Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Hey, Another Activist Judge!

Well, it has now become official. The nominee for the new Supreme Court Justice is Sonia Sotomayor. Let's try to check off the "qualifications" she needed to get the nomination, none of which have anything to do with being a good judge. Woman? Check. Minority? Check. Thinks personal experience and "empathy" have a place in a court of law? Check.

Look, I don't care that she's a Hispanic woman. I do care that she was chosen BECAUSE she is a Hispanic woman (oh, and because she has "empathy"). Race and gender should be completely irrelevant. Why are we still obsessed with affirmative action? Now that we have a black president, isn't it clear that institutionalized racism no longer exists in the Unites States? I mean, a black man with Muslim/atheist parents just became the most powerful man in the world! We know that Sotomayor supports affirmative action, because she has voted to uphold blatant racial discrimination. Remember this story? A city in Connecticut denied promotions to the firefighters who did best on a test of job-related skills because none of them were black. She upheld the decision.

Is she even qualified? Well, she's been in the courts for a long time, but almost all of her rulings that went to the Supreme Court (80%) were overturned, a couple of them unanimously.

She has already admitted that she is incapable of being impartial: "Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

People are going to read this and say, "Oh, come on, she's just being realistic." Um, no she's not. The Law doesn't change based on how she feels about it. In fact, The Law is the only thing for which a judge should have any partiality. I don't care what your life experiences are. As a Supreme Court Justice, your job is to uphold the Constitution. Period. But no, she is an activist. We already know that she said the courts are "where policy is made," and then laughed and admitted she shouldn't have said that on tape.

I think Mike Huckabee said it best on his blog: "The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the 'feelings' of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice."

Here is a link to a great article about this pick, which features a few more frightening quotes from Sotomayor about why a Hispanic woman is inherently a better judge than a white man.

Friday, May 8, 2009

The Political Insanity of Harry Reid

Here is a doozy of a quote from Harry Reid on the Today Show:

"Well, I personally would like to see us get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice. I think we could get a governor or a senator or a former senator - people with some real life experiences for a while, rather than these people who walk around in black robes all the time."

Yeah, that would be ridiculous. Why would you want a person with actual judicial experience to get a job as one of the most important and powerful judges in the country? Seriously, Harry. You're a retard. Here's why...

1) Judges tend to know the law better than anyone else. A Supreme Court justice is a judge in the highest court in the country. Personally, I think someone with experience as a judge (who, ya know, knows the law) would kind of be an ideal choice. Call me crazy.

2) He said he wants us to "get away from the idea that you have to be a judge to be a Supreme Court justice." In my opinion, that's like saying the Attorney General should not have a law degree. Or that the Surgeon General should have no medical experience. Or that the president should not have any experience in executive leadership. Oh, wait...

3) He thinks that senators have more "life experience" than judges? Really? Does he think that sitting around in Congress for 25 years gives someone a diverse set of life experiences? (Hint: it doesn't) Also, it's not like judges walk around all day long in their robes and sleep in the courthouse. I'm pretty sure they have lives too.

Oh, and good ol' Harry ended his interview with this little gem about choosing the justice:

"I feel comfortable that [Obama's] choice will be as good as his cabinet selection."

Yes, maybe the new justice will also be a tax cheat.

Friday, May 1, 2009

The Supreme Court (of Social Justice)

Supreme Court justice David Souter is retiring. He was never really much of a conservative anyway, so I don't really care that he's leaving. However, his exit gives Obama the opportunity to make a nomination, and that is troublesome. Most of the media has been hoping for him to nominate Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic appellate court judge. Why do they want her, you ask? Well, they want her because she's a woman. And because she's Hispanic, and she would be the first Hispanic on the Supreme Court. See for yourself...

"President Obama has said that he wants to add another woman to the court. I would say the leading candidate is Judge Sonia Sotomayor. She would be not only a woman but the first Hispanic." - George Stephanopoulos (ABC)

"...the pressure to appoint a woman. But the Hispanic community really would like to see the first ever Hispanic Supreme Court justice." - Chuck Todd (NBC)

"A lot of pressure to appoint a woman, lot of pressure to appoint a Hispanic, the first Hispanic. How about a twofer: Sonia Sotomayor, you know, an appeals court judge and Hispanic woman. You heard it here first." - Chris Wallace (Fox)

Clearly I'm not just making this up. They want her because she is a Hispanic woman. Of course, my question is this: Who freaking cares if she is a Hispanic woman? Does that make her a better judge? Does her race or gender have anything to do whatsoever with her knowledge of law or the Constitution? No! Just like Obama being black has absolutely nothing to do with his ability (or inability) to govern! It's all meaningless. Liberals always pretend to be so big on racial and gender equality. Well, how does picking someone based on race and gender promote equality? Attitudes like this are what prevent our society from finally becoming colorblind.

The fact is, this opportunity has nothing to do with supporting the law or the Constitution. It has to do with Obama pushing his leftist ideology. He's even admitted that much. Check out these quotes...

"Sometimes we're only looking at academics or people who have been in the courts. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that's the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court." - Obama in 2007

"We need somebody who's got the empathy to recognize what it's like to be a young teenaged mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled." - Obama in 2008

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society." - Obama in 2001, listing the "failures" of the civil rights movement

I don't mean to sound callous, but the law should be blind, cold, and emotionless. The law isn't about feelings and empathy. I can empathize with a guy whose wife left him. But if that same guy bought a gun and murdered his wife in retaliation, he'd still be guilty. Obama doesn't care about the law. He wants the courts to redistribute wealth and delve into the liberal views of economic and social justice. And as I said before, that is troublesome.