The Rabid Conservative

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.

Whatever.

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. 

Whatever.

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”.

So, the Supreme Court, starting today is going to actually have a look at this:

To see if the guy written thereon can have this:

I never thought that such a Hail Mary would go this far, but evidently, there are a bunch of people out there who really REALLY think that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president. So today, SCOTUS is going to look over the legal challenge and see if there’s something there.

Now, me, I don’t particularly buy all the hyperbole about Obama’s place of birth. Personally, I think it’s an overcooked turkey, personally. But still, SCOTUS is going to look at it, which tells me that either SCOTUS thinks there might be something here, or they want to put this to bed once and for all.

Either way, it should be interesting to see – considering the story has been buried for months without so much as a glimmer in the main stream media. I’m surprised that the LA Times ran this piece this morning, considering they buried the Ayers tape – but that’s another matter.

So what happens if it actually is found that Obama can’t be president? Yeah, I know, snowball in hell, but…let’s just say…

Well, this is a very enticing question because it’s a question of a procedure that has really never been used. Say the president-elect, come January, become unable to assume the office of President. Who gets it?

I would say, Joe Biden. Since the people don’t actually vote for the president, but rather, choose electors who pledge their votes to a candidate, the line of succession would apply to the president-elect and vice-president-elect, as it would to the president and vice-president formally. Biden would be sworn in as President and then would select a Vice-President, which would have to have the approval of Congress, if one wasn’t chosen before inauguration. If such a selection would have be made before January 20th, then it would fall, again, to Joe Biden to make his selection.

Let’s say the both got wiped out – what then? Well, it goes to whatever the Electoral College says. And if no candidate gets 270 votes, then, constitutionally, it goes to the House to select the President from the top three vote winners and the Senate for the Vice-President out of the top two. And if it didn’t get resolved by January 20th, then Speaker Pelosi would step up as Acting President, since she’s third-in-line as Speaker of the House. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the pants?

Have a good day, y’all.

-R