Obamanomics & Healthcare: Manufactured Misery?
The problem with Colin Powell ...

Sotomayor: Judging Obama and the Senate on their loyalty to the United States Constitution? (updated)

UPDATE: 06-29-09 SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS SOTOMAYOR ON CT. FIREFIGHTERS

According to the Washington Post ...

"The Supreme Court restricted how far employers may go in considering race in hiring and promotion decisions, a ruling that puts workplaces across the nation on notice that efforts to combat potential discrimination against one group can amount to actual discrimination against another."

"The court ruled for white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., who said city officials violated their rights when it threw out the results of a promotions test on which few minorities scored well. The case drew outsize attention because President Obama's nominee for the high court, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, had been part of a unanimous panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit that endorsed a lower-court ruling upholding New Haven's decision."

"The case was a victory for conservative groups and the firefighters, who said the city's resolution had amounted to denying promotions based on skin color. The court's conservatives prevailed in a decision that said employers needed a 'strong basis in evidence' that a test is deficient before discarding the results, rather than just 'raw racial statistics' that may indicate a subtle discrimination."

Original Blog Entry ...   

Another failure of the Obama Administration …

Once again President Barack Obama has clearly demonstrated his far left activism by nominating another flawed candidate who has proven to be far less than what “We the People” deserve as a Supreme Court judge.

Obama in his own words …

Once again the TelePrompTer speaks …

“He [Obama] told the audience he wanted a judge with a ‘rigorous intellect’ and mastery of the law who would not legislate from the bench, saying he wanted someone who understood that ‘a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.’"

And once again, he does a 180-degree turn and nominates someone who does not exhibit a rigorous intellect, does not seem to have a comprehensive mastery of the law, is a person who appears to legislate from the bench and is already giving the appearance of being far from impartial.

Obama: intellectually dishonest …

Just as it is intellectually dishonest for legislators to insert legislation which would not pass the people’s smell test as an amendment to a “must pass” bill; it is likewise dishonest for President Obama to submit a flawed candidate -- hoping that their race, ethnicity, gender or other characteristic would buy her a pass from politicians afraid to anger a substantial segment of the voting public.

However, truth be told, confirming a toxic candidate under these conditions should be a reason for throwing the politician from office for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and dissing their  constituents. 

Sotomayor: a clear and present danger …

We are rapidly approaching a point in our nation’s history when it is possible that a single political party can breach the Constitution's checks and balances  and institute a political ideology that is antithetical to the American way of life.

By electing judicial activists to the United States Supreme Court, the sitting Court can usurp the power of the Congress to set public policy by making laws as well as limiting the power of the Executive to enforce Congressional will. Thus, we are creating an oligarchy of lifetime Judges who are not responsible to the people and who are insulated from the consequences of their actions. Therefore, we cannot allow the court to be filled with activists who deviate from the original concept that the Court’s prime role is to rule on the constitutionality of the matter before them, nothing more and nothing less. 

A bigot by her own words …

“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.” -- Judge Sotomayor

“ ‘Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,’ she said, for jurists who are women and nonwhite, ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’” -- Judge Sotomayor

A broad generalization that suggests that any consideration of  judicial knowledge, character, demeanor or experience is trumped by race, ethnicity or gender is the mark of a bigot.

The function of a judge, as expressed by their oath of office is to adjudicate the matter at hand using the Constitution and established principles of law – feelings, empathy, social impact are not legitimate criteria for forming an official opinion.

A bigot by her actions …

Sotomayor, by participating in an attempt to deny a group of Connecticut firefighters their day in Court and being complicit in the release of a tortured one paragraph dismissal of the obvious racial matter, displays her unwillingness to rule in a fair and impartial manner. The fact that there were clearly issues of racial preference which needed to be resolved was confirmed by the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case. 

“Ricci v. DeStefano is a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by 18 city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions.”

“At the center of the case is New Haven's 2003 promotion exams to select firefighters for 15 open captain and lieutenant positions within the fire department. One hundred eighteen candidates took the test, 27 of them black. After the tests were scored, no blacks scored high enough to qualify for consideration for the promotions. In response, the city decided not to promote anyone, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964.”

“The lead plaintiff in the case is Frank Ricci, who has been a firefighter at the New Haven station for 11 years. Mr. Ricci gave up a second job to have time to study for the test. Because he has dyslexia, he paid an acquaintance $1,000 to read his textbooks on to audiotapes. Mr. Ricci also made flashcards, took practice tests, worked with a study group, and participated in mock interviews. His hard work at studying resulted in him getting the 6th highest score among 77 people who took the test.”  <Source>

“We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion of the court below. Ricci v. DeStefano, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73277, 2006 WL 2828419 (D.Conn., Sept. 28, 2006). “

In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs' expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected.” <Source>

Three days later, the Second Circuit voted 7-6 to deny another opportunity to rehear the case, this time before the entire Second Circuit (en banc).

Fellow Latino excoriates the Court in a dissent …

A dissenting opinion by Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes points out that the appeal does contain matters of public importance and that the Court had failed to render a fair and just hearing.

"This appeal raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit - and indeed, in the nation - regarding the application of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VII's prohibition on discriminatory employment practices. At its core, this case presents a straight-forward question: May a municipal employer disregard the results of a qualifying examination, which was carefully constructed to ensure race-neutrality, on the ground that the results of the examination yielded too many qualified applicants of one race and not enough of another?"

"[T]his Court has failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal. If the Ricci plaintiffs are to obtain an opinion from a reviewing court, they must now look to the Supreme Court. Their claims are worthy of that review."

The Supreme Court demonstrates that the Ricci matter is important to the nation …

QUESTIONS PRESENTED:

“This case presents recurring issues regarding proper application of Title VII and the Equal Protection Clause to the civil service.”

“Petitioners, New Haven firefighters and lieutenants, qualified for promotion to command positions pursuant to job-related examinations and merit selection rules mandated by local law. Citing the race of the successful candidates and Title VII's ‘disparate impact’ provision, city officials refused to promote the petitioners.”

1. When an otherwise valid civil service selection process yields unintended racially
disproportionate results, may municipalities reject the results and the successful
candidates for reasons of race absent the demonstration required by 42 U.S.C. §
2000e- 2(k)?

2. Does 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(l) which makes it unlawful for employers "to adjust the scores of, use different cutoff scores for, or otherwise alter the results of, employment related tests on the basis of race ... ," permit employers to refuse to act on the results of such tests for reasons of race?

3. If, citing the public interest in eradicating political patronage, racism and corruption in civil service, a state's highest court mandates strict compliance with local laws requiring race-blind competitive merit selection procedures, does 42 U.S.C. §2000e-7 permit federal courts to relieve municipalities from compliance with such laws? <Source>

If Sotomayor did not see the constitutional significance of this case and was willing to give a case of national import  short shrift, she is not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

In the final analysis, the public does not care about the race, ethnicity or gender of the first responder who is attempting to fight fires, save lives or restore order. The public wants, deserves and demands competent, well-trained people. Relaxing standards to produce a “social outcome” is not only odious, it is downright dangerous to the public’s welfare.

A judicial activist by her own words, see for yourself …

Spinning a false “bipartisan” story …

For those who believe that Sotomayor was a Bush appointment, the truth is that a deal was struck with New York Senator Daniel Moynihan to confirm one in four of his appointees if the Republicans did not challenge theirs. Sotomayor was a Moynihan appointment, not a Bush appointment.

Appropriate Judicial Philosophy?

Adding to my opinion that Sotomayor is a racist is her involvement with La Raza (“The Race”) whose motto “For the Race, everything; for others, nothing) marks it as a racist organization.

From “A Latina Judge's Voice, 13 Berkeley La Raza L.J. 87 (2002) …”

“I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench . . .”

Judge Cedarbaum is correct and is my idea of a jurist with integrity and a worthwhile judicial philosophy.

“While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law.”

Sotomayor’s take …

“Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.

“Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.” <Source>

La Raza is apparently pleased …

“NCLR (National Council of La Raza), the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States, applauds President Obama’s nomination for Supreme Court Justice, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, to replace retiring Justice David Souter.”

“We commend President Obama for making this historic appointment and for recognizing that excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive,” concluded Murguía.” <Source>

Republican reaction?

This will be the first major test of the Republican Party. If little or no opposition to Sotomayor is mounted, there is little or no hope for the Republican Party. Both parties will have surrendered their right to represent American citizens who may be forced to look at an Independent for curtailing Obama’s Marxist moves and restoring America’s strength.

Bottom-line …

Do you want Sotomayor’s influence to be felt for decades on matters of:

  • abortion;
  • illegal immigration;
  • global warming;
  • the expansion of government power;
  • affirmative action and quotas;
  • reparations and racial redress issues;
  • expanding the power of the Court;
  • expanding the power of the Executive; and
  • ceding U.S. sovereignty to foreign powers by adopting the opinions of foreign judicial rulings? 

We owe it to all our fellow citizens to elect officials which reflect our values and who nominate judges who are fair, impartial and who rule on the constitutionality of the matter before them without regard to extraneous social issues.

The personal history and background of the nominee should not trump judicial requirements. The color, race, ethnicity, or gender of the nominee should not trump judicial requirements.

Clearly Sotomayor is not a distinguished jurist, not does she seem to have a wealth of solid judicial experience – so she should not be confirmed by the Senate.

Any Senator who votes for confirmation should be voted out of office. This does double for New York Senator Chuck “the Schmuck” Schumer whose past behavior in IndyMac and other issues has proven him to be a far-left political hack who has the potential to destroy the United States with his nonsense.

Let your Senator know how you feel about the Sotomayor appointment.

-- steve

_______________________________________________

OneCitizenSpeaking: Saying out loud what you may be thinking …


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


Comments