Powered by Max Banner Ads
Sotomayor Brings Diversity, Mediocrity To The Supreme Court
The Washington Post has an a very good piece from Richard Cohen today about Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Cohen says what most of us recognize to be true. That Obama chose “diversity” over intellect by picking Sotomayor.
She’s an average judge with an average intellect who admittedly used her gender and ethnicity to get to the top.
Don’t get me wrong. She is fully qualified. She is smart and learned and experienced and, in case you have not heard, a Hispanic, female nominee, of whom there have not been any since the dawn of our fair republic. But she has no cause, unless it is not to make a mistake, and has no passion, unless it is not to show any, and lacks intellectual brilliance, unless it is disguised under a veil of soporific competence until she takes her seat on the court. We shall see.
In the meantime, Sotomayor will do, and will do very nicely, as a personification of what ails the American left. She is, as everyone has pointed out, in the mainstream of American liberalism, a stream both intellectually shallow and preoccupied with the past. We have a neat summary of it in the recent remarks of Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), who said he wanted a Supreme Court justice “who will continue to move the court forward in protecting . . . important civil rights.” He cited the shooting of a gay youth, the gang rape of a lesbian and the murder of a black man — in other words, violence based on homophobia and racism. Yes. But who nowadays disagrees?
Sotomayor is no doubt qualified, but let’s not pretend she’s the most qualified. The president chose to make a cynical affirmative action pick to placate his radical left-wing base instead of choosing the best person for the job.
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.
Supreme Court Halts Chrysler Sale
It looks like the U.S. Constitution may have a fighting chance after all.
The Supreme Court has stepped in and temporarily blocked the sale of Chrysler to Fiat.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg signed an order temporarily stopping the sale and may decide to have the matter heard by the entire court.
The Obama administration decided to cast aside the law and make up their own bankruptcy rules to reward the union and hose bond holders.
The Chrysler deal is blatantly unconstitutional and it’s almost inconceivable that the Supreme Court would allow it to go through.
Obama and his auto task force are acting like a bunch of gangsters and hopefully the Supreme Court is about to put them in check.
New Republic: Sotomayor May Not Be Liberal Enough For Supreme Court
The New Republic makes the case that president Obama should be careful about appointing Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
According to TNR, she may not be liberal enough. The far left is concerned that she may not be strong enough to move the court “in a different direction.”
Sounds like the kind of judge republicans should get behind. She may turn out to be the lesser of many evils.
Victory: Heller Gets His Gun Permit
The man whose lawsuit overturned Washington’s handgun ban has successfully registered his handgun, ending a more than 30-year wait to keep the weapon in his home. Dick Heller walked triumphantly out of a D.C. police station today with his permit in hand.
It’s a shame that Heller had to go all the way to the Supreme Court merely to excercise his right as an American, but thank God he did. Thanks to Dick Heller the SCOTUS has said once and for all that Americans have the consitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms.
(Hat tip to Michelle)
Supreme Court: Ban On Handguns “Incompatible” With Second Amendment
The Supreme Court struck down Washington D.C.’s ban on handguns as unconstitutional. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion saying in part that an outright ban on handguns is incompatible with the second amendement.
Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia said that an individual right to bear arms is supported by “the historical narrative” both before and after the Second Amendment was adopted.
The Constitution does not permit “the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,” Scalia said. The court also struck down Washington’s requirement that firearms be equipped with trigger locks or kept disassembled, but left intact the licensing of guns.
Scalia noted that the handgun is Americans’ preferred weapon of self-defense in part because “it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police.”
This was absolutely the right decision. There are few rights as fundamental to being an American as our right to keep and bear arms.
Unless you are a felon or mentally disabled in some way, the State can no longer prevent the ownership of handguns. Washington D.C. has had the strictest gun laws in the country with an outright ban on handgun ownership. Ironically, Washington D.C. is also home to the worst gun violence in America.
No state official yet has explained how the only place in America with an outright handgun ban has some of the worst handgun violence. The idea that no one will have a gun because it’s against the law is comical.
Criminals will continue to own firearms with or without gun laws, the only question is whether or not law abiding citizens will be able to protect themselves from gun toting criminals.
The Supreme Court has rightly concluded that Americans have a right under the Constitution to do just that.
-Chris Jones
Photos: Supreme Court Before And After Gitmo Ruling
BEFORE THE GITMO RULING…
AFTER THE GITMO RULING…
(Photo via Stuck on Stupid)
Ann Coulter Skewers Justice Kennedy In New Column
Read Ann Coulter’s new column. She gives her take on the recent Supreme Court decision to treat captured terrorists like your average criminal. She appropriately skewers Justice Kennedy for his ridiculous majority opinion.
John Yoo Says Gitmo Ruling Damages National Security
The former Justice Department lawyer that everyone on the left affectionately refers to as a “war criminal,” and the man responsible for the now infamous “Yoo Memo” giving the legal rational to the President for coarcisive interrogations, Gitmo, etc. is speaking out about the recent Supreme Court decision on Gitmo.
In an Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal, Yoo says the Supreme Court overstepped itself by giving Gitmo detainees the right to challenge their detention in civilian courts. He calls the decision a “dangerous” one that damages our national security.
It’s very likely that John Yoo’s legal opinions to the President are a major reason we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. His interpretation of the law (which happens to be correct) gave the President the authority he needed to aggressively wage war on our enemies.
(thanks to Michelle for the link)
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban
In a landmark ruling today, California’s Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was ‘unlawful’ and effectively cleared the way for gay couples to marry freely in the state of California.
In an opinion that analysts say could have nationwide implications for the issue, the seven-member panel voted 4-3 in favor of plaintiffs who argued that restricting marriage to men and women was discriminatory.
“… limiting the designation of marriage to a union ‘between a man and a woman’ is unconstitutional and must be stricken from the statute,” California Chief Justice Ron George said in the written opinion.
This is certain to create howls of protest from Conservatives, but I think this ruling is a good thing. There is still a very palpable sense of homophobia in America and we need to get over it.
Homosexuals have always been and will continue to be a part of our society, and we should treat them equally. I’m not necessarily in favor of a nationwide ruling on it, but I think states should have the right to decide if they want to allow it.
However, even if we do eventually legalize it across the board that’s also fine. Our country is facing some very serious challenges right now, and it’s just silly to worry about gay people getting married.
-Chris Jones
Supreme Court Backs States Right To Demand Photo ID For Voting
The Supreme Court ruled today that states can require citizens to show a photo ID to vote. Twenty-five states require some form of ID, and the court’s 6-3 decision rejecting a challenge to Indiana’s strict voter ID law could encourage others to adopt their own measures.
It seems like a no-brainer that people should have to prove who they are before voting, but Democrats of course are adamantly opposed to this.
According to liberals, having to prove who you are will “disenfranchise” poor and elderly voters. That’s total nonsense, and merely a cover for their real grievance.
If people have to prove who they are, it’s going to make it harder for illegal immigrants to vote fraudulently for Democrats. That’s the reason liberals are in a huff about photo ID, because it’s going to cut into the illegal voting block they were counting on in the upcoming election.
Scalia On Bush v. Gore: Get Over It!
From CBS:
People who believe the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision giving the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush was politically motivated should just get over it, says Justice Antonin Scalia.
Scalia denies that the controversial decision was political and discusses other aspects of his public and private life in a remarkably candid interview with 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl, this Sunday, April 27, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
“I say nonsense,” Scalia responds to Stahl’s observation that people say the Supreme Court’s decision in Gore v. Bush was based on politics and not justice. “Get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” he says, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision that the Supreme Court of Florida’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Furthermore, says the outspoken conservative justice, it was Al Gore who ultimately put the issue into the courts. “It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question…. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts,’” says Scalia. “What are we supposed to say — ‘Not important enough?’” he jokes.
Call him conservative, just don’t call him biased on issues before the Supreme Court, including abortion, he says. “I am a law-and-order guy. I mean, I confess to being a social conservative, but it does not affect my views on cases,” he tells Stahl. “On the abortion thing, for example, if indeed I were…trying to impose my own views, I would not only be opposed to Roe versus Wade, I would be in favor of the opposite view, which the anti-abortion people would like to see adopted, which is to interpret the Constitution to mean that a state must prohibit abortion.” “And you’re against that?” asks Stahl. “Of course. There’s nothing [in the Constitution to support that view].”
Kudos to Justice Scalia for speaking the truth about Bush V. Gore. The far-left still just can’t quit saying Bush “stole the election” even after all this time. That argument didn’t hold up in 2000, and it doesn’t fair any better in 2008.
Posts
