREEDOM"!
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (117) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Too Big To Fail?

Posted by BrianR on Friday, June 05, 2009 1:48:29 AM
 
Pan American Airline

Trans World Airline (TWA)

Pacific Southwest Airline (PSA)

Aloha Airline

American Motors Corporation (AMC)

Packard Motors

Nash Motors

Kaiser Motors

Studebaker

Hudson Motors

De Soto (autos)

Edsel

Geo (autos)

International Harvester

REO

Stutz

Willys Motors

Montgomery Ward

Security Pacific Bank

Kaiser Steel

I suspect many readers are too young to even remember some of those names, but we’re talking about some big hitters: national flag-carrier airlines; auto manufacturers; a national retailer with both stores and mail-order catalogues (what we did in pre-internet days!); a steel manufacturer. That list could be a lot longer, too, with shipping lines, railroads, and others.

What do they all have in common? They’re all defunct. Bankrupt. Out of business.

In many cases, there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth. How will the industry survive? The world is coming to an end! This was particularly true when the major airlines – Pan Am and TWA – tanked.

Does anyone even remember those companies anymore, let alone miss them? When was the last time Pan Am crossed your mind – if ever? Are you sorry you can’t order from Monkey Ward anymore? Do you even care?

The reality is that since the Industrial Revolution companies have come and gone with great regularity, victims of mismanagement, financial insufficiencies, changing technology (bought any buggy whips lately?), skilled competition, general market forces… many and diverse reasons. And whenever one of the Big Ones goes, there’s a lot of ink given to possible consequences – generally portrayed as being “terrible” – and in a little while the world adjusts and we move on.

It’s a lot like dropping a rock into a still pond. There’s a splash and some ripples, but in a few moments the water stills, and life goes on.

This changed when Lee Iacocca conned the Feds into bailing Chrysler out of bankruptcy a few decades ago, and we’re now seeing the upshot: general panic and the government taking over private industry, the first significant steps down the road of fascism. Instead of the rock dropping into a pond, this time someone stuck in the business end of an outboard boat motor and turned that sucker on. The waters aren’t at all close to stilling.

In a healthy economy and free society, there’s no company “too big to fail”, because if there’s a NEED for that company’s product or services, some OTHER company will step in to take up the slack and fill the vacuum created by that company’s failure. If that failing company is in such bad shape that it can’t bail itself out, even with the assistance of bankruptcy court, it should be allowed to disappear.

Isn’t that the Darwinian process of “natural selection” that liberals all claim to believe in so much?
 
 
ADDENDUM ON 7 JUNE:
 
 
The rest of the world, especially those countries that have already been experimenting with socialism, are all turning to the Right and voting more conservative, while WE are rushing headlong over the cliff on our Left.
 
What delicious irony.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (102) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »