Posts Tagged ‘prop 8’
Sonia Sotomayor, eh?
So what do we know about this person? Well, it’s coming in from all over cyberspace. Sometimes I love the internet – it ensures that if people want to hide from the truth, it won’t be that easy.
I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life." – Sonia Sotomayor, UC Berkley 2002
My guess – She would not find this image at all offensive, and may even wonder why I would:
OK, Obama gave us an Identity Politics pick – he told us he was gonna do that. what else?
All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. (laughing) Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it and I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know. (laughing) – Sonia Sotomayor, Duke 2005
Hmm…political activist with no adherence to what the Constitution actually says, but rather, what she wants it to say. Again, another Obama expectation.
Even liberal judges, such as Jose Cabranes, who is a Clinton appointee, also from the Second Circuit called her out for attempting to bury a case that had significant constitutional questions (Ricci v. DeStefano). Without getting into the details here, Cabranes called Sotomayor out for her legal trickery as part of the dissent of the 7-6 decision in Ricci. SCOTUS is expected to hear and perhaps rule this case next month.
Okay, so she’s deceptive too. Typical, based on her profession.
The New Republic, a liberal publication, had these comments:
The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")
So she’s a hot-head, legal bully, and one of these masters of the screech that believe that the louder and more obtrusive her opinions are the more they will be accepted and validate her position. I really hope she doesn’t do the side-to-side head bob thing when presenting legal briefs.
Interestingly, 80% of Sotomayor’s District Court decisions have been overturned by SCOTUS. So, when you have a generally right-leaning but centrist court overriding 80% of the decisions by a judge, it stands to reason that her decisions are left-wing radical.
Oh, I guess despite her annoying way of presenting opinion, it eventually gets overruled. That makes her out of step, kinda like the president that appointed her. Makes sense.
So, to sum up so far what we know of Sonia Sotomayor – a hot-headed bully who is full of herself, not very smart as a judge, a racially motivated activist who believes in setting policy from the bench, and who is out of step with all but the most radically liberal of her judicial colleagues. And she’ll probably get in, given the power base currently in the Democrat favor.
But I’m not that bitter. Why? Because she’s replacing David Souter, another horrifyingly shocking liberal. Remember, it was Souter who believed in a wider use of eminent domain and almost lost his house over it. (Kelo vs. New London) So, we’re trading in one crazy liberal for another. It’s zero-sum.
Again, whatever. Sotomayor is a shoe-in. Unless they find out she’s a tax cheat or something…no wait, scratch that. We like tax-cheats now.
However, we also saw a ray of light, today.
Today, California’s Supreme Court decided in a 6-1 decision that Proposition 8, which made heterosexual marriage to be the definition. And while it did not invalidate the 18,000 homosexual marriages out there, it did uphold the will of the people, that they have the absolute right to amend their constitution as they see fit. The California Court didn’t inject its opinion on whether they thought homosexual marriage was right or wrong, but whether the people had the right to amend their own constitution and enumerating that line between a constitutional amendment and a constitutional revision.
The Court didn’t agree with the appeals of the homosexual community. Instead, they affirmed that the people have the right to amend the constitution through the initiative process.
So in the end, we actually win today. Prop 8 stands as law, as the people have decided twice now and we get a new liberal idiot judge in place of another.
Zero-sum plus a win equals a win.
I think I just heard a liberal say, “whatever”.
Well, it’s been a week since the elections and as I watch the campaign signs disappear from the roadsides, the yards, the trees, I breathe in and try to relax a little. All the stress will drive one stark-raving mad. In any case, here are my notes for today. Happy reading!
1. The anti-Prop 8 folks are still at it, doing whatever they can do to rip down Prop 8, a voter approved amendment to the constitution by saying that because it wasn’t legislature approved first, the voters had no right to vote on it.
Let me restate. Opponents are saying that, because Proposition 8 wasn’t passed by the California Assembly FIRST before going to the voters, the measure is illegal. They say that the California Constitution cannot be amended as it was without the entire legislature involved, because it would require a complete rewrite of the California Constitution.
Problem is, Article 18 of the California Constitution says that the Electors may amend the constitution by initiative. According to California Elections Code, Section 321, an Elector is any person over the age of 18 and a resident of the precinct for 15 days prior to the election.
But yet, the anti-Prop 8 people believe that the voters have no right to amend their constitution in the way that Prop 8 does and say that a half-million votes isn’t enough “majority” to amend the constitution, citing homosexuals as a constitutionally protected minority group.
Now, the definition of a minority group is a class of people that is defined by virtue of being born. For example, blacks are born with dark skin – they cannot choose to change that. Homosexuals on the other hand can choose to be gay or not, for no credible study yet has ever surfaced that traces sexual orientation back to the womb. (and I challenge anyone out there to provide a link to such findings).
As Frank Shubert, manager of the Prop 8 campaign says, “It’s a Hail Mary”.
2. Looks like the Minnesota senatorial race between Coleman and Franken is pretty ripe for election fraud. For those that aren’t watching, the incumbent, Norm Coleman is defending his seat from challenger Al Franken (yes, the same liberal hack that failed as a comedian, failed as a talk show host on Air America, and now is running for a senate seat.) The results as of Thursday are razor thin, around 730 in favor of Coleman.
However, since election day, some 500 votes have mysteriously turned up in the light of typographical errors at polling places (all of which seem to be going for Al Franken), yet, there hasn’t been a single recount yet.
Watch this one carefully, folks, because the Dems are doing everything they can to get as close to 60 seats in the Senate as possible.
3. Obama Derangement Syndrome? – One thing I want to stress is that the left’s treatment of President Bush over the last eight years has been nothing short of disgraceful. From the near disrespectful satire of Comedy Central’s “That’s My Bush” that aired in 2001 before 9/11 hit, to all the “Bush Lied People Died” bumper stickers, and the “He’s not my president” rancor, the left wing should be very ashamed for its treatment of our sitting president.
George Bush didn’t do everything right in my opinion either. The medicare drug thing, the Dubai ports deal…sheesh..those where huge gaffes. But he did do a great work pulling the country through the last eight years and we all, left or right, should honor him for that.
Obama, in January, will be my president too. And I will honor him as my president, with my prayer as well as my support. I will oppose him where I see his policy as wrong and won’t do it with insulting bumper stickers or statements about how much I hate the man. Conservatives need to not validate the left’s treatment of President Bush by mistreating President Obama when he gets into office.
I’ve received some ugly comments from (not surprisingly) liberals who can’t form cogent opinions, but rather, use their freedom of speech to spill out hateful rhetoric, calling me a Bible-thumping homophobe or other insults. It’s amazing that, even when they win, liberals still spout out hate.
Since my blog is moderated by me, comments that insult me, my parentage, my pets, or my God will never see the light of day. You might as well not even waste yours or my time.
Now to those that have a differing opinion, who can disagree without being disagreeable or even a concurring opinion: I’m cool if you want to provide a comment that’s respectful and insightful, that represents clear thinking and respectful engagement of the issues. If you show respect and intellectual honesty in your comments, I’ll approve them.
We don’t have room in the marketplace of ideas for rotten produce, no matter which way it goes.
From deep within the bunker,
Well folks, the Prop 8 ballyhoo continues with the liberals throwing up demonstrations and in some places, a bit of rioting in San Francisco. In fact, the mayor of SFO has vowed to fight the legality of Prop 8 along with the ACLU and the Equality California crowd, appealing to have the amendment struck down by judicial fiat – the only way that the gays really get anywhere.
This is how liberals react when the law doesn’t play their way. The people voted and the gays are in the minority. Democracy has spoken. I guarantee that if Prop 8 had failed, the gays would have hailed it as a victory for democracy as well as gay rights. It’s not a victory for gay rights, but it is, once again, a victory for democracy. Liberals can’t accept that. They hate democracy when it doesn’t go their way.
So, Melissa Ethridge on her blog yesterday announced that since Prop 8 passed, she feels the state of California no longer considers her a full citizen. Because of that, she has stated that she is no longer going to pay taxes, inciting civil disobedience.
What if all the Christians said, “for every state where civil unions and gays are still legal, we’re not paying taxes”. The left would call us all hatemongers (which of course, they do that anyway). Yet, it’s OK for Ms. Etheridge to break the law now because she doesn’t consider herself a full citizen.
What she doesn’t get (or care to get) is that if you are in this country, as a citizen or as a guest, visitor, even illegal alien, you are subject to the laws and regulations of the United States. Even Green Card holding guest workers, who are not citizens and have no protections as a citizen under the US constitution still have to pay taxes by law.
Well, Ms. Etheridge, go ahead and start your policy on tax evasion and we’ll see just how long it takes before the IRS clamps down on you. (or maybe you want to ask Wesley Snipes if tax evasion is a good idea?)
I guess the point to remember is that no matter how democracy goes, no matter which way the chips fall, the most important thing to understand is that the will of the people must be protected.
It’s OK to disagree, just don’t do it by being disagreeable.
Need a reminder? Have a Coke and watch this commercial from the Super Bowl.
…deep within the liberal-proof bunker…
Well folks, it would seem that the homosexuals and their supporters in California have already begun their new round of legal battles to disembowel Prop 8.
Proposition 8, an amendment to the California Constitution, bans gay marriage. Six months ago, by judicial fiat by the California Supreme Court, law that was passed by voters to restrict marriage to one man and one woman was overturned. So, the people against gay marriage did the only thing left to them to do – amend the constitution to overturn the Supremes decision. Voters spoke out and passed the measure. The supreme law of California has been written and no one can change it.
Leave it to the American Crazy Liberals Union (ACLU) and some homosexual group Equality California to file suit saying the amendment violates the constitution, that a basic right accorded to all Californians is now removed from one particular group, which violates the intents of the constitution, and therefore is unconstitutional.
Where were these lawsuits when Prop 8 was put on the ballot? Where were these lawsuits during the campaign. Instead, we go through the point of suing AFTER it’s passed. (probably done out of the cost of a lawsuit). But that’s not the real issue. Read on.
Jenny Pizer of the Lambda Legal group says, “That’s too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters.”
This woman, for all her legal experience, is certifiably out of her mind. What she is saying here is that, “Yeah, the majority won, but that’s not good enough to change the constitution in this matter.”
What’s ridiculous about all this is what we define as the highest law of the land. In this case, the California Constitution. Instead, now the liberals are citing the *intents* of the constitutional framers, intents that are not codified anywhere, except in the actual text of the constitution. Liberals cannot accept what’s actually written, but rather, have to now hide behind this obfuscation of intentions – an obfuscation that can be easily manipulated – which is what the liberals want to do.
(Notwithstanding liberals don’t bother to listen to that argument when it comes to free speech issues)
The issue is, the will of the people does not matter to the extremes of the left wing. These people are crying like a 2-year-old who didn’t get his way. Remember, liberals are relativistic, believing that anything can be changed, including what the majority says. All they need is some judge who is willing to set law from the bench and they are golden.
Liberals believe in democracy, only when it works for them. Yes, Obama won the presidency democratically (and suddenly the electoral college works with liberals), but democracy got hijacked in the passage of Prop 8. The majority is somehow wrong.
In democracy, the MAJORITY RULES no matter how thin that majority is…and it is never wrong. If the people by majority, decreed that a circus bear is a viable candidate for governor, then that’s the law. To speak against this precept violates everything for which we stand in America.
Relativistic and utterly ridiculous.
I can only see an uproar by the people if the California Supreme Court renders the a constitutional amendment unconstitutional by fiat. In my mind, if a supreme court justice tampers with the constitution in this matter, they themselves should be tried for seditious conspiracy, (USC Title 18 Section 2384) , because the constitution is high law of the land and it is the irrevocable right of the people to amend it any way they want to.
Folks, this is a serious assault of our law if this goes through.
Update: I reviewed my interpretation of Title 18 USC Section 2384 since sedition requires the use of force and such an act has to be committed against the Government of the United States. However, the lesser offense of Rebellion and Insurrection can be applied under Title 18 USC Section 2383, since a justice would be assisting in the rebellion of the authority of the United States by undermining the text of the amended state constitution (which, under the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution is protected by federal law). Since the authority of the United States is provided “by the people” and the people have spoken through democratic process, such an act by a supreme court justice can be construed as an act of rebellion against the people of the State of California, who give the authority for the state.
I just remember some of the text of the old Sedition Act of 1918, which was later repealed by Congress in 1920 out of abuses during World War I.