|
No worries righty
|
Jul 2, 2009 11:38 am
1284 Views
|
Lest any new readers to my blog believe that it is primarily a blog about religion I’ll turn my attention back to what’s happening now...
On Monday Rush Limbaugh said that the Supreme Court decision with respect to the Connecticut fire fighters case proved that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. That even though the decision was a 5\4 decision it was really a nine zip decision. Poor Rush, must have been playing with his magic snake during math class. The funny thing about it is how could he have the nerve to ever call someone a racist when he is clearly the one that is a racist.
He once said: “I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.” Tell that to the generations of African Americans that labored and toiled for their masters only to receive the whip as payment. He’s also said: “Look, let me put it to you this way: the NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There, I said it.” Yeah Rush you said it alright! Still, this post is not about Rush.
I was reading some of your past comments on some of my older post that I never addressed. Ran across one from my friend Daytime. It was about Judge Sotomayor. So I want to touch on that for a moment. Yes Day I agree with you that her unfortunate comments (made on more than one occasion) were in fact racially insensitive. Still I don’t believe that she is a racist. I’ll expound:
The choice of Judge Sotomayor was not a case of the President picking a bonafide liberal. To the contrary! It was a safe pick for him. It is significant in the sense that he picked the first Latina to sit on the Supreme Court in a time when Latinos are the fastest growing voter block in this country. It’s also once again going to bring the number of woman that sit on the court back to two. The right shouldn’t be in such a panic about her because at the worst she won’t change the political balance on the court because she’ll be replacing Justice Souter. At best (for the right) is that she might vote in their favor in a number of cases. Their sniveling about the Connecticut Fire Fighters case was actually pretty silly in that she voted along with the lower court in order to send the case up to be heard by the Supreme Court. A frequent practice in the federal courts I might add.
She was a career prosecutor and spent some of her career as a cooperate lawyer. She’s suppose to be “empathetic” but I don’t know how empathetic she’s going to be towards the constitutional rights of criminal defendants. Some might say “the hell with those criminals!” But we still live in a country where one is innocent until proven guilty. In two prominent criminal cases she upheld searches based on invalid warrants and if you look at her record on the court of appeals she has agreed with Republicans 95% of the time. She upheld the Bush global gag rule. She dissented in the TWA case. It was a two to one decision and she voted against giving victim’s families’ money in the TWA crash. Seems kind of right wing thinking to me - you know, the interests of cooperation’s before that of the people. She’s also voted against plaintives in personal injury cases in favor of cooperation’s.
She voted against correctional officers who were retaliated against for complaints that they made against management. The woman is a mixed bag! She is not an unabashed liberal. From what I’ve read the right wing attack machine went full throttle against her without really digging through her record. A couple of weeks ago Rush Lardass changed his tune about her one day and told of her virtues. No shit! He emphasized the fact that she is a Catholic and might possibly be sympathetic to the far rights position with respect to a woman right to choose. I suspect that through their whisper campaign they now know much of what I’ve just mentioned. I suspect that on the day of the vote she’ll be confirmed before the senate gets home for dinner! I couldn’t dream of a reason why they wouldn’t confirm her. She’s smart enough and definitely experienced. Yep! Another case of the right jumping to conclusions. So what is it with these folk, folks? Did they stomp their feet like toddlers again because she was an Obama choice? Or might it be due to some underlined racism here? I wonder...
|
|
|
3
Comments
|
|
|
No worries righty
|
Jul 2, 2009 11:31 am
1234 Views
|
Leftys, when the right talks about judicial activism, that is something that we really need to counter, because it’s a bunch of BS! The most activist judging decision ever made was Bush v. Gore. And made by a conservative Supreme Court that just handed the Presidency to George W. Bush with barely any deliberation. Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with judicial activism, everyone does it. In fact if it wasn’t for judicial activism we wouldn’t have had the civil rights movement. Scalia does it all the time when he talks about gun rights and gun control. When they talk about abortion, that’s judicial activism. I mean, how is it any different than the statements that Judge Sotomayor has made, it’s a red herring! It’s ridiculous to think that anyone that goes up there on a senate judicial committee and says my views on abortion and my views on the death penalty will have absolutely nothing to do with my judging, is either lying or their deluding themselves.
Look, granted they do their best to follow the law but the law exist in a political context. The law doesn’t fall from the sky, the law represents values that society has decided to codify. So to say that judges make policy, that’s absolutely correct! Judges make policy all the time. Why fear the truth, call a spade a spade! So when Judge Sotomayor got caught on video saying that the court of appeals is “often where policy is made.” Then she corrected herself and said “I’m not advocating it.” Hey guess what peeps, she was being real! Because thats the way it is. I keep telling you folks - the right is behaving more and more like children in a school yard! They look for any itty bitty issue to grasp on to because there on the ropes. Again, not everyone, but enough of the one’s that the American people see and hear all the time.
Even with all of her credentials and smarts, by all accounts (from many of her colleagues) Judge Sotomayor is not considered an intellectual heavyweight. Not as some justices on the higher court have been. She’s no William Brennan or a Thurgood Marshall. She’s definitely no Earl Warren either. From what I’ve read it’s doubtful that she will leave an indelible mark on the court. She’s like a David Souter. David Souter was a reliable liberal justice. I’m not at all sure that she will be a reliable liberal justice though. Souter also didn’t leave a mark on the court.
I actually think that the Prez missed an opportunity here. Sure I know that politics came into play, the fact that she is a Latina. If I were the one making the choice I would have picked an absolute progressive counterweigh to balance out the conservative heavyweights on the other side. I’d have to say that Scalia is certainly a heavyweight on the other side. Hopefully she will be a liberal. But that remains to be seen... But... Hey, she’s a woman... very powerful creatures we women... we can see thing that guys don’t, seriously! You never know... she might really shake things up!
|
|
|
4
Comments
|
|
