Dear Sonia

[cobra de capell]

Dear Sonia, May I call you Sonia? We’ve just met but I feel I’ve known you forever, because of your “compelling story.” I’m an elderly, white male who’s a lawyer. But wait, I’m not that dull and dismissible. I’ve had my “story” moments.

Remember that psychologists’ list of the ten worst things that can happen to a person? Losing your job, or house, getting divorced, going bankrupt, facing death, burying a child. You know, nasty stuff. I’ve been through almost everything on that list, some more than once. You pick yourself up and continue on as best you can. Big whoop.

Having a “story” does not qualify anyone for the Supreme Court (or other high offices). Here are some examples. There have been four men who fit the following definition: They were born in humble circumstances, far from the centers of power in their nations. They suffered many losses and defeats in their early careers. Still, each of them became the leaders of their nations at a time when their nations faced potentially fatal wars.

In alphabetical order they were, Adolf Hitler, Abraham Lincoln, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin. True, they are all dead white guys, but they were in all the papers. Like theirs, your story proves that you are persistent. But, like theirs, persistent in what purposes?

Can we chat about the Constitution for a bit? It is our “supreme Law.” Check out Article VI, paragraph 2. And why must it be either the supreme law, or a nullity? See Alexander Hamilton, Federalist 33. I presume you know a little bit about other nations’ constitutions. Of the 186 with constitutions, a majority are dictatorships. The men in charge control the courts, the legislatures, and alter or suspend their constitutions as they choose.

Since you have a special concern for Hispanics and for “people of color,” surely you are aware of Hugo Chavez who has surmounted his constitution and is running Venezuela into the ground, or Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe who has similar power and has utterly destroyed his once prosperous nation, with spates of murder thrown in.

By the way, I am also a person of color. The color is beige. From what I see on TV, we’re about the same.

The purpose of every constitution that actually works, as opposed to being mere window-dressing, is to restrain the branches of government within boundaries. Congress, for instance, has the power to “make policy.” See Article I generally, and Section 8 in particular. Courts do not have that power. It was sad to see the clip where you said they do, to law students at Duke. Sadder still was the fact that these budding lawyers and occasional judges laughed knowingly at your remark.

If you want to make policy, feel free to resign from the bench, run for Congress, and if you win, make policy morning, noon and night. But you have no right to keep your gavel and black robe, remain on the bench, and trample the Constitution when you feel an urge to make policy.

Thomas Jefferson said it best in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: “let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution,” Don’t get your knickers in a twist over “man” meaning everyone, women included. It’s just a literary convention, like Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon, “One giant leap for mankind,”

The first task of any Justice of the Supreme Court is to know the Constitution, including the Amendment Article which gives the power to alter that document only to the sovereign people through elected representatives. The next task is to obey that Constitution. The third is to require parties in cases before the Court, to obey the Constitution

You seem to have a problem with all three of those. That means that after you are sworn in, you will set out to violate your oath of office, repeatedly. If you really wanted to serve the nation and the Constitution, you’d withdraw your nomination, resign from the bench, and spend a year or so studying why the United States Constitution has survived longer than any other, and why the others have failed.

You are not alone in your ignorance. The President who appointed you, and the Senators who will probably vote to confirm, share your basic ignorance about why we have a Constitution and what that means.

Ah, well. Write when you get work.

Cordially,

John Armor (Congressman Billybob)
_____

(posted with permission)

Right between the eyes.....

[cobra bill]

CDC if you had any concern or love for the constitution, you would have stood up and said something during the last administration, they were the criminals ****ting on the constitution, and WILL one day pay for their crimes, and let's talk about nominees for the supreme court, what about justice Roberts, he had 2 cases heard, and both over turned and all he ever was a corporate hack! talk about not qualified, I appreciate your rant, but ask yourself this, why is it not one republican in the senate or the house is bad mouthing her, its only the talking heads from fox noise and cnn. It's so they can raise money! nothing else, they now they can get simple minded people all upset over her and raise lots of money. So go ahead and donate to the RNC, as all the rest of the small minded people will, I think though this is not a fight that the RNC wants, they will lose badly!

[cobra de capell]

Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed (60%), providing a potent line of attack raised by opponents Tuesday after President Obama announced he will nominate the 54-year-old Hispanic woman to the high court.

Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so.

[computerworks]

"....Just when you thought it couldn't get any stupider"

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...es-uphold.html

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

CDC if you had any concern or love for the constitution, you would have stood up and said something during the last administration, they were the criminals ****ting on the constitution, and WILL one day pay for their crimes, and let's talk about nominees for the supreme court, what about justice Roberts, he had 2 cases heard, and both over turned and all he ever was a corporate hack! talk about not qualified, I appreciate your rant, but ask yourself this, why is it not one republican in the senate or the house is bad mouthing her, its only the talking heads from fox noise and cnn. It's so they can raise money! nothing else, they now they can get simple minded people all upset over her and raise lots of money. So go ahead and donate to the RNC, as all the rest of the small minded people will, I think though this is not a fight that the RNC wants, they will lose badly!

c(vacuum)b,

One more time,

The election is over, the old administration is gone.

AND

The new administration is trampling the Constitution, and EVERY kind of business law so badly that the old administration looks like kids playing in a sandbox.
The Bush gang WAS bad in many ways. But they were small time compared todays Socio/Commie band of thugs.

Best forget the past and WORRY about the incredibly BAD administration you wanted, you got!

[cobra bill]

Fact Check: Judge Sotomayor’s Real Record On Race
Editor’s Note: Ian Millhiser is joining ThinkProgress to blog on issues relating to the Supreme Court nomination (read his bio here). This is his first post on The Wonk Room.

It took them a full day to come up with it, but the right-wing thinks they have found a winning line of attack against President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court: claiming that Judge Sotomayor is a racist. Conservative columnist Stuart Taylor accused Judge Sotomayor of claiming that “white males . . . are inferior to all other groups in the qualities that make for a good jurist.” Former Congressman Tom Tancredo—who once said that immigrants threaten Western civilization—claims that Sotomayor “appears to be a racist.” And former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called Sotomayor a “racist” who “should withdraw” from consideration for the Supreme Court.

For all their stridency, however, attacks on Judge Sotomayor bear no resemblance to her record on race. In her much-maligned 2001 speech about being “a Latina voice on the bench,” Sotomayor explained in no uncertain terms that a judge must be constantly vigilant in ensuring that their decisions are never compromised by prejudice:

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

Most importantly, however, Judge Sotomayor’s record shows that she is completely unbiased in deciding race-related cases. The most common kind of race discrimination case in the federal court system are Title VII employment discrimination cases, and Judge Sotomayor has published five majority opinions in Title VII race cases since she joined the Court of Appeals. Of these five decisions, only one—a sexual and racial harassment case called Cruz v. Coach Stores—was decided in the plaintiff’s favor.

But this does not mean that Judge Sotomayor is a right-wing zealot who tosses minority victims of race discrimination out of court anymore than her now-famous vote in Ricci v. DeStefano proves that she bears some kind of animus against white people. In Ricci, the City of New Haven administered a test to determine which of its firefighters would be promoted to become Lieutenants and Captains. When all but one of the highest scoring applicants were white, the City decided not to count the test results because federal law prohibits hiring practices which have a “disparate impact” on people of a particular race.

Many of the plaintiffs in Ricci have very sympathetic stories to tell, but Judge Sotomayor did not let this fact influence her duty as a judge. Under binding Second Circuit precedents that Judge Sotomayor is required to follow, the City of New Haven’s actions are not illegal, so Judge Sotomayor ruled against the white firefighters. Just as when racial minorities claimed employment discrimination in her court, Sotomayor followed the law, and she tossed out a claim that the law would not allow to win.

Now, the same voices who scream that Judge Sotomayor is a “liberal judicial activist” want to attack her for her decision in Ricci, but they cannot have it both ways. It would be wrong for Judge Sotomayor to give white plaintiffs special treatment not allowed by the law—and it is wrong for conservatives to attack her for refusing to give it to them.

[392cobra]

Nice long-winded cut & paste.

[cobra bill]

Originally Posted by Dan40

c(vacuum)b,

One more time,

The election is over, the old administration is gone.

AND

The new administration is trampling the Constitution, and EVERY kind of business law so badly that the old administration looks like kids playing in a sandbox.
The Bush gang WAS bad in many ways. But they were small time compared todays Socio/Commie band of thugs.

Best forget the past and WORRY about the incredibly BAD administration you wanted, you got!

No, its never over, we learned that lesson from you guys, your at 20% now, I will not stop until your party is at 5% or lower.

[cobra bill]

Just the facts Ma'am

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Just the facts Ma'am

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

No, its never over, we learned that lesson from you guys, your at 20% now, I will not stop until your party is at 5% or lower.

So 100% loony lemming liberals is beneficial to whom? And BLIND lemmings at that.
Bush spent like a Democrap for 8 years. obama, the [hopefully incompetent] Socio/Communist has OUT spent Bush in only 4 months. But you cannot see that EXTREMELY OBVIOUS fact.
And Bush stretched laws for good reason or bad. Yet obama has BROKEN, trampled, and ignored a quantum leap more laws than even Dick ever thought about. But you cannot see that either.
And you probably didn't notice that for 25% of the Bush years, DEMOCRAPS controlled the legislature.
None so blind as those that WILL NOT see.

[cobra bill]

Nice, did that make you feel better? So come on start naming all these laws he has broken? I want facts, not fox.

[Sharroll Celby]

I would like to see some names of some competent judges who could be named Supreme Court Justice...who do you people like? Let's see their resumes!

[Dan40]

Originally Posted by cobra bill

Nice, did that make you feel better? So come on start naming all these laws he has broken? I want facts, not fox.

One, he has RETAINED FOR HIS OWN USE, EVERY EXTENDED DETAINEE AND ENHANCED INTERROGATION METHOD. He SAYS he will not use them, but he has them in his pocket. WHY?

You have no Constitutional question about the Government involvement in business?
AND he has and is violating and/or ignoring about every bankruptcy law on the books. Absolutely STEALING money from SECURED bond holders, that do not vote in organized blocks, and giving the money to the unions. The unions have no legal claim on any money until the secured bond holders and creditors have been satisfied. But the unions DO vote in organized blocks.

You FEAR and hate FOX, but they are the only major network that questions and watchdogs Government actions. They are too far right while doing that, but at least they do it. The rest of the media rolls over like puppies because they are too far left. THEY should be questioning the Government just as much as FOX. But you are TOO AFRAID of FOX to realize they are helping you too.