Comments (0)

By Cassandra Effect, July 17, 2009 6:54 am

Simple – she’s willing to obfuscate about her racism, and the GOP isn’t willing to go the mat over it.

Oh yes, there’s been a couple of firecrackers lit off during the hearings, and a couple of GOP Senators have ensured that the right has had their feeding of red meat – as reported in Sen. Jeff Sessions ROCKS THE SENATE during Sotomayor Hearings

But lets be clear folks – when you have a person interviewing for a JOB FOR LIFE, which is ANSWERABLE to NOBODY,  you have a certain amount of incentive to sit in your chair, smile and give circuitous answers or simply refuse to answer questions.  A very frustrating experience, I am sure, for the GOP Senators.  The Democrats just have to sit back, relax and be nice to Judge Sotomayor, and let the GOP fulfill their image of being a bunch of mean old white dudes. 

The testimony of two of the firefighters involved in the Ricci case sums up the entire episode in words echoing that Martin Luther King.   Read their amazing story at SCOTUS finds Firefighters WERE Discriminated Against! 

Ben Vargas:

I am Hispanic and proud of their heritage and background that Judge Sotomayor and I share. And I congratulate Judge Sotomayor on her nomination.

But the focus should not have been on me being Hispanic. The focus should have been on what I did to our new promotion to captain and how my own government and some courts responded to that. In short, they didn’t care…..

I was shocked when I was not rewarded for this hard work and sacrifice, but I actually was penalized for it. I became not Ben Vargas, the fire lieutenant who proved themselves qualified to be captain, but a racist statistic. I had to make decisions whether to join those who wanted promotions to be based on race and ethnicity or join those who would insist on being judged solely on their qualifications and the content of their character.

Frank Ricci:

In our profession, the racial and ethnic makeup of my crew is the least important thing to us and to the public we serve. I believe the countless Americans who had something to say about our case understand that now.

Firefighters and their leaders stand between their fellow citizens and catastrophe. Americans want those who are the most knowledgeable and qualified to do the task. I am willing to risk and even lay down my life for fellow citizens, but I was not willing to go along with those who place racial identity over these more critical considerations.

I am not a lawyer, but I quickly learned about the law as it applies to this case. Studying it as much I studied for my exam, I thought it clear that we were denied our fundamental civil rights. I expected Lady Justice with the blindfold on, and a reasoned court from a federal court of appeals telling me, my fellow plaintiffs and the public that the court’s view on the law — what the court’s view on the law was and do it in an open and transparent way.

Instead, we were devastated to see a one paragraph unpublished order summarily dismissing our case, and indeed even the notion that we had presented important legal issues to that court of appeals. I expected the judges who heard my case along the way to make the right decisions, the ones required by the rule of law.

Of all that has been written about our case, it was Justice Alito who best captured our own feelings. We did not ask for sympathy or empathy. We asked only for even-handed enforcement of the law and prior to the majority justice opinion in our case, we were denied just that.

 (Source: Washington Post)

And when its all finished, she will be confirmed because, well, no Senator is willing to hold anyone accountable for their long professed views.  Why?  Because they want the same kind of deniability.

Comments (1)

By Cassandra Effect, July 13, 2009 11:35 pm

Are we to believe this is the same person?  This is NOT a person who should be a Supreme.

Sotomayors prepared text from today’s Senate confirmation hearings

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy.  It is simple: fidelity to the law.  The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law.  And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress’s intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court.  In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.

2005 remarks to law students while engaged in a panel discussion:

 “court of appeals is where policy is made.  And I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know.”

and of course her oft repeated racist, or at best self indulgent statement:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”

Comments (1)

By Cassandra Effect,

No comments needed from me – his words are powerful enough.  Take a minute to read them all.  These are like the words of a Founding Father – inspiring, on point, and true.  Make no mistake – the American people are paying attention and awakening. (emphasis mine)

Before I begin, I want to thank Chairman Leahy for his openness and willingness to work together on the procedures for this hearing. I hope it will be viewed as the best hearing this Committee has ever held.

Judge Sotomayor, I join Chairman Leahy in welcoming you here today.

This hearing marks an important milestone in your distinguished legal career. I know your family is proud, and rightfully so. It is a pleasure to have them with us today.

I expect this hearing and resulting debate to be characterized by a respectful tone, a discussion of serious issues, and a thoughtful dialogue, and I have worked hard to achieve that from day one.

I have been an active litigator in federal courts for the majority of my professional life. I have tried cases in private practice, as a federal prosecutor with the Department of Justice, and as Attorney General of the State of Alabama.

The Constitution and our great heritage of law are things I care deeply about—they are the foundation of our liberty and prosperity.

This nomination hearing is critically important for two reasons.

First, Justices on the Supreme Court have great responsibility, hold enormous power, and have a lifetime appointment.

Just five members can declare the meaning of our Constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what the people intended.

Second, this hearing is important because I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads.

Down one path is the traditional American legal system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to their own personal views.

This is the compassionate system because this is the fair system.

In the American legal system, courts do not make the law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make laws would strike at the heart of our democracy.

Here, judges take an oath to administer justice impartially, which reads:

“I . . . do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me . . . under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”[1]

These principles give the traditional system its moral authority, which is why Americans respect and accept the rulings of courts—even when they lose.

Indeed, our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. The trial is the process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to the truth.

Down the other path lies a Brave New World where words have no true meaning and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political and social agenda. I reject this view.

We have seen federal judges force their own political and social agenda on the nation, dictating that the words “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance[2] and barring students from even silent prayer in schools.[3]

Judges have dismissed the people’s right to their property, saying the government can take a person’s home for the purpose of developing a private shopping center.[4]

Judges have—contrary to the longstanding rules of war—created a right for terrorists, captured on a foreign battlefield, to sue the United States government in our own courts.[5]

Judges have cited foreign laws, world opinion, and a United Nations resolution to determine that a state death penalty law was unconstitutional.[6]

I’m afraid our system will only be further corrupted as a result of President Obama’s views that, in tough cases, the critical ingredient for a judge is the “depth and breadth of one’s empathy,”[7] as well as “their broader vision of what America should be.”[8]

(see How Republicans can use Alinsky Tactics on Sotomayor Confirmation‘ for more on this point)

Like the American people, I have watched this for a number of years, and I fear this “empathy standard” is another step down the road to a liberal activist, results-oriented, and relativistic world where:
• Laws lose their fixed meaning,
• Unelected judges set policy,
• Americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than simply Americans, and
• Where the constitutional limits on government power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies.

So, we have reached a fork in the road. And there are stark differences between the two paths.

I want to be clear:

I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any President who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality towards every person who appears before them.

I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court.

In my view, such a philosophy is disqualifying.

Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over the other.

Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it is not law. In truth it is more akin to politics. And politics has no place in the courtroom.

Some will respond, “Judge Sotomayor would never say that it’s acceptable for a judge to display prejudice in a case.”

But, I regret to say, Judge Sotomayor has outlined such a view in many, many statements over the years.

Let’s look at just a few examples:

We’ve all seen the video of the Duke University panel where Judge Sotomayor says “?it is [the] Court of Appeals where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that.”[9]

And during a speech 15 years ago, Judge Sotomayor said, “I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt . . . continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies, and prejudices are appropriate.”[10]

And in the same speech, she said, “my experiences will affect the facts I choose to see as a judge.”[11]

Having tried cases for many years, these statements are shocking and offensive to me.

I think it is noteworthy that, when asked about Judge Sotomayor’s now-famous statement that a “wise Latina” would come to a better conclusion than others, President Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, and Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg declined to defend the substance of the nominee’s remarks.

They each assumed that the nominee misspoke. But the nominee did not misspeak. She is on record making this statement at least five times over the course of a decade.

These are her own words, spoken well before her nomination. They are not taken out of context.

I am providing a copy of the full text of these speeches to the hearing room today.

Others will say that, despite these statements, we should look to the nominee’s record, which they characterize as moderate. People said the same of Justice Ginsburg, who is now considered to be one of the most activist judges in history.

Some senators ignored Justice Ginsburg’s philosophy and focused on the nominee’s judicial opinions. But that is not a good test because those cases were necessarily restrained by precedent and the threat of reversal from higher courts.

On the Supreme Court, those checks on judicial power will be removed, and the judge’s philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom.

But even as a lower court judge, the nominee has made some very troubling rulings.

I am concerned by the nominee’s decision in Ricci, the New Haven Firefighters case—recently reversed by the Supreme Court—where she agreed with the City of New Haven’s decision to change its promotion rules in the middle of the game.

Incredibly, her opinion consisted of just one substantive paragraph of analysis concerning the major legal question involved in the case.

Judge Sotomayor has said that she accepts that her opinions, sympathies, and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund provides a clue as to her decision against the firefighters?

While the nominee was Chair of the Fund’s Litigation Committee,[12] the organization aggressively pursued racial quotas in city hiring and, in numerous cases, fought to overturn the results of promotion exams.[13]

It seems to me that in Ricci, Judge Sotomayor’s empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against the others.

That is, of course, the logical flaw in the “empathy standard.” Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.

Judge Sotomayor, we will inquire into how your philosophy, which allows subjectivity into the courtroom, affects your rulings on issues like:

• Abortion, where an organization in which you were an active leader argued that the Constitution requires that taxpayer money be used for abortions;

• Gun control, where you recently ruled that it is “settled law” that the Second Amendment does not prevent a city or state from barring gun ownership;

• Private property, where you have already ruled that the government could take property from one pharmacy developer and give it to another; and

• Capital punishment, where you personally signed a statement opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty because of the “inhuman[e] psychological burden” it places on the offender and his or her family.

I hope the American people will follow these hearings closely.

They should learn about the issues, and listen to both sides of the argument. And, at the end of the hearing, ask: ‘If I must one day go to court, what kind of judge do I want to hear my case?

‘Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to change the outcome?

‘Or, do I want a judge that impartially applies the law to the facts, and fairly rules on the merits, without bias or prejudice?’ It is our job to determine on which side of that fundamental divide the nominee stands.

Comments (1)

By Cassandra Effect,

The US Senate is a storied place, full of wonderful ritual and deference.  It would be amazing to see politcal campaigns run with the same civility that these folks demonstrate to each other.   If you had a chance to watch any of the Sotomayor confirmation hearings today, you heard respectful discussion from the Republican Senators.

Lindsay Graham has bent over backward to find any reason for Sotomayor to convince him that she deserves his vote.  He even stated on a FoxNews interview with Greta van Susteren that he believes that the Senate’s role is to provide advice on Judicial appointments, and since Obama won, he gets to pick unless there is a serious problem. 

The Republicans have always allowed the Democrats to use Alinsky tactics against them, and they get rope-a-doped EVERY TIME.

This vote is the GOP’s chance to finally let the Leftards get a dose of their own medicine and still hold their heads up high.  Pull out your Alinsky playbook and turn to Rule # 4 Make the enemy live by its own book of rules.

What rules are those?  Why, Dear Leader’s own SCOTUS confirmation rules – that is - the Senate does NOT act as a rubber stamp, as Lindsay Graham is suggesting, but rather the Senate votes a judge up/down based on the political alignment of the judge assuming they are otherwise qualified.

In Obama’s  two votes for Supreme Court nomines. he voted against both Alito and Roberts.  Take a closer look at the some of the  rules the man creates for himself:

Obama Speech on Chief Justice Roberts Hearings:

After lauding Roberts credentials, Obama gets down to business:

The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25thmile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.

In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.

I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn’t like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.

I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak.In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’sOffice, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

Obama speech on Justice Alito Confirmation Hearings:

As we all know, there’s been a lot of discussion in the country about how the Senate should approach this confirmation process. There are some who believe that the President, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all-around nice guy. That once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question whether the judge should be confirmed.

I disagree with this view. I believe firmly that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent. I believe that it calls for meaningful advice and consent that includes an examination of a judge’s philosophy, ideology, and record.And when I examine the philosophy, ideology, and record of Samuel Alito, I’m deeply troubled.

But when you look at his record – when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I have found that in almost every case, he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless; on behalf of a strong government or corporation against upholding American’s individual rights.

To Obama, the most important thing is KEEPING SCORE and an EVEN SPLIT in the judges decisions!  This of course takes no account in the manner or type of cases that Alito orRoberts actually  saw – its the requirement of a bleeding heart – plain and simple.

Comments (0)

By Cassandra Effect,

Unlike most of the Mainstream Media headlines trumpeting Sen. Grahams alleged “Support for Sotomayor” he DID NOT say he would vote for her. 

Watch his 2 minutes on the video below.  Then decide if these headlines are accurate (first two are from MSNBC – need I say more?).  Why would the MSM want to takes his remarks out of context?  To try and get the Republicans focused on EATING THEIR OWN, instead of being united in the fight with the Democrats.  Its the old divide and conquer strategy.

Graham open to supporting Soto?

Graham: Sotomayor confirmation likely

Sotomayor hearings: Lindsey Graham pops the balloon

  At the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, AP is reporting that Lindsay Graham (R- SC) said the following.

 ”Unless you have a complete meltdown, you are going to be confirmed,”

well, since the Dem’s have 60 seats that’s true…….

“The Hispanic element of this hearing is important, but … this is mostly about liberal and conservative politics more than it is about anything else,” said Graham.

Wait a minute – how EXACTLY is the Hispanic element important, and how EXACTLY is it about politics?  A SCOTUS confirmation should be about the APPLICATION of the LAW!

More from the WSJ

Mr. Graham made it clear he was bothered, like many of his Republican colleagues, by some of Judge Sotomayor’s past comments, including her remark that a “wise Latina” would often reach a better judicial conclusion than a white man. “If I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over,” Mr. Graham said. “That is true of most people here.…It just bothers me when someone wearing a robe takes it off and says their experience makes them better than someone else.”

Now we’re getting to the heart of the matter – but wait – Lindsay just can’t make it all the way across the finish line.  And South Carolina isn’t even a heavy Hispanic state, so what’s the deal Senator?  Is there something you expect her to say that will change your mind? 

“My Republican Colleagues who vote against you……I don’t know what I’m going to do yet”

Comments (0)

By Cassandra Effect, July 5, 2009 12:29 pm

Will Michael Steele please publicly TAKE AWAY this mans Republican membership card? For Pete’s sake already!  Full story from Newsmax HERE

“What we can’t continue to have is to have somebody like a Judge Sotomayor … called a racist, a reverse racist and she ought to withdraw her nomination because we’re mad at her,” Powell said in an interview broadcast Sunday on “State of the Union” on CNN.

Powell said Sotomayor has “an open and liberal bent of mind, but that’s not disqualifying. But she seems to have a judicial record that seems to be balanced and tries to follow the law.”

Tries – what a nice word – how about tries and fails to follow the law?  Ricci case is Exhibit A, Four out of Six of her decisions that have come before the SCOTUS have been Overturned.

Powell, a Republican who supported Obama, said his party still is not sensitive enough toward minorities.

The MSM will continue to leverage his “Republican” credentials against us until we kick him out of the party!  What the heck does “Sensitivity” mean?  Different rule of law for minorities?  guess what – Caucasians will be a minority as soon as 2042!  So will Republicans become insensitive to themselves?  This is an issue of Principles and Values folks, not Race or ethnicity.

He noted that Obama had a significant advantage with Hispanics and African-Americans in the November elections. He criticized Republicans who are not elected to office and “immediately shout racism” against Sotomayor, while accusing Powell of supporting Obama because both men are black.

“We still have a problem,” he said.

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh has called Powell “just another liberal,” said he should become a Democrat and charged that Powell endorsed Obama based on race. Powell said Sunday that Limbaugh “doesn’t decide who I am or what I am no more than I decide who he is or what he is.

Gee – I think I’ll start calling myself a Democrat and we’ll see how far that gets me…….