posted June 07, 2009 11:50 AM         

In his letter explaining why he voted against the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Barack Obama gave us a fascinating glimpse into the wonderful world of liberal logic.

The reasoning boiled down to this: Roberts was a highly qualified judge. But in some cases, he sided with the "strong" instead of the "weak."

"The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination . . .," Obama, then a senator from Illinois, wrote.

As he did in his appointment of Sonia Sotamayor to the court, Obama cited a compelling need for "empathy" by a Supreme Court justice.

Because of his alleged tendency to vote on the side of the strong, Roberts lacked sufficient empathy, in Obama's view. Sotamayor, who has said she believes Latino women rule more wisely than "white men," and who believes the courts are "where policy is made," is in the president's opinion loaded with empathy.

Obama said in 2005 that the law gives judges guidance in only 95 percent of the cases, and he worried about the other 5 percent.***This is BS**

"In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon," Obama said. "That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy."***How in the hell did this dud ever pass the bar exam? For that matter, how did this dud ever graduate from law school?***

For the sake of charity, let's overlook perspectives on how the world works. Liberals have not a clue how the world works. They passionately believe the unbelievable: that all people secretly long to give up their freedom and sacrifice their own best interests for the good of the collective.

Let us focus instead on empathy and the curious idea that the "weak" are always right in litigation, while "strong" equals wrong.

Obama did not explain how he determined who was weak and who was strong but he chose an unfortunate example, to wit: "whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions..."

In balancing rights, do the made-up rights of a strong, healthy adult woman trump those of nature's weakest - an unborn child?
**Let's apply the real federal law to the issue of abortion then since the kill the babies crowd decided to take this issue to the federal courts. The real federal law is found in the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution which says, in part: No person---shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process of law. Then let's see some kill the babies dingbats argue in a federal court of law that Mary Jo's baby must have it's life terminated for the convenience of Mary Jo.

Given the liberal proclivities, however, it is safe to assume that to most leftists the "strong" are those with what the rapacious plaintiff's bar calls "the deep pockets."

Under the weak v. strong theory, if a con man walks into a supermarket and pulls the common tactic known as "slip and fall," feigning injury, and then files suit, he is entitled to become a millionaire - because he is weak and the supermarket chain is strong.

That sounds suspiciously like what candidate Obama called "spreading it around."

It is true that William Blackstone, whose Commentaries is a basic source of the common law of England from which American law is derived, allows for interpretation when the law is unclear. It is necessary where "law does not define exactly, but leaves some discretion to the wise judge," Blackstone wrote.

But, notably, he went on to say, "the liberty of considering all cases in an equitable light must not be indulged too far; lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity, though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts, as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind."

posted June 29, 2009 11:50 PM         

The Supreme Court yesterday 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.

"No individual should face workplace discrimination based on race," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the five-member majority.

Civil rights groups said the decision would create a hurdle for employers, especially in the public sector, seeking to diversify their workforces without violating the law.

The case has been used by Sotomayor critics as evidence that she allowed her personal preferences to influence her rulings, while her supporters said the decision was a straightforward application of court precedents.

In the end, neither side conceded any ground over what yesterday's ruling indicated about Sotomayor's fitness for the high court.

Her supporters noted the closeness of the vote and pointed to the opinion's wording that yesterday's decision "clarifies" how the courts and employers should interpret Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That indicates Sotomayor and the other judges on the appellate panel were simply following precedent in the 2008 decision, her backers said. "She doesn't legislate from the bench," said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Those who oppose Sotomayor contrasted the court's 89 pages of opinions, concurrences and dissents with the 134-word summary judgment from Sotomayor and the other judges on the panel. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the Supreme Court's decision a "victory for evenhanded application of the law" and said that "all nine justices were critical of the trial court opinion that Judge Sotomayor endorsed," an assertion the White House rejected.

Although both sides searched for references that might be used for and against Sotomayor, the ruling was more revealing for what it said about a court still closely divided about government policies involving race and diversity.

The decision tried to find the spot between what can be seen as competing provisions of Title VII -- which says that individuals may not be treated differently because of their race, religion or sex, but also that seemingly neutral testing requirements can be discriminatory if they have a disparate impact on members of one group.

New Haven officials said they found themselves in a difficult position when the test results showed that no African Americans and only two Hispanics would have been eligible for promotion to the ranks of lieutenant and captain. City officials said they feared a lawsuit.

Kennedy said that was not a good enough reason to dismiss the test results. "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions," he wrote.

Kennedy said that New Haven's test -- 60 percent of the firefighters' scores were based on a written test and 40 percent on interviews -- properly evaluated what candidates would need to know to perform their jobs, and that it was equally applied to candidates of all races and ethnic backgrounds.

"The process was open and fair," he said. "The problem, of course, is that after the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the city's refusal to certify the results."

Kennedy wrote for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, reading her dissent from the bench for emphasis, said the firefighters who brought the suit "understandably attract the court's empathy." But she said the majority decision undermines Title VII.

"Congress and, until the decision just announced, this court regarded Title VII's dual prescriptions on intentional discrimination and disparate impact as complementary," Ginsburg said. "Standing on equal footing, both provisions aim to end workplace discrimination and promote genuinely equal opportunity."

Both sides delved deep into the record of New Haven's decision and found contradictory lessons. Ginsburg said the city's decision must be seen in context: "Firefighting is a profession in which the legacy of racial discrimination casts an especially long shadow," she said.

Writing for liberals John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer and, on his last day on the bench, retiring Justice David H. Souter, Ginsburg said New Haven had "ample cause to believe its selection process was flawed and not justified by business necessity."

But Alito, in a concurring opinion with the majority, said the city's decision was driven more by racial politics than any legitimate concerns about the test. He said the plaintiffs do not demand "sympathy" but "evenhanded enforcement of the law -- of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race."

Yesterday's opinion does not forbid employers from factoring in disparate impact or considering race in the makeup of their workforces, and it avoided questions about whether parts of the Civil Rights Act violate constitutional protections of equal protection.

But Scalia wrote: "The war between disparate impact and equal protection will be waged sooner or later, and it behooves us to begin thinking about how -- and on what terms -- to make peace between them."

The case is Ricci v. DeStefano.

posted June 30, 2009 12:29 AM         

however, I do believe that written tests don't tell the whole story. I believe that a combination of practical and written exam would be a good idea.

posted July 01, 2009 08:07 AM         

Jeffrey Deskovic, speaking about his 16 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit

The nomination by President Obama of 2nd Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court is more than alarming to an innocent man who was convicted of murder and spent 16 years in prison before being cleared and released.

Jeff Deskovic, whose pursuit of freedom has been chronicled by the New York Times and others, told WND that the last six of those years are directly attributable to decisions endorsed by Sotomayor.

"I'm very alarmed," he said. "The rest of my life, as a result of my ordeal, is dedicated to preventing this from happening to other people."

Sotomayor in her 2nd Circuit position repeatedly put "procedure over innocence" and rejected appeals that could have provided Deskovic with his freedom much earlier than it actually happened, he told WND.

He blames the prosecutors and others in his original case for getting his conviction and sentence, but he blames Sotomayor – and the other judge on the 2nd Circuit panel – for the last six years he remained in prison.

The other judge, he told WND, is equally culpable, but is not now being nominated for the highest court in the land.

The background of the case is all over the public record. He was arrested and accused of assaulting and killing 15-year-old Angela Correa in 1989 and went on trial in 1990 when he was 17.

A video tells his story:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102710

The fact that DNA on the victim didn't match him was explained away by prosecutors who claimed the victim could have had consensual sex before she was killed.

His sentence was 15 years to life in prison. Eventually he ran out of state court appeals procedures, and then was given until April 24, 1997, to demand habeas corpus.

Get Mark Levin's New York Times best-seller, "Liberty and Tyranny."

According to reports, his lawyer asked a court clerk about the deadline and was told it had to be mailed by that date. Wrong. The court rules required delivery by that date.

When the paperwork arrived late it was dismissed. Eventually Sotomayor and other appellate judge found that such a mistake didn't "rise to the level of an extraordinary circumstance" and dismissed it.

"The district court correctly dismissed Deskovic's petition as untimely," the appeals court decision from Sotomayor concluded. A subsequent appeal was dismissed with the terse: "It is ordered that said petition for rehearing is denied."

Deskovic, knowing his own innocence, was appalled, and kept battling.

Ultimately, he was linked to the Innocence Project, and was able to establish his innocence through the discovery of the real murderer, and his subsequent confession.

"Through a twist of fate in 2005, a letter I had written was delivered to anti-death penalty activist and amateur investigator, Claudia Whitman. She suggested that I re-contact the Innocence Project and she urged them to take my case. Six months later, they took my case and obtained permission from the new district attorney to take the crime scene DNA and compare it to the state DNA database. The previous district attorney had refused prior requests to run further DNA tests. As of a result of comparing the DNA to the state data base, the actual perpetrator (Stephen Cunningham) was located," Deskovic writes on his website.

Since being freed, he's graduated from Mercy College and is working on a master's degree, is 35, and spends much of his time advocating for the innocent in prison.

He's often expressed concern that those who made the mistakes that put him in prison haven't been disciplined, and in some cases even have worked up the ranks through promotions.

Now he sees Sotomayor on the verge of becoming one of the judges on the highest court in the land.

The White House, which has been releasing schedules of Sotomayor's visits to Capitol Hill to lobby for her appointment to the court, declined to respond to WND telephone and e-mail messages requesting a comment.

But in a commentary he wrote on Politico, Deskovic explained his concerns.

"In a career that took her from a Bronx housing project to Princeton University, Yale Law School, various jobs and now the federal bench, she (Sotomayor) has said that she tries to keep in mind the real-life implications of her rulings when meting out justice," he wrote.

Such "empathy," in fact, was one reason Obama explained he picked her.

"Such a high-minded moral standard is what we, as a society, should expect and seek from all our judges, especially a Supreme Court justice. But considering that we are talking about a lifetime appointment to the nation's highest court, we should see if, in practice, her rulings reflect that," Deskovic said. "A review of her record in my case shows that Sotomayor's practice does not live up to her promise.

"All seven of my appeals were turned down. Two stops along the way were in Sotomayor's courtroom," he said.

Now he's working to alert Americans to the dangers he feels Sotomayor presents to the public. He assembled a group on Facebook encouraging contacts with members of the Senate to oppose Sotomayor. He also said he'd like to testify against her at her Senate hearings, scheduled to take place within a few weeks.

Deskovic told WND that if Sotomayor's appointment is affirmed, "It means that our rights are very much at risk.

"I think the fact she is being considered for an even higher position of responsibility, considering we're talking about a lifetime appointment, that affects all of our rights.

"She's supposed to be scrutinizing every case that comes across her desk," he said, not using technicalities.

"What I don't understand is why none of the U.S. senators is paying attention to this issue. … Do they agree with what (happened)?" he wondered.

He also suggested politics is playing an huge role, "If this judge had been nominated by a Republican president, the Democrats would have been all over this."

But he said there's no excuse, either, for the GOP not to be raising the question.

"Despite Sotomayor's rhetoric, her ruling in my case showed a callous disregard for the real-life implications of her rulings. She opted for procedure over fairness and finality of conviction over accuracy. Many of the victims of wrongful convictions serving long sentences had exhausted their appeals long before they were exonerated. In how many of those cases did Sotomayor vote to refuse to even consider evidence of innocence?" wrote Deskovic. "My case is far from unique in an age when the reality of wrongful convictions is well-established.

posted July 21, 2009 03:07 PM         

According to Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Cynthia Tucker, the Republican Party is being held hostage by a cadre of bigoted, conservative white people who refuse to acknowledge a simple truth:

"Sonia Sotomayor represents the future, not Sarah Palin."

In other words, for the Republican Party to have national appeal it needs to dump, in Tucker's opinion, the "God fearing white people of small town heritage" vision of America and embrace the "poignant tale" of successful minorities like Sonia Sotomayor.

Indeed, for Cynthia Tucker the intellectual vision of many conservative white people simply ends at a person's skin color:

"They explain a world in which white men no longer control all the levers of power -- in which an ‘uppity' black man could become president and a woman with a strange-sounding name could end up on the Supreme Court."

According to Tucker, many of those who support Sarah Palin are simply motivated by an ugly resentment against "high-achieving" minorities:

"Resentment of high-achievers like Barack Obama and Sotomayor runs deepest among Palinites, who see in John McCain's running mate a perfect spokeswoman for their long list of grievances."

Apparently frustrated that Sonia Sotomayor's "poignant tale hasn't won over everyone" Tucker goes on to attack those with concerns about Sotomayor's judicial record on discrimination cases. Yet for some odd reason Tucker never once mentions Sotomayor's ruling in the Ricci case against the white firefighters - probably the most blatant example of judicial discrimination against white people in decades.

Funny how Tucker also fails to mention the "God fearing white people of small town heritage" who were ardent supporters of George Bush's Hispanic nominee Miguel Estrada or Bush's African-American nominee Janice Rogers Brown, both of whom were eviscerated by Democrats representing the "diverse" and "urban" America Tucker glowingly envisions in her essay.

As for high-achieving minorities, ask an Asian student who he or she would rather have on the admissions staff at a major university - a God fearing white person from the country or a city-dwelling "diverse" liberal. It's funny how those who have proposed and instituted caps on Asian enrollments seem to be of the "diverse" liberal, city variety.

As for the "high-achieving" Obama, I'll believe that when he releases his college transcripts. You see Cynthia, America's future should depend on impartial standards, not race.

posted July 28, 2009 05:44 PM         

The panel's 13-6 vote for Sotomayor masked deep political divisions within GOP ranks about confirming President Barack Obama's first high court nominee. Just one Republican, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, joined Democrats to support her, although four others have said they'll vote for Sotomayor when her nomination comes before the full Senate next week — and that number is expected to grow.

"I would not have chosen her, but I understand why President Obama did. I gladly give her my vote, because I think she meets the qualifications test," Graham said. Obama's choice to nominate the first-ever Latina to the highest court is "a big deal," he added, declaring that, "America has changed for the better with her selection."

The near-unanimous Republican vote against Sotomayor on the Judiciary panel reflected the choice many GOP conservatives have made to side with their core supporters and oppose a judge they charge will bring liberal bias and racial and gender prejudices to her decisions. Others in the party, however, are concerned that doing so could hurt their efforts to broaden their base, and particularly alienate Hispanic voters, a fast-growing segment of the electorate.