Powered by Max Banner Ads
More On IG-Gate Investigations
Robert Stacy McCain (The Other McCain) has a great piece in The American Spectator about the still simmering IG-Gate investigations on Capital Hill.
Former Inspector General Gerald Walpin filed a lawsuit last week for unlawful termination after president Obama fired him illegally.
He accuses the parent agency of AmeriCorps, and by extension the administration, of politicizing his office and removing him illegally because he refused to agree to a settlement in a fraud case that let an Obama backer off the hook and with access to federal funding.
Just think about how ape shit the media went when president Bush fired U.S. Attorneys who served at his pleasure. He had every legal right to do that, but the media went wild anyway.
Compare that to Obama’s shit-canning of IG’s who uncover things he doesn’t like. You barely hear a thing about it and we’re talking about a real crime being committed.
Stop Electing Judges
The American justice system is supposed to be fair and objective. Yet it was very possibly neither according to the Supreme Court in the case of Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co, perhaps the most important decision it has rendered this year.
The plaintiff, Hugh Caperton, brought a successful lawsuit alleging that A.T Massey Coal and its chief executive Don Blankenship drove Capterton’s company into bankruptcy. In the next election cycle, Blankenship spent $3 million to oppose a state Supreme Court justice he thought insufficiently favorable to his cause. When the challenger Blankenship backed won, he refused to recues himself from the case. It was little wonder when he cast the deciding vote to overturn the first verdict.
What a depressing thought that justice in the 21st century can be sold to the highest bidder. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts seemed to tacitly acknowledge that money can be a corrupting influence on judges. That is perhaps why he raised practical concerns on implementation instead of attempting to argue that we should not be worried about the influence of campaign contributions on judges.
He lamented that “today’s opinion requires state and federal judges simultaneously to act as political scientists (why did candidate X win the election?), economists (was the financial support disproportionate?), and psychologists (is there likely to be a debt of gratitude?).”
I understand these concerns. So I propose a simple solution: stop making judges stand for election. Even with this decision, there is potential for all sorts of abuse. A judge ruling in a case now might not favor one side because he got campaign contributions from that side. Or so we hope. Remember the decision only says that excessive contributions compel a justice to step aside. But he may well favor one side over another because of other electoral concerns.
For example, a judge who owes his election to say the Religious Right could be a tad biased on cases involving the separation of church and state. In a racially divided area, a judge who wins because of high support from one ethnic group could be predisposed to favor litigants from that group lest he lose favor the next election cycle. Even if we expect that people who are essentially politicians will put aside their electoral concerns immediately after the election, the mere fact that they have to go before voters can create the perception of bias.
Having an independent judiciary is critical to our system of checks and balances. To maintain that system, the judiciary needs to be able to make unpopular decisions in some instances. There are cases brought to court, where the correct decision polls poorly with voters. For example, decisions protecting the rights of disfavored minority groups might cause a judge to lose an election even though it’s the correct decision legally.
During his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts compared judging to being a dispassionate umpire in a baseball game. Just imagine the havoc on the game if we let umpires stand for election each inning. Or imagine if we made the umpires take polls after each pitch to inform their decision as to whether to call a ball or a strike. Whichever team had the most fans at the game would get the most favorable umpires. Unfortunately, this is not terribly different from judicial systems in state where the judges have to raise money and go before voters.
There is of course a realm for shifting public opinion in the political process. That’s why we let people vote for who represents them in Congress and who serves in the White House. But do we really want our judges looking over their shoulders at polls before rendering a decision? Triangulation is bad enough when politicians use it. It simply does not belong in the judiciary.
-Marcus Gadson
Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of White Firefighters and Against Sotomayor
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut who denied a promotion based on their skin color.
The Supreme Court today narrowly ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said they were denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision by Judge Sonia Sotomayor and others that had come to play a large role in the consideration of her nomination for the high court.
The city had thrown out the results of a promotion test because no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have qualified for promotions. It said it feared a lawsuit from minorities under federal laws that said such “disparate impacts” on test results could be used to show discrimination.
In effect, the court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.
The court’s conservative majority said in a 5 to 4 vote that is what happened in New Haven.
“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy.
I find it absolutely stunning that any American of any color could look at this situation and believe it was fair.
A group of firefighters studied hard and passed their promotion test. When the tests were graded, the white firefighters plus two Hispanics passed.
However, the City of New Haven denied the firefighters their promotion because it feared the black firefighters who did not pass would file a lawsuit claiming racism.
I cannot think of anything more un-American than denying someone a promotion on the basis of skin color.
This kind of social engineering is about the sickest and most destructive thing I’ve ever seen.
Skin color didn’t have a damn thing to do with that test. The racial make-up of those who passed the test should be irrelevant.
Why do liberals like to assume the test was flawed simply because no blacks passed it?
Have no blacks ever passed that same test in the City of New Haven before? How do you account for the two Hispanics who passed?
I think it sells black people short for liberals to assume a test is flawed because a black person can’t pass it. Maybe the person didn’t study as hard or maybe there’s a whole host of reasons why the person didn’t pass.
The only people who refuse to get passed race in this country are liberals. As long as white liberals and black race hustlers like Jesse Jackson keep using race as an excuse for poor performance, blacks will never achieve their full potential.
Incidentally, I haven’t heard a thing from the black firefighters who failed the test. All they have to do is study harder and they’ll pass it next time.
It’s incredibly damaging to the black community for high-minded liberals to constantly accept mediocrity, on the basis of phony racism.
This notion that black people should not be blamed for failing, because the white man and his racist tests won’t let them succeed is absurd and outdated.
It’s absolutely ridiculous to believe that somehow a black person because of his skin color is unable to pass the exact same firefighters exam that whites and Hispanics can.
The final decision by SCOTUS was 5-4 so it broke along idealogical lines. However, it should be deeply troubling to all Americans that a significant portion of the country believes discriminating against one group to prevent the discrimination of another group is okay.
Ace has some excellent analysis of this ruling as well.
Record Producer Phil Spector Sentenced To 19 Years To Life
Famed record producer Phil Spector was sentenced today to 19 years to life in prison for the murder of actress Lana Clarkson.
-Chris Jones
Obama Picks Sotomayor
President Obama announced today that federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor is his choice to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court.
Here’s what the AP has about her:
Sotomayor is a self-described "Newyorkrican" who grew up in a Bronx housing project after her parents moved to New York from Puerto Rico. She has dealt with diabetes since age 8 and lost her father at age 9, growing up under the care of her mother in humble surroundings. As a girl, inspired by the Perry Mason television show, she knew she wanted to be a judge.
A graduate of Princeton University and Yale Law School, a former prosecutor and private attorney, Sotomayor became a federal judge for the Southern District of New York in 1992.
As a judge, she has a bipartisan pedigree. She was first appointed by a Republican, President George H.W. Bush, then named an appeals judge by President Bill Clinton in 1997.
At her Senate confirmation hearing more than a decade ago, she said, "I don’t believe we should bend the Constitution under any circumstance. It says what it says. We should do honor to it."
In one of her most memorable rulings as federal district judge, Sotomayor essentially salvaged baseball in 1995, ruling with players over owners in a labor strike that had led to the cancellation of the World Series.
As an appellate judge, she sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in a discrimination case brought by white firefighters after the city threw out results of a promotion exam because two few minorities scored high enough. Ironically, that case is now before the Supreme Court.
Just because she was first appointed by President George H.W. Bush doesn’t mean she has a “bipartisan pedigree” like the AP claims.
Make no mistake about it, Sotomayor is a liberal through and through. One only has to look at her judicial record to know this.
She’ll be a reliable tool of labor unions (like our president) and will rule in favor of minorities not because they have the best legal case but because she has “empathy.”
Having said all that, Obama can nominate anyone he wants and at this moment in time Republicans can do little to stand in the way.
All things considered Obama could have picked someone much worse. Sotomayor is not going to change the balance of the court so it’s really not that big a deal.
It’s the next SCOTUS pick that’s going to change the game.
As liberal as Sotomayor is, I suspect Obama’s next pick is going to make her seem to the right of Scalia.
-Chris Jones
Flashback: In 2006 51% Of Democrats Wanted Bush To Fail
Democrats have been carping about republicans supposedly wanting president Obama to fail based on comments from Rush Limbaugh they knowingly took out of context. But let’s take a trip down memory lane and see how democrats felt about president bush…
If you recall, democrats were quite vocal about their hopes that president Bush would fail and that the surge in Iraq would fail. In fact, they hoped the war in Iraq would fail right from the outset. The left worked towards Bush’s failure from the second he set foot into office to the time he left office. They pelted his car with eggs on inauguration day in 2000 and didn’t let up for 8 years. Hell, they haven’t let up yet and he’s out of office.
In a 2006 poll, when asked whether they wanted to see president Bush succeed or not, here’s the breakdown:
Democrats: 40%(want him to succeed) 51%(want him to fail)
Republicans: 90%(want him to succeed) 7%(want him to fail)
Independents: 63%(want him to succeed) 34%(want him to fail)
Think about this poll and the many other polls just like it next time you hear Rahm Emanuel or some liberal shocked and appalled that anyone would want to see Obama fail (even though Rush was taken out of context and never said that).
KBR Guilty Of “Negligent Homicide” In Soldier’s Death Says Army
Military contractor KBR is guilty of negligent homicide in a soldier’s death according to the Army:
An Army investigation called the electrocution death of a U.S. soldier in Iraq a “negligent homicide” caused by military contractor KBR Inc. and two of its supervisors, according to a document obtained by The Associated Press.
An Army criminal investigator said the manner of death for Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, 24, of Pittsburgh, has been changed from accidental to negligent homicide because the contractor failed to ensure that “qualified electricians and plumbers” worked on the barracks where Maseth died, according to the document.
I’ve been a pretty staunch defender of KBR and Halliburton because democrats always try and scapegoat them for everything, but this case is absolutely horrible and indefensible. Our soldiers have enough to worry about in Iraq without surviving a mission only to be electrocuted to death in the shower.
As many as 18 servicemen have died as a result of half-ass wiring thanks to KBR. That is an absolute outrage and since the democrats are seething to investigate something they should investigate that. KBR has overcharged the government in Iraq with impunity and now it’s killing our servicemen.
KBR has done some good work in Iraq, but I’ve come to believe there really hasn’t been sufficient oversight by Congress. The problem is that KBR does so much in Iraq and Afghanistan that the U.S. government can’t really cancel their contracts. Everything would grind to a stand still without them.
I guess you could call them — too big to fail. (I know, not again!)
Dutch Politician To Be Prosecuted For Making Anti-Islamic Statements
There is no greater example that the whole world (particularly Europe) has gone completely mad than what is happening in the Netherlands. Dutch MP Geert Wilders is being put on trial in the Netherlands for making “anti-Islamic statements.”
Wilders made a controversial film last year highlighting the connection between Islam and terrorism (what a crazy idea) and Muslims (which the Netherlands is now full of) were predictably outraged.
Geert Wilders is the sole voice of reason in a country being destroyed from within by political correctness and appeasement. Radical Muslims are immigrating to the Netherlands and all over Europe due to lax immigration laws. Wilders thinks it may not be such a good idea to let every Tom, Dick, and Harry (or in this case Abdul, Tarique, and Mohammad) who practices Islam become a Dutch citizen and set-up shop.
The Islamization of Europe is extremely troubling and Wilders is right to speak out on it.
(hat tip LGF)
Bush Commutes Sentences Of Two Imprisoned Border Patrol Agents
President Bush apparently heard and has now answered the calls by many conservatives to pardon Ramos and Compean, the two border patrol agents doing a ten year stretch for shooting a drug smuggler in the ass on the border.
However, instead of a full pardon the president decided to give a commutation to each of the men. He wanted to recognize that crimes were committed in this case and a jury found them guilty. But the sentences for each of the men were too draconian — a sentiment that even the prosecutor who put them away shared.
By commuting the sentences of the two men, they will in effect be given credit for time served and will be released on March 20th.
-Chris Jones
Blackwater Contractors Prosecuted For Doing Their Job
The cowardly far-left is rejoicing over the news that 5 Blackwater contractors are being charged with manslaughter for a shooting that took place in Iraq.
The five guards are charged with manslaughter and using a machine gun in a crime of violence. Though they are charged in a sealed indictment in Washington, they surrendered at a federal courthouse in Salt Lake City. The Justice Department is preparing to make the charges public later Monday.
Seventeen Iraqis were killed in the September 2007 shooting. Witnesses said the heavily armed U.S. contractors opened fire unprovoked, killing innocent motorists and children at a crowded intersection.
Blackwater says the contractors returned fire after being ambushed by armed insurgents. Just like the Haditha marines, this prosecution is about politics and nothing else.
Those contractors were operating in a war zone where ambushes were happening hundreds of times a day. If they say they were ambushed — then they were ambushed.
A bunch of suits at the DOJ don’t know what the hell happened that day and therefore should give the benefit of the doubt to Blackwater.
The far-left loves to vilify Blackwater in the same way they vilify president Bush and the war on terror in general. They’re are despicable cowards, who only have the freedom to bitch and complain and vilify because of those who fight on their ungrateful behalf.
The men and women of Blackwater are patriots and all good Americans should stand behind them.
Celebrate: O.J. Simpson Gets 15 Years To Life
O.J. Simpson’s luck finally ran out today. After giving a brief statement to the court pretending to be sorry for his crimes, the judge sentenced him to 15 years to life in state prison. He’ll technically be eligible for paroll in 6 years, but most legal experts are skeptical he’ll be released.
Obviously, today’s sentence was for the armed robbery he committed in Las Vegas. However, it’s an especially sweet day because a vicious murderer has been taken off the streets. O.J. should have gotten the death penalty in 1995 and everyone including O.J. knows that.
Court Upholds Warrantless Searches Overseas
The second-circuit court of appeals has ruled the requirement for warrants and Miranda warnings do not apply to American citizens living abroad.
The authorities may lawfully conduct searches and electronic surveillance against United States citizens in foreign countries without a warrant, a federal appeals court panel said on Monday, bolstering the government’s power to investigate terrorism by ruling that a key constitutional protection afforded to Americans does not apply overseas.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan, came in the case of three Al Qaeda terrorists convicted a few months before 9/11 in a conspiracy that involved the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa.
Thank God the ruling came down in favor of national security. The idea that Americans living abroad are entitled to the same rights as Americans living at home is absurd. This is was just another attempt by the ACLU to gum up the works and prevent our intelligence agencies from protecting this country.
(hat tip Hot Air)
Posts
