Supreme Incompetency on the High Court

By Anthony W. Hager

Filed Under Healthcare, SCOTUS on Apr 6 

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?” Read more

Supreme Court rules for anti-gay church over military funeral protests

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under SCOTUS on Mar 2 

Where do you stand, PD community?

A Kansas church that attracted nationwide attention for its angry, anti-gay protests at the funerals of U.S. military members has won its appeal at the Supreme Court, an issue testing the competing constitutional rights of free speech and privacy.

The justices, by an 8-1 vote, said Wednesday that members of Westboro Baptist Church had a right to promote what they call a broad-based message on public matters such as wars. The father of a fallen Marine had sued the small church, saying those protests amounted to targeted harassment and an intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Read the rest.

Kagen nabs SCOTUS nom

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under SCOTUS on May 10 

Pres. Barak Obama has nomintated Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be the next SCOTUS justice.

She’s being called one of the “best legal minds of our nation”. The problem is she’s never been a judge. She’s never even really practiced the law — meaning she’s never been in the courtroom litigating a case.

Her “brilliance” aside. Just as it was with Harriett Meyers, so it should be with Ms Kagen. You should be a judge for a while before being on the SCOTUS.

I’m just sayin’!!

Supreme Court Justice Stevens stepping down

By David Kaiser, Editor

Filed Under SCOTUS on Apr 9 

The wounds are still fresh from the health care battle, but the next major battle for President Barack Obama is looming with today’s announcement that Justice John Paul Stevens, the leader of the liberal bloc on SCOTUS, plans to retire this summer.

The announcement is sure to set the stage for another bloody duel between the Obama Administration and the GOP, pending on who exactly the Obama/Reid/Pelosi triumvirate unveils as the nominee.

The names will surely begin to drop into the media hopper in the next few weeks, as Obama floats some test balloons to see what type of nominee would stand the best chance of getting through unscathed.

Stay tuned!

Campaign finance news

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Domestic Policy, Races 2010, SCOTUS on Jan 21 

A few things have happened today in the realm of campaign finance issues.

First the SCOTUS knocked the wind out of McCain-Feingold today. The President says it’s a victory for Wall Street banks, Big Business fat cats, who are all special interests. I’d like to remind Mr O, his unions are just as special and interesting. I’m just sayin’

The second bit of news deals with an older law that puts limits on campaign contributions. Unions and business can now contribute to campagins out of their general funds among other things without limits.

I’m not sure what to think about this. I think you should be able to give as much as you want to whatever cause you choose to align yourself with. Of course, I’m saying that as a responsible person not out to get anything or to cause any trouble. However, I am worried about more corruption and buying of votes, which we know already happens.

What say you Derby fans? Is this good or bad and will this years’ elections be uglier for it?

Supreme Court overthrows Sotomayor decision

By Scott A. Robinson, Editor

Filed Under Domestic Policy, General, Policy, SCOTUS on Jun 29 

This morning the Supreme Court has validated what most Americans such you and I believe, and what Sonia Sotomayor does not–that racism is wrong. It has reversed the lower court ruling on Ricci v. DeStefano, a case where White and Hispanic firefighters were denied promotions earned through passing the promotional test because no Black firefighters passed the test.

You may remember that Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters who were denied promotion as an appellate court judge. Now she is likely to sit on the Supreme Court to espouse her view of the world, where lady justice’s blindfold has been torn from her face and ripped to shreds. Lucky us.

SCOTUS puts the breaks on Chrysler deal

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Media Clips and Issues, SCOTUS on Jun 8 

Looks like the Chrysler bankruptcy deal has had the breaks applied for now, at least. Justice Ginsburg was the one who signed the order. Very interesting, the details of this will be juicy to say the least in the next few days.

Democrats changed the way Justices are confirmed

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under SCOTUS on Jun 3 

Historically, the Senate looked at a president’s Supreme Court nominee’s qualifications to serve, not their political leanings. Senators realized that the president won the right to pick the Supreme Court when he won the election.

That changed in 1987 with President Reagan’s nomination of the highly-qualified Robert Bork. Judge Bork was rejected by a vote of 58 to 42, and opposition centered on his judicial philosophy rather than his qualifications. Only two Democrat Senators voted to confirm Judge Bork and six Republicans voted against him. (I never voted for John Warner after that. I didn’t vote against him in general elections … I just let the rest of Virginia decide those elections.) Justice Kennedy was later confirmed with no dissenting votes.

In 1991, Justice Souter received 90 votes in his confirmation.

Then came the Clarence Thomas nomination. After a vicious fight, Justice Thomas was confirmed on a razor thin 52-48 vote. Again, it was all about his judicial philosophy. By the way, his “story” was every bit as compelling as Sonia Sotomayor’s. Does anyone remember the news media trumpeting Clarence Thomas as a success story?

Read more

Rate that Ad

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under Rate that Ad, SCOTUS on May 28 

Sunshine and Lollypops

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under SCOTUS on May 28 

This is an interesting read on how the media has spun Sotomayor’s selection for the SCOTUS. I’m sure the MSM doesn’t mean to be biased, and has totally forgotten to apologize for the oversight.

It makes me think back to when I read Bias a few years ago. Bernie Goldberg, the former CBS reporter who revealed all, talked about how producers would go out of their way to point out if someone was a conservative, but neglect that if the person had more left-ward leanings. Given the examples that Newsbusters pointed out, I think he was right.

Now we hear that opposition in the Senate to Sotomayor will be seen as racist, and that the GOP has to handle the situation “delicately”. Of course the media, the think tanks and the talking heads are going to play the race card. Never mind that some people, myself included, have serious doubts about Ms. Sotomayor’s ability to be fair to everyone, impartial in every case and blind to her own experiences and prejudices, as the statue of Justice might imply, and the oath of office requires a judge should be.

We shall see what this confirmation will bring as the summer progresses, but I’m sure the media will have it sunshine and lollypops all the way, and if you don’t like sunshine and lollypops, there must be something wrong with you, and I’m sure the MSM will be all too happy to point that out as well.

Reading Sotomayor between the lines

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under SCOTUS on May 27 

In an article by AP writers Ben Feller and David Espo, Sotomayor had this to say about her pride in her ethnic background:

“I simply do not know exactly what the difference will be in my judging…But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

Most Americans can read between the lines on that one. But just in case, composed below is a rephrased quote. It comes complete with subliminal messaging for those of you who still aren’t sure what Sotomayor really meant.

“I simply do not know what the difference will be in my judging (other than my bias toward Hispanics/Latinos)…But I accept (expect) there will be some (if not all) based on my gender (let’s don’t go there) and my Latina Heritage (I mean, hubris)”.

Questions for Sotomayor

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under SCOTUS on May 27 

This is a good piece from the WSJ. But honestly, can anyone make a convincing argument that she won’t be the next justice on the SCOTUS? This looks like as close to a lock as you can get.

No country for white men?

By Jon Cordeiro

Filed Under General, SCOTUS on May 26 

I guess I should start this post out with an admission in the interest of full disclosure: Despite my nome de blog, I am in fact what Barack Obama would describe as a “typical white guy”. I have blonde hair and blue eyes. I do not tan. I burn. Were I a banker, I’d live in constant fear of Brazil’s Lula da Silva sending his goon squad after me to bring me to “justice” for my role in cratering the world’s economy.

During my youth, I spent a lot of time watching John Wayne movie marathons on Saturday afternoons with my father. He is of the generation raised on the Duke. I’ve seen John Wayne’s version of The Alamo so many times its screenplay is almost second nature to me. It was through this film that John Wayne taught me some principles upon which this nation was founded. As he was the principal money backer for the film, what he wanted in the script was put there. Here’s a bit of the Duke’s civics lesson:
Read more

Obama picks Sonia Sotomayor for SCOTUS

By Jason Wright, Editor

Filed Under SCOTUS on May 26 

Any initial reaction to Obama’s choice of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court?