With the confirmation today of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court by a vote of 68-31, I decided to create a tag for the posts on this subject because (i) the principles I outlined in my opposition to this nominee are and remain valid in perpetuity and (ii) I will refer back to them in subsequent court nominees by President Obama.
It is my hope that the Sotomayor confirmation be for Obama what the Battle of the Coral Sea was for the Japanese (read: tactical victory but strategic loss before a much larger planned engagement at Midway). And may government health care be his Battle of Midway (read: a decisive American victory that turned the tide of the war in the Pacific).
Showing posts with label S. Sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label S. Sotomayor. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Briefly on Judge Sonia Sotomayor and Confirmation Hearing Strategery:
These were my offhand comments from July 11, 2009 to an inquirer on the upcoming hearings. Their words will be in dark green font.
What's your predictions on this? Think the Senate will confirm her barely or not confirm barely? I get the feeling it's going to be a barely just not sure which end it will be
Since we are replacing Souter and therefore holding serve basically, I do not think this is the battle we want to go all out on. It will suffice to make this a platform for discussing judicial philosophy and thereby having a stronger foundation to go after Obama's next appointee.
Barring something extraordinary coming out, I do not see how she does not get confirmed. That does not means we roll over like we did for Ginsberg though -it is clear the Dems are not gonna stop their character assassination crap so in the words of that great western philosopher Alice Cooper "no more Mr. Nice Guy." We should make it a tough fight but pull a few punches and save our real "bunker buster bombs" for taking down socialized health care and the crap and tax which would both be far more damaging than [Sotomayor] long-term.
These were my offhand comments from July 11, 2009 to an inquirer on the upcoming hearings. Their words will be in dark green font.
What's your predictions on this? Think the Senate will confirm her barely or not confirm barely? I get the feeling it's going to be a barely just not sure which end it will be
Since we are replacing Souter and therefore holding serve basically, I do not think this is the battle we want to go all out on. It will suffice to make this a platform for discussing judicial philosophy and thereby having a stronger foundation to go after Obama's next appointee.
Barring something extraordinary coming out, I do not see how she does not get confirmed. That does not means we roll over like we did for Ginsberg though -it is clear the Dems are not gonna stop their character assassination crap so in the words of that great western philosopher Alice Cooper "no more Mr. Nice Guy." We should make it a tough fight but pull a few punches and save our real "bunker buster bombs" for taking down socialized health care and the crap and tax which would both be far more damaging than [Sotomayor] long-term.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Chronicling Sonia Sotomayor's Latest Decision Reversal By the Supreme Court and the Flaws of the "Empathetic" Judicial Philosophy:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I will draw from material in the following two articles in sketching this sequence out:
White Firefighters Were Victims of Discrimination, Supreme Court Rules
High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
Having posted the links, let us review the process of this case before it reached the high court. To start with, we have the suit brought against the city:
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 other words, a test designed to measure qualifications for promotion in the New Haven was thrown out because of the racial makeup of the highest test scorers. There is no way objectively speaking that is not a case of race discrimination. Yet here is what happened when the case was brought to the district court:
District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.
Notice the "logic" of this decision: the test can be scrapped even though they could not find anything wrong with it. On what basis could this be justified rationally??? Oh yes, for some reason a test of qualifications did not result in a desired racial makeup so that supposedly proves inadequacy. Is it at all possible that the reason the minorities scored lower was simply because they were as individuals not as qualified and their race had nothing to do with it??? Oh but that is not the "politically correct" answer so you get judicial idiocies like those of Judge Arterton which are based not on law or statute but instead on personal biases.
That brings us to the 2nd Court of Appeals where Judge Sotomayor was sitting:
The case then went to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, where Judge Sotomayor and fellow Judges Robert Sack and Rosemary Pooler heard the appeal.
But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion."
So it is "thoughtful and well-reasoned" according to Sotomayor and the 2nd Appeals Court to throw a test out that no flaw could be found in because it did not generate the desired racial outcome??? This is far from "thoughtful and well-reasoned" but instead it is both arbitrary and unreasonable.
For rather than provide equality of opportunity this methodology seeks to mandate a required outcome. This is contrary to the very principles on which this country was founded and is also contrary to the most basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics.
This case also shows the intrinsic flaw of the whole "empathy standard" that President Barack Obama talks about when it comes to judicial philosophy and which Judge Sotomayor evidently embodies. For an "empathy standard" is hardly one that is non-normative (read: objective) but instead is of a normative (read: subjective) nature. And such a subjective foundation is very dangerous ground on which to be basing judicial or indeed any kind of philosophy on.
That brings us to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court when it reversed Sotomayor's 2nd Appeals decision:
[T]he court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.
In a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative majority said 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," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
That is a very reasoned and logical approach to these matters. But notice what was outlined in the minority view:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court's dissenting liberals and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
The problem of course with "equal opportunity in fact" type arguments is such endeavours cannot be undertaken without discrimination against other parties. It is one thing to use race criteria as one of several factors that go into such an assessment.{1} But in the case of New Haven, that was the sole criteria in which the test was thrown out. Or as the article noted on the court's majority decision as authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy:
Justice Kennedy's opinion yesterday referred to the judgment of Judge Sotomayor and the other two judges only by noting their short opinion. He said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason for the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.
In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Justice Kennedy wrote.
In other words, if there was no evidence of discrimination against minorities in the test, then there was no justice in throwing it out. And considering that the original judge admitted that there was no evidence of racial bias in the test, that only underscore objectively the lack of justification in throwing the test out in the manner in which they did.
Readers need to ask themselves which standard of judicial philosophy are they the most comfortable with, one that bases its decisions on reason, logic, ethics, and objective standards or one that is unreasonable, illogical, unethical, and subjective. Because in a nutshell, that is what the difference is between rulings based on law and justice and those based on personal whims and "empathy." In one case Lady Justice wears a blindfold and in the other she does not. Your humble servant for one prefers to see Lady Justice with her eyes covered.
Note:
{1} If it is used as a tie-breaker in cases where there general equality in other ways, that is one thing but that is not what was done.
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I will draw from material in the following two articles in sketching this sequence out:
White Firefighters Were Victims of Discrimination, Supreme Court Rules
High Court Rules for White Firefighters in Discrimination Suit
Having posted the links, let us review the process of this case before it reached the high court. To start with, we have the suit brought against the city:
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 other words, a test designed to measure qualifications for promotion in the New Haven was thrown out because of the racial makeup of the highest test scorers. There is no way objectively speaking that is not a case of race discrimination. Yet here is what happened when the case was brought to the district court:
District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.
Notice the "logic" of this decision: the test can be scrapped even though they could not find anything wrong with it. On what basis could this be justified rationally??? Oh yes, for some reason a test of qualifications did not result in a desired racial makeup so that supposedly proves inadequacy. Is it at all possible that the reason the minorities scored lower was simply because they were as individuals not as qualified and their race had nothing to do with it??? Oh but that is not the "politically correct" answer so you get judicial idiocies like those of Judge Arterton which are based not on law or statute but instead on personal biases.
That brings us to the 2nd Court of Appeals where Judge Sotomayor was sitting:
The case then went to the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, where Judge Sotomayor and fellow Judges Robert Sack and Rosemary Pooler heard the appeal.
But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, although it was "not unsympathetic" to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision for "reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion."
So it is "thoughtful and well-reasoned" according to Sotomayor and the 2nd Appeals Court to throw a test out that no flaw could be found in because it did not generate the desired racial outcome??? This is far from "thoughtful and well-reasoned" but instead it is both arbitrary and unreasonable.
For rather than provide equality of opportunity this methodology seeks to mandate a required outcome. This is contrary to the very principles on which this country was founded and is also contrary to the most basic principles of reason, logic, and ethics.
This case also shows the intrinsic flaw of the whole "empathy standard" that President Barack Obama talks about when it comes to judicial philosophy and which Judge Sotomayor evidently embodies. For an "empathy standard" is hardly one that is non-normative (read: objective) but instead is of a normative (read: subjective) nature. And such a subjective foundation is very dangerous ground on which to be basing judicial or indeed any kind of philosophy on.
That brings us to the decision handed down by the Supreme Court when it reversed Sotomayor's 2nd Appeals decision:
[T]he court was deciding when avoiding potential discrimination against one group amounted to actual discrimination against another.
In a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative majority said 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," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
That is a very reasoned and logical approach to these matters. But notice what was outlined in the minority view:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the court's dissenting liberals and said the decision knocks the pegs from Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. She read her dissent from the bench for emphasis. "Congress endeavored to promote equal opportunity in fact, and not simply in form," she said. "The damage today's decision does to that objective is untold."
The problem of course with "equal opportunity in fact" type arguments is such endeavours cannot be undertaken without discrimination against other parties. It is one thing to use race criteria as one of several factors that go into such an assessment.{1} But in the case of New Haven, that was the sole criteria in which the test was thrown out. Or as the article noted on the court's majority decision as authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy:
Justice Kennedy's opinion yesterday referred to the judgment of Judge Sotomayor and the other two judges only by noting their short opinion. He said the standard for whether an employer may discard a test is whether there is a strong reason for the employer to believe that the test is flawed in a way that discriminates against minorities, not just by looking at the results.
In New Haven's case, "there is no evidence -- let alone the required strong basis in evidence -- that the tests were flawed because they were not job-related or because other, equally valid and less discriminatory tests were available to the city," Justice Kennedy wrote.
In other words, if there was no evidence of discrimination against minorities in the test, then there was no justice in throwing it out. And considering that the original judge admitted that there was no evidence of racial bias in the test, that only underscore objectively the lack of justification in throwing the test out in the manner in which they did.
Readers need to ask themselves which standard of judicial philosophy are they the most comfortable with, one that bases its decisions on reason, logic, ethics, and objective standards or one that is unreasonable, illogical, unethical, and subjective. Because in a nutshell, that is what the difference is between rulings based on law and justice and those based on personal whims and "empathy." In one case Lady Justice wears a blindfold and in the other she does not. Your humble servant for one prefers to see Lady Justice with her eyes covered.
Note:
{1} If it is used as a tie-breaker in cases where there general equality in other ways, that is one thing but that is not what was done.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
McConnell Says Time Needed to Review New Sotomayor Material (Roll Call)
I hope he is successful in getting as much time as needed to review all the pertinent data but something tells me that a place like DC where they vote on bills they have not read{1} is not inclined to want to have all the information before they come to an equitable decision on this matter.
Note:
{1} This is one reason why your host has for quite some time been a supporter of the DownsizeDC proposed legislation known as the Read the Bills Act and views the fact that such a piece of legislation is so badly needed is an indicator of no small significance of how bad things really are corruption-wise in Washington DC.
I hope he is successful in getting as much time as needed to review all the pertinent data but something tells me that a place like DC where they vote on bills they have not read{1} is not inclined to want to have all the information before they come to an equitable decision on this matter.
Note:
{1} This is one reason why your host has for quite some time been a supporter of the DownsizeDC proposed legislation known as the Read the Bills Act and views the fact that such a piece of legislation is so badly needed is an indicator of no small significance of how bad things really are corruption-wise in Washington DC.
Monday, July 06, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
A Collection of Treads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society:
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
It bears noting that this is the third such recapitulation thread containing archive material on these subjects. The first two will be noted in reverse chronological order in a footnote below{1} and the rest categorized in order from newest to oldest.
I post such connection threads at times because this approach to the subjects of rights is one that has been either explicit or implicit in so much of what I have written over the years. In light with what I noted yesterday about "writing photographs" this thread and the other three preceding it serve to point to my approach to these matters over time as applied to a whole host of issues.{2} Without further ado...
Miscellaneous Musings on Michelle Malkin, Sonya Sotomayor, "Compelling Stories", Activist Agendas, Etc. (circa June 3, 2009)
On the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)
Briefly on the Texas Governor and State Sovereignty Under the Tenth Amendment (circa April 15, 2009)
Responding to Various Statements About President Barack Hussein Obama (circa April 14, 2009)
"One From the Vault" With "Crimson Catholic" (circa March 4, 2009)
Points to Ponder From Dr. Walter E. Williams on True and False "Rights" (circa February 28, 2009)
On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
On President Barack Obama, Abortion, the Repeal of the "Mexico City Policy", and Fundamental Rights (circa January 29, 2009)
Sandro Magister on the Vatican, Hamas and Israel Plus Our Musings on a Fundamental Right that Must Underline All Genuine Dialogue (circa January 7, 2009)
Rider Reform Revisited (circa December 16, 2008)
On the Arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (circa December 9, 2008)
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of Language Control (circa November 25, 2008)
Points to Ponder From "Azvet" on Fundamentals of Income Redistribution (circa October 24, 2008)
On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson on General Norms of Interpretation Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
Points to Ponder on Viewing Political Candidates (circa September 10, 2008)
On Senator Barack Obama's Selection of Senator Joseph Biden (circa August 30, 2008)
Miscellaneous Musings and Threads Worth Noting on the Russia/Georgia War, Poland and a "Missile Shield", Undigested Bits on Senator Obama's Pick of Sen. Biden, and an Amazing Find By Japanese Scientists (circa August 25, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads and Musings on Alexander Solzhentesyn, Russia, Georgia, Boycotting the Olympics, Etc. (circa August 8, 2008)
Notification of Some Upcoming Weblog Postings (circa August 2, 2008)
Excerpt From Senator Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative on Conservative Philosophy and Fundamental Rights (circa August 2, 2008)
July Fourth Reflections on Liberty by Dr. Walter E. Williams, Rush H. Limbaugh Jr., and Your Humble Weblog Host (circa July 4, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting on Che Guevara and Robert Mugabe (circa June 15, 2008)
The National D-Day Memorial (circa June 6, 2008)
On Free Speech, Persecution in Yemen, and Fundamental Rights (circa May 28, 2009)
On Memorial Day (circa May 27, 2008)
On Illegal Immigration and Fundamental Rights (circa May 6, 2008)
More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof --Parts I-V (circa April 26-May 14, 2008)
A Dialogue on John McCain and Conservatism (circa March 26, 2008)
Miscellaneous Mutterings (circa March 21, 2008)
On Reuben "Hurricane" Carter, Bob Dylan, and Ethics (circa March 7, 2008)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa February 20, 2008)
Points to Ponder From David J. Stoddard on True and False "Racism" (circa January 9, 2008)
On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa December 16, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Sen. Barry Goldwater on Absolute Power (circa November 5, 2007)
On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History (circa October 25, 2007)
"The Drudgeford Files" Dept. (circa October 16, 2007)
"From the Mailbag" on Abortion (circa September 26, 2007)
"From the Mailbag" on Distributivism (circa September 10, 2007)
On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism (circa September 8, 2007)
Miscellaneous Musings on "Bush Derangement Syndrome", Debate Ethics, Infrastructure, the War on Poverty vs. the Iraq War, Death, Tragedies and Evil, Etc. (circa August 4, 2007)
Reflections on Liberty From Rush H. Limbaugh Jr. on the Founding Fathers and Dr. Walter E. Williams on Claude Frederic Bastiat (circa July 3, 2007)
Briefly on the Fall of Amnesty International (circa July 6, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on Perversion of the Law (circa June 30, 2007)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on the Proper Function of the Law (circa June 25, 2007)
On President Bush, Congress, the Law, the Common Good, and Fundamental Rights (circa June 8, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue: (circa May 31, 2007)
"TheEmpire Distributivist Strikes Back" Dept.(circa May 27, 2007)
To Defend "Aristocracy" in Society (circa May 26, 2007)
Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)
A Book Review and Briefly on Slavery and Fundamental Rights (circa May 5, 2007)
On a Possible Future Form of Enslavement (circa March 29, 2007)
On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on The Illogical Approach of Socialists (circa February 13, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 5, 2007)
Briefly on Stem Cell Research and Fundamental Rights (circa January 23, 2007)
On the Upcoming "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade and Some Upcoming Weblog Posts (circa January 20, 2007)
Note:
{1} A Collection of Threads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society --October 30, 2003-January 5, 2007
A Collection of Treads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society --September 30, 2002-October 30, 2003
{2} I am sure if I looked further I could find more threads where I approach the subjects of fundamental rights and the proper role of law in a just society with less explication than in the threads below but I do not have time for that sort of fine-tooth archive combing.
(A Rerum Novarum Recapitulation Thread)
It bears noting that this is the third such recapitulation thread containing archive material on these subjects. The first two will be noted in reverse chronological order in a footnote below{1} and the rest categorized in order from newest to oldest.
I post such connection threads at times because this approach to the subjects of rights is one that has been either explicit or implicit in so much of what I have written over the years. In light with what I noted yesterday about "writing photographs" this thread and the other three preceding it serve to point to my approach to these matters over time as applied to a whole host of issues.{2} Without further ado...
Miscellaneous Musings on Michelle Malkin, Sonya Sotomayor, "Compelling Stories", Activist Agendas, Etc. (circa June 3, 2009)
On the Tea Parties in Particular and the Tea Party Movement in General (circa May 30, 2009)
Briefly on the Texas Governor and State Sovereignty Under the Tenth Amendment (circa April 15, 2009)
Responding to Various Statements About President Barack Hussein Obama (circa April 14, 2009)
"One From the Vault" With "Crimson Catholic" (circa March 4, 2009)
Points to Ponder From Dr. Walter E. Williams on True and False "Rights" (circa February 28, 2009)
On President Barack Obama's Political Mentor (circa February 28, 2009)
On President Barack Obama, Abortion, the Repeal of the "Mexico City Policy", and Fundamental Rights (circa January 29, 2009)
Sandro Magister on the Vatican, Hamas and Israel Plus Our Musings on a Fundamental Right that Must Underline All Genuine Dialogue (circa January 7, 2009)
Rider Reform Revisited (circa December 16, 2008)
On the Arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich (circa December 9, 2008)
Revisiting the Subject of the Underlying Weltanschauung of Language Control (circa November 25, 2008)
Points to Ponder From "Azvet" on Fundamentals of Income Redistribution (circa October 24, 2008)
On "Consequentialism", "Proportionalism", and a Lesson on General Norms of Interpretation Theological or Otherwise (circa October 6, 2008)
Points to Ponder on Viewing Political Candidates (circa September 10, 2008)
On Senator Barack Obama's Selection of Senator Joseph Biden (circa August 30, 2008)
Miscellaneous Musings and Threads Worth Noting on the Russia/Georgia War, Poland and a "Missile Shield", Undigested Bits on Senator Obama's Pick of Sen. Biden, and an Amazing Find By Japanese Scientists (circa August 25, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads and Musings on Alexander Solzhentesyn, Russia, Georgia, Boycotting the Olympics, Etc. (circa August 8, 2008)
Notification of Some Upcoming Weblog Postings (circa August 2, 2008)
Excerpt From Senator Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative on Conservative Philosophy and Fundamental Rights (circa August 2, 2008)
July Fourth Reflections on Liberty by Dr. Walter E. Williams, Rush H. Limbaugh Jr., and Your Humble Weblog Host (circa July 4, 2008)
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Noting on Che Guevara and Robert Mugabe (circa June 15, 2008)
The National D-Day Memorial (circa June 6, 2008)
On Free Speech, Persecution in Yemen, and Fundamental Rights (circa May 28, 2009)
On Memorial Day (circa May 27, 2008)
On Illegal Immigration and Fundamental Rights (circa May 6, 2008)
More on Senator John McCain, the Boundaries of Conservative Republican Thought Historically Speaking, and Certain Troubling Contemporary Ahistorical So-Called "Conservative" Trends Thereof --Parts I-V (circa April 26-May 14, 2008)
A Dialogue on John McCain and Conservatism (circa March 26, 2008)
Miscellaneous Mutterings (circa March 21, 2008)
On Reuben "Hurricane" Carter, Bob Dylan, and Ethics (circa March 7, 2008)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa February 20, 2008)
Points to Ponder From David J. Stoddard on True and False "Racism" (circa January 9, 2008)
On Mitt Romney, Conservatives, and the Judiciary--Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa December 16, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Sen. Barry Goldwater on Absolute Power (circa November 5, 2007)
On Being Fair to Historical Figures in General and Revisiting the Subject of Slavery in American History (circa October 25, 2007)
"The Drudgeford Files" Dept. (circa October 16, 2007)
"From the Mailbag" on Abortion (circa September 26, 2007)
"From the Mailbag" on Distributivism (circa September 10, 2007)
On the "Phantom Menace" of Distributivism (circa September 8, 2007)
Miscellaneous Musings on "Bush Derangement Syndrome", Debate Ethics, Infrastructure, the War on Poverty vs. the Iraq War, Death, Tragedies and Evil, Etc. (circa August 4, 2007)
Reflections on Liberty From Rush H. Limbaugh Jr. on the Founding Fathers and Dr. Walter E. Williams on Claude Frederic Bastiat (circa July 3, 2007)
Briefly on the Fall of Amnesty International (circa July 6, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on Perversion of the Law (circa June 30, 2007)
Miscellaneous Musings (circa June 29, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on the Proper Function of the Law (circa June 25, 2007)
On President Bush, Congress, the Law, the Common Good, and Fundamental Rights (circa June 8, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Private Property, and Authentic Dialogue: (circa May 31, 2007)
"The
To Defend "Aristocracy" in Society (circa May 26, 2007)
Revisiting Distributivism (circa May 25, 2007)
A Book Review and Briefly on Slavery and Fundamental Rights (circa May 5, 2007)
On a Possible Future Form of Enslavement (circa March 29, 2007)
On Hilaire Belloc and the Problems With Being Fair to Past Generations (circa March 11, 2007)
Points to Ponder From Claude Frederic Bastiat on The Illogical Approach of Socialists (circa February 13, 2007)
On Fundamental Rights, Common Law Principles, and Abortion (circa February 5, 2007)
Briefly on Stem Cell Research and Fundamental Rights (circa January 23, 2007)
On the Upcoming "Anniversary" of Roe vs. Wade and Some Upcoming Weblog Posts (circa January 20, 2007)
Note:
{1} A Collection of Threads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society --October 30, 2003-January 5, 2007
A Collection of Treads on Claude Frederic Bastiat's Theory of the Three Fundamental Rights of Man and the Role of Law in a Just Society --September 30, 2002-October 30, 2003
{2} I am sure if I looked further I could find more threads where I approach the subjects of fundamental rights and the proper role of law in a just society with less explication than in the threads below but I do not have time for that sort of fine-tooth archive combing.
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Miscellaneous Musings on Michelle Malkin, Sonya Sotomayor, "Compelling Stories", Activist Agendas, Etc:
First a link to Michelle's article and then my comments so without further ado...
LINK
Michelle basically outlines the Animal Farm mentality of Democrats on President Obama's high court pick because they are touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" as a selling point despite not being too concerned about the "compelling life story" issue when it came to Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Samuel Alito, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Heck, they would not even let Judge Miguel Estrada get a hearing for being seated on the federal appeals court and Estrada's personal life story was even more compelling than that of Sotomayor. The same argument can be made about Clarence Thomas.
But just as in Animal Farm the dictum was "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" that is how the Democrats view the issue of "compelling life stories." They will brutally go after anyone whom they think might be a judicial danger to certain pet issues of theirs while expecting others to give those who are favourable to their little pet issues to play nice. They will excuse away her blatantly racist statements and rulings while attempting to crucify people like Estrada, Thomas, and Alito and smear them with every evil they can imagine. Pardon me for not feeling sorry for a racist judicial activist like Sonya Sotomayor but I am opposed to not only her racism but also her judicial activism.
I have never favoured judicial activism and I opposed the Republicans who attempted to endorse it on their pet issues -particularly in my opposition to President Bush's attempted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Roberts Court in 2005.{1} I am therefore as is my wont completely consistent in my stance here in opposing Sonia Sotomayor on that basis alone and apart from other matters which also go into framing my opposition to this candidate. (Such as her aforementioned racism.)
Note:
{1} Not a few threads were posted on this matter and the manner in which I analyzed the various opinions from different quarters. The substance of them can be noted (as well as some of those postings linked to) in this dialogue on judicial activism:
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Court Agendas -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa October 10, 2005)
As I have said more times than I can count over the years, something is either right or wrong in and of itself not because of the persons who espouse the viewpoint: a criticism I have had for various and sundry pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of an entire panopoly of special interests.
First a link to Michelle's article and then my comments so without further ado...
LINK
Michelle basically outlines the Animal Farm mentality of Democrats on President Obama's high court pick because they are touting Sotomayor's "compelling life story" as a selling point despite not being too concerned about the "compelling life story" issue when it came to Judge Clarence Thomas, Judge Samuel Alito, or former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Heck, they would not even let Judge Miguel Estrada get a hearing for being seated on the federal appeals court and Estrada's personal life story was even more compelling than that of Sotomayor. The same argument can be made about Clarence Thomas.
But just as in Animal Farm the dictum was "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" that is how the Democrats view the issue of "compelling life stories." They will brutally go after anyone whom they think might be a judicial danger to certain pet issues of theirs while expecting others to give those who are favourable to their little pet issues to play nice. They will excuse away her blatantly racist statements and rulings while attempting to crucify people like Estrada, Thomas, and Alito and smear them with every evil they can imagine. Pardon me for not feeling sorry for a racist judicial activist like Sonya Sotomayor but I am opposed to not only her racism but also her judicial activism.
I have never favoured judicial activism and I opposed the Republicans who attempted to endorse it on their pet issues -particularly in my opposition to President Bush's attempted nomination of Harriet Miers to the Roberts Court in 2005.{1} I am therefore as is my wont completely consistent in my stance here in opposing Sonia Sotomayor on that basis alone and apart from other matters which also go into framing my opposition to this candidate. (Such as her aforementioned racism.)
Note:
{1} Not a few threads were posted on this matter and the manner in which I analyzed the various opinions from different quarters. The substance of them can be noted (as well as some of those postings linked to) in this dialogue on judicial activism:
On the Miers Nomination and Activist Court Agendas -Dialogue With Kevin Tierney (circa October 10, 2005)
As I have said more times than I can count over the years, something is either right or wrong in and of itself not because of the persons who espouse the viewpoint: a criticism I have had for various and sundry pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists of an entire panopoly of special interests.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)