A Supreme Court justice should present an image of intelligence, competence, and wisdom. Such qualities identify sound judgment and inspire public trust. But two of SCOTUS's "progressive" purists have sullied that image. In fact, we might wonder if a grasp on reality remains requisite for a seat on the high bench.
During ObamaCare arguments Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked, "What's wrong with leaving this in the hands of those who should be fixing it?"
Were Sotomayor referring to the free market, which has been all but removed from the healthcare industry, we could admire her insight. But when we understand that she's referring to Congress, we must question her loyalty to, and understanding of, our Constitution. We might even question her sanity.
The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to force citizens to purchase anything, including health insurance. Such federal power is neither expressed nor implied, therefore it doesn't exist. But even if Congress were authorized to provide, manage, or mandate health insurance, who in their right mind would defer to Congress' wisdom?
The Congress that passed ObamaCare, to which Sotomayor would defer, was under Nancy Pelosi's direction, and Pelosi is contradiction personified. She recently told reporters that her Congress "wrote our bill [the Affordable Care Act] in a way that was Constitutional." That's beyond unbelievable, coming from the person who said ObamaCare must pass so we could discover what the bill contained. It's even more unbelievable when we consider that this same Nancy Pelosi piously dismissed a reporter's concern about Congress' constitutional authority to enact ObamaCare. And yet Sotomayor trusts Congress, which has proven inept at nearly every subject it addresses, to correct problems within the healthcare industry? That's psychotic.
If Sotomayor's views were isolated, or represented a worst case example of judicial reasoning, we might dismiss them out of hand. But her opinions are neither isolated nor a worst case scenario. Justice Elena Kagan upped the ante. One of the key arguments against ObamaCare is its coercive nature, to which Kagan responded, "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?"
Kagan possesses, at best, a warped appreciation for giving. A gift is, by definition, free. ObamaCare isn't free. The cost may be reflected in mandates, fines, or coverage for the uninsured, but ObamaCare carries an unavoidable price. State governments, insurers, medical professionals, and individuals must absorb the cost of Obama's supposed gift while navigating the regulatory maze the requisite bureaucracy will create. A gift with such strings attached is better left unwrapped.
Because Sotomayor and Kagan are Supreme Court justices their opinions, however incredulous, are granted credibility. It needn't be so. Ronald Reagan warned us, "Don't be afraid to see what you see." While both Sotomayor and Kagan are educated, education doesn't invariably grant wisdom to its possessor. When we hear Sotomayor and Kagan speak on ObamaCare's constitutionality and benefit, let us not be afraid to see their incompetency and the threat to liberty it represents.
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Elena Kagan’s first vote was both baffling and predictable
Once Elena Kagan was confirmed to the Supreme Court it was certain that she would, at some point, cast a vote or render an opinion. It sort of goes with the territory. Of near equal certainty was that her initial ruling would embody everything objectionable and inexplicable about the Supreme Court, judges, lawyers and the legal system in general. Well, Justice Kagan has cast that first vote, to little fanfare I might add. In so doing she proved that my confidence in her ability to baffle was justified.
Granted, Kagan’s first decision wasn’t a thorough legal dissertation. It was simply a recorded vote in support of a losing opinion. However, she did confirm what conservatives expected from Elena Kagan. She voted to stay the execution of a convicted murderer, uphold a Ninth Circuit Court decision and support a lower judge’s ruling that questioned the safety of a lethal injection drug.
For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth “Circus” is completely predictable. Understandable no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I’m unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner’s death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn’t it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.
What’s next? Warning labels on sodium thiopental? We have labels on other drugs, most of which cause remedies to sound worse that the diseases they treat. I can almost hear the disclaimer now.
Are you suffering from violent anti-social outbursts that culminate in shooting, stabbing, strangling, or dismembering? One drug, Executus, has been proven to alleviate recurrences of these behavioral abnormalities. Executus is suitable only for patients professionally diagnosed with Chronic Criminalitis, especially Premeditated Murderosis. Diminished breathing and pulse rate accompanied by low or non-existent blood pressure are common among users of Executus. Some users may experience undesirable side affects, including partial paralysis, anxiety, depression and signs of panic. These symptoms are always temporary. If signs of life persist, stop taking Executus at once and contact your nearest ACLU chapter.
Give me a break! How many times must capital punishment be dissected before people like Elena Kagan are no longer trusted with judicial authority?
The Eighth Amendment prohibits government from dispensing “cruel and unusual punishments.” Not only is that proper, it’s wholly compatible with our cultural values. No one wants to brutally torture convicted murderers to achieve vengeance, satisfy bloodlust, or simply for hoots, regardless of how heinous the condemned treated their victims. There’s no burgeoning movement--not even among the most ardent death penalty supporters--to reintroduce crucifixion, iron maidens, burning at the stake, or drawing and quartering as practicable forms of capital punishment. But death sentences aren’t the antithesis of our Eighth Amendment protections, as evidenced by the fact that capital punishment was routinely used when the Constitution was debated and ratified.
Speculating on the safety of sodium thiopental may sound nuanced, reasoned and deeply thoughtful in circles where common sense is considered an archaic relic of our ignorant heritage. Such reasoning may gain its advocate a favored seat among the intelligentsia, for whom dismissing traditionally proven solutions is a sign of superior knowledge. But it smacks of short-sighted foolishness to me, a thorough waste of time, effort and discourse.
Elena Kagan carried a warning label that foretold her voting tendency. However, like the warning labels on prescription drugs, we tend to ignore a prospective jurist’s precedents, positions and opinions. Thus we make perplexing and painful mistakes like Kagan, mistakes that last a lifetime.
This column first appeared on the American Thinker.
Granted, Kagan’s first decision wasn’t a thorough legal dissertation. It was simply a recorded vote in support of a losing opinion. However, she did confirm what conservatives expected from Elena Kagan. She voted to stay the execution of a convicted murderer, uphold a Ninth Circuit Court decision and support a lower judge’s ruling that questioned the safety of a lethal injection drug.
For a known Regressive jurist to coddle convicted murderers and side with the Ninth “Circus” is completely predictable. Understandable no, but completely predictable. But to question the safety of a lethal drug? Maybe I’m unclear on the concept. It just seems logical that a drug administered to fulfill a condemned prisoner’s death sentence would be, by necessity, unsafe. If the drug were safe, it would have difficulty achieving its stated purpose, now wouldn’t it? God help us, what has happened to our brains! Educated jurists speculating on whether or not lethal drugs are safe for their intended use is a sure sign our system has abandoned all sanity and common sense.
What’s next? Warning labels on sodium thiopental? We have labels on other drugs, most of which cause remedies to sound worse that the diseases they treat. I can almost hear the disclaimer now.
Are you suffering from violent anti-social outbursts that culminate in shooting, stabbing, strangling, or dismembering? One drug, Executus, has been proven to alleviate recurrences of these behavioral abnormalities. Executus is suitable only for patients professionally diagnosed with Chronic Criminalitis, especially Premeditated Murderosis. Diminished breathing and pulse rate accompanied by low or non-existent blood pressure are common among users of Executus. Some users may experience undesirable side affects, including partial paralysis, anxiety, depression and signs of panic. These symptoms are always temporary. If signs of life persist, stop taking Executus at once and contact your nearest ACLU chapter.
Give me a break! How many times must capital punishment be dissected before people like Elena Kagan are no longer trusted with judicial authority?
The Eighth Amendment prohibits government from dispensing “cruel and unusual punishments.” Not only is that proper, it’s wholly compatible with our cultural values. No one wants to brutally torture convicted murderers to achieve vengeance, satisfy bloodlust, or simply for hoots, regardless of how heinous the condemned treated their victims. There’s no burgeoning movement--not even among the most ardent death penalty supporters--to reintroduce crucifixion, iron maidens, burning at the stake, or drawing and quartering as practicable forms of capital punishment. But death sentences aren’t the antithesis of our Eighth Amendment protections, as evidenced by the fact that capital punishment was routinely used when the Constitution was debated and ratified.
Speculating on the safety of sodium thiopental may sound nuanced, reasoned and deeply thoughtful in circles where common sense is considered an archaic relic of our ignorant heritage. Such reasoning may gain its advocate a favored seat among the intelligentsia, for whom dismissing traditionally proven solutions is a sign of superior knowledge. But it smacks of short-sighted foolishness to me, a thorough waste of time, effort and discourse.
Elena Kagan carried a warning label that foretold her voting tendency. However, like the warning labels on prescription drugs, we tend to ignore a prospective jurist’s precedents, positions and opinions. Thus we make perplexing and painful mistakes like Kagan, mistakes that last a lifetime.
This column first appeared on the American Thinker.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The Bad, the worse and the foolish: A frustrated look at recent events
Maxine Waters aided the sub-prime crisis
You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters’ funneling of TARP money to her husband’s friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public’s trust. Not so for her California constituents.
Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters’ for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn’t have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn‘t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?
Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.
Bad news from the Gulf
Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we’ve been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida’s beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.
That was then; this is now.
The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.
This isn’t the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it’s the word of scientists. And it’s bad news for environmentalists who’d hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.
So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?
Tyranny gets a makeover
A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn’t appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O’Neil, on Facebook.
“You’re not going far in this world,” Osbourne raged, “Hand over your crown.”
O’Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It’s not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn’t have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn’t beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?
Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler’s boot.
A new purpose for the Supreme Court
Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan’s judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.
A White House press release expressed Obama’s pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren’t prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion’s a little quaint these days.
Harry Reid is at it again
Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He’s at it again. Reid said, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”
No Mr. Reid, you’ve said plenty. Let me talk for a while.
Frankly, I don’t see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don’t know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.
I don’t know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party’s policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don’t know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.
I don’t know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.
I could go on, Mr. Reid. Do I need to say more?
From Islam, peace by upon it
Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.
The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”
Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that’s not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.
This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn’t want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?
It’s a good thing Islam (peace be upon it once more), is a religion of peace. Otherwise, Muslims might get ugly about this infidel thing.
A parting dose of tolerance
Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can’t think of something nice to say it’s better to remain silent. Therefore I’ll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama’s trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.
You might consider Rep. Maxine Waters’ funneling of TARP money to her husband’s friends and business associates at OneUnited Bank an abuse of both her office and the public’s trust. Not so for her California constituents.
Arturo Yrbarra, a director at the Watts Century Latino Organization, praised Waters’ for persuading banks to increase lending, thus increasing home ownership. Translated that means she helped pressure banks into approving mortgages they otherwise wouldn’t have touched with ten-foot poles. Excuse me, but wasn‘t that the cause of the economic downturn, which led to high unemployment and the exponential growth of our already enormous national debt? For this she receives praise from her constituents?
Waters is far from alone. Her actions are part and parcel to the Democrat Party platform, a platform congressional Republicans have lacked the courage to identify, much less oppose. Small wonder our fiscal house is out of order.
Bad news from the Gulf
Since the Deep Water Horizon oil spill we’ve been treated to one doomsday scenario after the other. The Louisiana bayous would be flooded with oil, with the advancing crude ruining the delicate wetlands. The Gulf Stream would pick up the oil, spread it across every inch of Florida’s beaches and deposit tar balls and sludge from Georgia to Maine. Fisheries would die and the entire Gulf of Mexico would become a giant dead zone. Communist organizers and their empty-headed zealots called for the federal government to seize British Petroleum.
That was then; this is now.
The marshes are healing and the gulf is cleaning up the crude, essentially eating the oil. Marsh grass is growing through the dead plants and new growth is evident in the mangrove trees. Only a month ago both were given up for lost.
This isn’t the word of Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity or some other “anti-environment” conservative pundit; it’s the word of scientists. And it’s bad news for environmentalists who’d hoped the BP spill would spark the public outrage necessary for them to forcibly implement their “green” agenda.
So, the earth is addressing a perfectly natural substance that has escaped its proper place, much like our bodies deal with infection. Is it just barely possible that God, the Creator of both crude oil and the Gulf of Mexico, knows a little bit more about how the two interact than does the Sierra Club and Greenpeace?
Tyranny gets a makeover
A New Zealand teenager was stripped of her beauty pageant title for conduct the pageant director considered unruly. There appears no evidence the young lady posed nude or sent compromising photographs to her boyfriend via her smart phone. She doesn’t appear to be a budding Lindsay Lohan. Her transgression is far more severe; she dyed her hair. Director Barbara Osbourne confronted the girl, Olivia O’Neil, on Facebook.
“You’re not going far in this world,” Osbourne raged, “Hand over your crown.”
O’Neil merely returned to her natural hair color. It’s not like she dyed her hair the colors of the rainbow and joined the gay and lesbian liberation front (bet you wouldn’t have heard a peep from Osbourne if she had). And shouldn’t beauty pageants have more important worries, like their winners engaging in the aforementioned unbecoming activities?
Yes, rules are rules. But petty tyrants are petty tyrants, too. They are every bit as evil as other tyrants, save on a smaller scale. Barbara Osbourne is the one with the problem. For her to lash out at a teenage girl over such a trivial matter indicates a person with one foot outside the plane of reality and the other seated firmly in Adolf Hitler’s boot.
A new purpose for the Supreme Court
Despite attempts to rally opposition, no one realistically expected Elena Kagan’s judicial nomination to fail. She was presented by a Democrat president, reviewed by a Democrat Senate and had public support from four Republicans, meaning a filibuster was out of the question. With the confirmation secure, President Obama was free to speak candidly concerning his desire for Kagan to be a judicial activist.
A White House press release expressed Obama’s pride in how Kagan would make the SCOTUS “a little more inclusive, a little more representative, more reflective of us as a people than ever before.”
May I remind Obama and Kagan that the Supreme Court’s job isn’t to be inclusive, or to be “reflective of us.” And we have the House to represent us, in theory at least. Those qualities aren’t prerequisite to sit on the Supreme Court. Justices are to apply the U.S. Constitution to the cases brought before them; no more and no less. But, admittedly, that notion’s a little quaint these days.
Harry Reid is at it again
Does anyone remember when Harry Reid complained about visitors to Congress smelling of body odor? He’s at it again. Reid said, “I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK? Do I need to say more?”
No Mr. Reid, you’ve said plenty. Let me talk for a while.
Frankly, I don’t see how anyone with the requisite mental capacity to tie their own shoes could be a Democrat. I don’t know how anyone could vote for a man who rammed a mammoth, unread healthcare bill down our throats and then bitched about its contents. That would be you, Senator Reid.
I don’t know how any poor person could be a Democrat when the party’s policies have ensured a perpetual underclass the sole purpose of which is to ensure Democrat electoral victories. I don’t know how any poor person can be a Democrat, Sen. Reid, when you and your ilk have robbed the poor of their independence and their self-esteem.
I don’t know how any urban black person can be a Democrat when the problems urban black people face--drugs, blight, illegitimacy and family decline--are as bad, or worse, as when your party first promised to fix them.
I could go on, Mr. Reid. Do I need to say more?
From Islam, peace by upon it
Everyone knows about the brutal execution of ten Christian medical missionaries in Afghanistan (peace by upon it). Essentially, these people were treated with less respect than the cattle at your local abattoir. Not only were they executed, their bodies were unceremoniously dumped in a wooded area.
The Taliban (peace be upon it) claimed responsibility for the killings. Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid (peace be upon him) said the Christians were killed for “preaching Christianity.”
Well, at least there was good reason to systematically shoot these dangerous, although unarmed, subversives. And if that’s not enough reason to kill the infidels, they were found in possession of Bibles translated into the local language. Hmmm? Perhaps shooting was too good for them after all.
This is done in Afghanistan (peace be upon it still) in the name of Islam (peace be upon it) while the American Left (no peace be upon them) gives itself a collective pat on the back for its tolerance and open-mindedness in approving construction of a mosque within spitting distance of Ground Zero. We wouldn’t want Muslims (peace be upon them) to soil their prayer rugs (on them, too), hijabs (once more) and burkas (ditto) during a long trip to spit on our 3000 incinerated countrymen, would we?
It’s a good thing Islam (peace be upon it once more), is a religion of peace. Otherwise, Muslims might get ugly about this infidel thing.
A parting dose of tolerance
Regressives claim that conservatives never say anything positive about the Obamas. Well, when you can’t think of something nice to say it’s better to remain silent. Therefore I’ll say nothing about Her Royal Highness Michele Obama’s trip to Spain, the taxpayer funded entourage that accompanied her, or the Spaniards who were shooed from their beaches so Her Highness could frolic in the surf. Consider my silence an act of tolerance.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Obama, Sotomayor promise to remove Lady Justice’s blindfold
One of the key tenets of American jurisprudence is the notion of equality before the law. All citizens of a free nation should expect--no, make that demand--an impartial judiciary.
No symbol better illustrates our nation’s devotion to blind justice than Lady Justice herself. Ideas concerning her origin are diverse, with some experts tracing her heritage to Greek or Roman mythology and others to ancient Egyptian paganism. No matter. Whatever her origin, her symbolism is easily determined through common logic.
Her balanced scale indicates that justice supersedes favoritism. Her sword is ready to deliver a swift and equitable sentence. But it’s the blindfold that is truly indispensable. The blindfold represents justice dispensed without regard to wealth, power, social status, race, creed, or sex. Everyone stands equal before the law and everyone can expect fair treatment.
No doubt that’s idealistic, and blind justice isn’t invariably administered. But a required quality in the next Supreme Court nominee appears to be ignoring equality altogether, stripping Lady Justice of her blindfold in favor of decisions based on the ambiguous notion of social justice.
Social justice, at best, means only what its promoter decides at any given time. One person may consider slavery socially just while another determines that using government to confiscate private earnings for the benefit of another fits the definition. Come to think of it they’re very similar, given that one person is forced to serve another’s interest in either case. But neither situation is blind, equitable, or just.
However, Obama pledged to nominate a champion of social justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Souter’s replacement must understand how the powerless view life and the law. The next justice must empathize with the “oppressed” and have a sense of when to ignore the law altogether. Among other determining factors in Obama’s choice are race, gender and judicial philosophy.
His nominee must represent quotas in some way and be a judicial activist who’s unafraid to manipulate the law so it conforms to communalistic doctrines. In Obama’s mind Lady Justice’s blindfold must be removed so ideology can trump the impartial application of the law. He has made good his pledge.
If a conservative employed Obama’s judicial litmus test he would be charged with narrow-mindedness, bigotry and racism.
No one who believes in liberty will argue that wealthy, powerful, or connected people should receive preferential treatment in court. Yet that philosophy in reverse is exactly what President Obama considers impartial. Through his own words we can conclude that the next Supreme Court justice will be totally comfortable slanting their decisions to grant preferred treatment to the alleged disadvantaged.
Justice now means enforcing or ignoring the law based on how it works or doesn’t work in everyday life. For example, laws against theft can apply to wealthier Americans while being inapplicable to poorer Americans. Stealing can increase a poorer person’s economic standing. Therefore, laws against theft might “not work” in the poorer person’s day-to-day life. Should such laws be unenforceable upon them?
Law written, applied, or interpreted to benefit one person or group at another’s expense isn’t law; it is diktat. When justice is applied in consideration to race, ethnicity, sex, or class it is no longer honorable. It matters not a whit whether the preferred treatment is given to the rich and the strong or the poor and the weak. Judicial rulings without neutrality aren’t just; they are preference, plain and simple.
So what kind of Supreme Court judge might we get in Sonia Sotomayor? She’s stated her desire to determine policy from the appellate bench. She doesn’t hide her willingness to allow her race and sex to influence her rulings. Finally, she fits perfectly the aforementioned template of the man who nominated her.
Then again, Obama could simply want a Supreme Court justice who won’t force him to reveal his birth certificate.
No symbol better illustrates our nation’s devotion to blind justice than Lady Justice herself. Ideas concerning her origin are diverse, with some experts tracing her heritage to Greek or Roman mythology and others to ancient Egyptian paganism. No matter. Whatever her origin, her symbolism is easily determined through common logic.
Her balanced scale indicates that justice supersedes favoritism. Her sword is ready to deliver a swift and equitable sentence. But it’s the blindfold that is truly indispensable. The blindfold represents justice dispensed without regard to wealth, power, social status, race, creed, or sex. Everyone stands equal before the law and everyone can expect fair treatment.
No doubt that’s idealistic, and blind justice isn’t invariably administered. But a required quality in the next Supreme Court nominee appears to be ignoring equality altogether, stripping Lady Justice of her blindfold in favor of decisions based on the ambiguous notion of social justice.
Social justice, at best, means only what its promoter decides at any given time. One person may consider slavery socially just while another determines that using government to confiscate private earnings for the benefit of another fits the definition. Come to think of it they’re very similar, given that one person is forced to serve another’s interest in either case. But neither situation is blind, equitable, or just.
However, Obama pledged to nominate a champion of social justice to the Supreme Court. Justice Souter’s replacement must understand how the powerless view life and the law. The next justice must empathize with the “oppressed” and have a sense of when to ignore the law altogether. Among other determining factors in Obama’s choice are race, gender and judicial philosophy.
His nominee must represent quotas in some way and be a judicial activist who’s unafraid to manipulate the law so it conforms to communalistic doctrines. In Obama’s mind Lady Justice’s blindfold must be removed so ideology can trump the impartial application of the law. He has made good his pledge.
If a conservative employed Obama’s judicial litmus test he would be charged with narrow-mindedness, bigotry and racism.
No one who believes in liberty will argue that wealthy, powerful, or connected people should receive preferential treatment in court. Yet that philosophy in reverse is exactly what President Obama considers impartial. Through his own words we can conclude that the next Supreme Court justice will be totally comfortable slanting their decisions to grant preferred treatment to the alleged disadvantaged.
Justice now means enforcing or ignoring the law based on how it works or doesn’t work in everyday life. For example, laws against theft can apply to wealthier Americans while being inapplicable to poorer Americans. Stealing can increase a poorer person’s economic standing. Therefore, laws against theft might “not work” in the poorer person’s day-to-day life. Should such laws be unenforceable upon them?
Law written, applied, or interpreted to benefit one person or group at another’s expense isn’t law; it is diktat. When justice is applied in consideration to race, ethnicity, sex, or class it is no longer honorable. It matters not a whit whether the preferred treatment is given to the rich and the strong or the poor and the weak. Judicial rulings without neutrality aren’t just; they are preference, plain and simple.
So what kind of Supreme Court judge might we get in Sonia Sotomayor? She’s stated her desire to determine policy from the appellate bench. She doesn’t hide her willingness to allow her race and sex to influence her rulings. Finally, she fits perfectly the aforementioned template of the man who nominated her.
Then again, Obama could simply want a Supreme Court justice who won’t force him to reveal his birth certificate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
