Sotomayor Watch #6

Byron York analyzes the destruction of the Miguel Estradas 2001 nomination to the Federal judiciary by the same Dems tripping over themselves to get Sotomayor on SCOTUS.

If my lefty friends don't see something wrong with this tactic or understand that these appointments have only to do with ideology and the rest of the dribble is nonsense, then I think ideology is also their only interest!

Only difference between Dems and Republicans is we admit our motive and do not hide it to win elections and nominations.

Read the article here.

Sotomayor Watch #5

Stuart Taylor analyzes the New Haven Firefighters Case (Ricci) in some detail. Worth the read to know what we will get with this nominee.

The Shallowness of Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate, embarrasses himself in todays NYT column. Quote:

"But it's hard to escape the sense that the current inflation mongering is partly political, coming largely from economists who had no problem WITH DEFICITS CAUSED BY TAX CUTS..."
(my emphasis)

Now I am not a professional economist, but I do know it is widely agreed that Federal income INCREASES with tax cuts - this is not theory, it has happened several times in the last 5 decades - so please explain to me how that causes DEFICITS!!

And by the way, Federal income DECREASES with tax increases. This has also actually happened, not theory!

Deficits are caused by Government spending exceeding its income! Think he understands that? Ideology seems to have crept into the thinking of our Nobel Laureate!

"A Disturbing Judicial Philosophy"

Michael Greerson in the above named column today (WaPo) explains the BHO/Sotomayor doctrine of empathy and its effects on the nomination process. The best brief analysis I have read.

Read it here.

A comment on empathy: be careful or you may get what you ask for!

Someone please explain to me how, if we go down this path instead of a blindfolded "Justice", someday a set of judges empathetic to the unborn will not reverse R v W? Or a set of judges empathetic to businesses will not favor their actions over labor?

Think ahead before you support this path!

Sotomayor Watch #4

Sonia Sotomayor is a member of the National Council of La Raza. I know of her speaking to them, but did not assume her membership.

I believe this should be vetted thoroughly as La Raza is a quite controversial organization. Appropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to belong to this organization? We will see.

You can read some background material on the NCLR in Wikipedia here.

Afterthought: I wonder what she would answer if you asked "Are you registered as a Republican or Democrat?" Bet it would be "I can't tell you that!" Yet her bio's tell you about membership in the National Council of La Raza! Just doesn't seem quite right!

Environmentally Sensitive

This press release from the State of Alaska, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities illustrates what a strong conservative Governor and past Candidate for Vice President of the United States can do.

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/comm/pressbox/arch_2009/PR09-2591.shtml

Alaska is on its way to becoming a king sized Portland! I wonder if this is also true from November to March?

Sotomayor Watch #3

The WSJ editorial today makes several good points to guide the vetting of Sonia Sotomayor. Three very insightful paragraphs:

"In making Sonia Sotomayor his first nominee for the Supreme Court yesterday, President Obama appears to have found the ideal match for his view that personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom.

This isn't a jurisprudence that the Founders would recognize, but it is the creative view that has dominated the law schools since the 1970s and from which both the President and Judge Sotomayor emerged. In the President's now-famous word, judging should be shaped by "empathy" as much or more than by reason. In this sense, Judge Sotomayor would be a thoroughly modern Justice, one for whom the law is a voyage of personal identity.""

...


"As the first nominee of a popular President and with 59 Democrats in the Senate, Judge Sotomayor is likely to be confirmed barring some major blunder. But Republicans can use the process as a teaching moment, not to tear down Ms. Sotomayor on personal issues the way the left tried with Justices Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito, but to educate Americans about the proper role of the judiciary and to explore whether Judge Sotomayor's Constitutional principles are as free-form as they seem from her record."


If only the New York Times et al could write a paragraph like the last! Educating the populace, for either the left or right, is the appropriate approach. The nomination will take care of itself.

Read the whole editorial here.

Sotomayor Watch #2

Stuart Taylor in the National Journal Magazine explains Judge Sonia Sotomayor's "Identity Politics" beliefs and why she is the pick of BHO and the Dems. His closing paragraphs summarize the situation quite clearly:


"In one of her few explosive cases, Sotomayor voted (without writing an opinion) to join two colleagues in upholding what I see as raw racial discrimination by New Haven, Conn. The city denied promotions to the firefighters who did best on a test of job-related skills because none was black. (See my column, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear.")

The Supreme Court is widely expected to reverse that decision in June. And even if a devotee of identity politics fills retiring Justice David Souter's seat, she will not have enough votes to encourage greater use of such racial preferences. Not yet."

Read the column here.

Sotomayor Watch #1

Collin Levy in Fridays WSJ wrote a column giving a little history: "How Joe Biden Wrecked the Judicial Confirmation Process." An interesting history to understand while watching what may be a contentious confirmation process. A sample paragraph:

"By the time Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings came around, Mr. Biden's modus operandi was well known. In his book, "My Grandfather's Son," Justice Thomas recalls that before the Anita Hill inquisition began, Mr. Biden called him and said "Judge, I know you don't believe me but if the allegations come up I will be your biggest defender." "He was right about one thing," Justice Thomas wrote, "I didn't believe him.""

Read it here.

The Shallowness of Paul Krugman

Paul Krugman writes a column on California and its' financial problems that is the most shallow analysis I have ever read from a Nobel Laureate! Of course, we all know he won the Nobel Prize for his Bush Hatred Syndrome which was a sure way win.

He does not mention the extreme level of taxation that already exists or the population loss that is occurringl. Only blaming Proposition 13 - how long will that go on? - seems appropriate to him. What an embarrassment!

You can read the brief column here and share your thoughts.

"A Tale of Two Women"

Rightwingsparkle blogs on an interesting comparison of two high profile women: Nancy Pelosi and Sarah Palin. Do you think there might have been a little bias last year?

A brief and fun read here.

Did you elect Bush III?

Charles Krauthammer writes today in "Obama's Deeds Vindicate Bush" how BHO is not changing Bush's foreign policy in any way, despite committments to minions wh0 put him in office.

Key 'graphs:

"The genius of democracy is that the rotation of power forces the opposition to come to its senses when it takes over. When the new guys, brought to power by popular will, then adopt the policies of the old guys, a national consensus is forged and a new legitimacy established.

That's happening before our eyes. The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds."

Do you think he realizes what he is doing? I'm beginning to relish the runup to 2010!

"Killing a Story: How It's Done" by the NYT(see May 18)

Michelle Malkin supplies more information on our "paper of record" - or "fishwrap of record" as she says - including their continuing relationship with BHO:


"One of the muck-raking newspaper’s reporters, Jennifer 8. Lee, recently boasted on Twitter that the Paper of Record has now “sold $2 million worth of [O]bama merchandise (book, commemorative editions, etc.).” The president, she noted chirpily, “is good for the bottom line.” This lucrative media-government partnership is on proud display at the Times online Barack Obama store, where readers can buy mugs, books, and framed photos of the newspaper’s political boosterism.

A press plate of the Times’s inauguration front page goes for $149. A “set of Obama victory coffee mugs” sells for $24.95. And for only $1,129, you can own a signed and framed messianic photo of Obama taken by Times photographer Damon Winter – and neutrally titled “Shining Moment” with the candidate in artsy silhouette as a sunburst illuminates the scenery."


Now that's real independence, isn't it. Did they have a store for W?

Read the whole column and perhaps you will see through their bias. We do not need this in our society. It is DANGEROUS!

UPDATE: Anonymous informed me in first response below that "the link doesn't work, just like the rights ideas!" Well, anonymous, I fixed the problem just like we will have to fix BHO's problems when he stops fiddling!

BHO and Notre Dame: his use (and abuse) of the school and Catholics

In todays WSJ Bill McGurn comments on BHO's invitation and commencement address at Notre Dame. As with all his activity, the purpose was to create a false image for the masses, and it works with the cooperation of Rev. John Jenkins. A couple of excerpts:


"In a letter to Notre Dame's Class of 2009, the university's president, the Rev. John Jenkins, stated that the honors for Mr. Obama do not indicate any "ambiguity" about Notre Dame's commitment to Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life. The reality is that it was this ambiguity that the White House was counting on; this ambiguity that was furthered by the adoring reaction to Mr. Obama's visit; and this ambiguity that disheartens those working for an America that respects the dignity of life inside the womb. ...

In the National Portrait Gallery of the Smithsonian, there is a wonderful photograph of Father Ted Hesburgh -- then Notre Dame president -- linking hands with Martin Luther King Jr. at a 1964 civil-rights rally at Chicago's Soldier Field. Today, nearly four decades and 50 million abortions after Roe v. Wade, there is no photograph of similar prominence of any Notre Dame president taking a lead at any of the annual marches for life.

Father Jenkins is right: That's not ambiguity. That's a statement."


A statement from a source that will be misconstrued as from the Catholic Church when, of course, it is not. Manipulation at its finest!

"Killing a Story: How It's Done" by the NYT

Powerlineblog, a respected source for center right political analysis, details a story of ACORN's relationship with the BHO campaign, which in their opinion has been whitewashed by Clark Hoyt, Public Editor of the NYT.

An interesting read which may explain some of the success of BHO in the last election.

The real question is: what good is the Public Editor?

Chief Justice John Roberts

Jeffrey Toobin writes a nice background piece on our Chief Justice in The New Yorker (May 25, 2009 issue). A well written piece though not too sympathetic!

"Why Keynes Was Wrong"

Benn Steil @ Forbes.com explains a view of Keynesian Economics that explains its faults and why the current tact of the Government is leading us down the wrong path.

He closes with the following comment on a sustainable path out of our current recession:

"Well, there are two brands of remedy. The first are government measures intended to eliminate obstacles to the adaptation of supply to changing demand. This is the now much-maligned classical brand of remedy. The second are fiscal and other government measures designed to force demand to adapt to supply. This is the Keynesian brand of remedy, now beloved in Washington, based on the belief that under-employment is a congenital defect of the economic system.

Each huge dose of this second remedy serves to further obliterate the functioning of the price mechanism, thus necessitating another huge dose. In the long run, this almost certainly means crippling debt, inflation or both. But Keynes, of course, advised against thinking too much about the long run."

An interesting analysis! Read the whole column here.

A Little VDH Sarcasm! On Point!!

Victor Davis Hanson writes a column at NRO that summarizes The One's 100 Days with a little humor, sarcasm and Sarah Palin. A skewering of the MSM.

I laughed my way through it. A must read!

Kudos to WaPo!

A Washington Post editorial today criticizes the corruption in the BHO administration that George Will points out in his column. The final paragraph summarizes their view:


"Extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures, and it was with this thought in mind that we endorsed the federal government's decision to pump billions of dollars into the automakers. But the spectacle of creditors being stripped of their legal rights in favor of a labor union with which the president is politically aligned does little to attract private capital at a time when the government and many companies need these investors the most. Investors' fears will only be compounded if the administration follows a similar blueprint with GM."


George Will summarizes with this paragraph - tough critique:

"The Obama administration's agenda of maximizing dependency involves political favoritism cloaked in the raiment of "economic planning" and "social justice" that somehow produce results superior to what markets produce when freedom allows merit to manifest itself, and incompetence to fail. The administration's central activity -- the political allocation of wealth and opportunity -- is not merely susceptible to corruption, it is corruption."


Both articles well worth the read. Comments from my Dem friends would be appreciated!

Do the elite's remember this?

"There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."

--American author and poet Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)

They should!

H/T: Patriot Post Chronicle, May 13, 2009

White House Correspondents Dinner

Saturday this annual event took place - sort of.

It has always been an opportunity to lampoon the President, bringing him down to the level of the people.

This year, with Wanda Sykes (who?) it became another venue to attack the President's opponents and try to raise up BHO far beyond what he deserves.

I guess it was to be expected, but this President and Administration do not get it!

A "Tongue in Cheek" Comment on Where We Are Headed

The BHO administration seems to want to follow the path of California, New York, Illinois and Massachusetts, so looking at them may give us an idea of where we are headed. Best of the Web Today from the WSJ leads with the following:


"Massachusetts Republicans--yes, there are a few--are raising objections to a state program that helps welfare recipients increase their carbon footprints, the Boston Herald reports:

"It's mind-boggling. You've got people out there saying, 'I just lost my job. Hey, can I get a free car, too?' " said House Minority Leader Brad Jones (R-North Reading). . . .

"Given the state's fiscal condition, paying for AAA and auto inspection costs is outrageous," said Senate Minority Leader Richard Tisei (R-Wakefield). "There are so many families out there trying to deal with layoffs and pay cuts. You have to wonder what the state's priorities are at this point."

Democrats defend the program, whose funding Gov. Deval Patrick seeks to increase by 7.5%, as a welfare-to-work effort. To get the cars, welfare recipients must have a job or job offer, and they have to show that they cannot reach work via public transportation.

But Julia Kehoe, head of the Department of Transitional Assistance, "admitted about 20 percent of those who received a car ended up back on welfare, and while they lose the insurance and other benefits, they don't have to return the car." At the very least, it would make sense for the state to take those cars away from uninsured deadbeats.

Here's another thought, though: The federal government is spending billions of dollars to keep General Motors and Chrysler in business. Why not expand the Massachusetts program so that welfare recipients nationwide get free cars--with the proviso that only GM and Chrysler models are eligible?

Everyone would benefit from such an arrangement (except taxpayers). No longer would anyone have to suffer the indignity of lacking a car because of inability to pay. The troubled car companies would have a guaranteed market. And the poor would have an incentive to lift themselves out of poverty, so that they would no longer have to drive inferior cars.

We could call the program Lemon Aid."


My emphasis - but can you believe they don't have to return the car? God help us all!!! Please defend if I am missing something!

Thomas Sowell: "The Statue of Justice Wears a Blindfold"

Not in the world of BHO!

Read Mr. Sowell's comments here.

I had forgotten this - and I believe his appointee will be sitting under Justice while having "empathy" and making "policy" from the bench.

How they forget!

Rove: Republicans and Obama's Court Nominees

Great column by Rove that will help you clearly understand the intricacies of the process.

An interesting side note:


"Five administration nominees have already been found with unpaid taxes, and Mr. Obama knows he has used up any capital that could have purchased forgiveness for such offenses by a Supreme Court nominee."


Has any Dem in power pay their taxes? Gssssh!

Here is a more salient excerpt:


"In the coming debate, Republicans should explain their view of the judiciary's proper role and why Mr. Obama's desire that a nominee have "empathy" and "understanding" (fine qualities) is an amorphous basis on which to pick a justice. Should the "empathy standard" apply to the unborn? How about gun owners? What about religious conservatives who believe the court has removed religious influences from American life?

What Mr. Obama wants in a nominee isn't really "empathy" and "understanding." He wants a liberal, activist Supreme Court justice. But as Justice Antonin Scalia has said, "It is simply not compatible with democratic theory that laws mean whatever they ought to mean, and that unelected judges decide what that is."" (my emphasis)


Does that make BHO's effort clear? Read the whole thing here.

IF YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON, READ VDH!

For my friends on the right and left, the link below takes you to an article that describes as clearly and concisely as possible what is being attempted by the current administration. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but he speaks the truth. You can pick your poison in 2010! It is more important than you can imagine!

Freedom versus Egalitarianism. It is not new. It is just repackaged. A key insight:



"Obama rather brilliantly counts on two great constituencies (other than the professional Ivy League technocracy whose responsibility is to figure out how to borrow and tax the money, lavish it on constituencies, and do rather well themselves as government overseers). One is the hyper-rich, the Kerrys, the Soroses, the Gateses, and their appendages in universities, government, foundations, and the media. These power players either make enough to be unconcerned with high taxation, or are so well connected politically (cf. the machinations of a Daschle, Dodd, Geithner, Rangel, ) that the coercive state rules simply do not apply.

Instead the hyper-wealthy receive a sort of psychic gratification in helping the ‘poor', and romanticizing the underprivileged, thereby alleviating the guilt of being blessed, and at relative small cost-and so they quite enthusiastically support the equality of result state.

Again, the poor present no challenge, offer no threat to the hyper-wealthy, but are thankful client recipients of ensured government largess. In contrast, the fellow elites have the necessary taste and education to satisfy the demands of aristocratic society."

A very important read. Enjoy and comment.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/03/the_same_old_equality_of_result_96320.html

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!!!

This NYT story says BHO will pursue an identical path with the Gitmo detainees as W. Can you believe it, after all the trash talk of past years? Being on the left is "never having to do what you say" and "never having to say your sorry".

The lead is:


"The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself."


Read the whole thing here.

Is this really what we want from a President and Attorney General?

Rightwingsparkle posts and comments on a letter from Andrew McCarthy to AG Eric Holder. Very Interesting!

'Sparkles penultimate paragraph summarizes BHO's methodology:

"Remember in the press conference when Obama said that he released the CIA memos after careful consulation with his national security team? That gives a certain impression, doesn't it? What he doesn't mention is that they advised him NOT to release the memos. "

Where I come from this is called "deceit." Read the whole post and note McCarthy's view that he is being asked to participate in a conference to cover BHO's administrations rear end for decisions already made. Clever, these Dems!