I have held my tongue for quite some time on this issue, and I thought it best to comment while on vacation. That way you all have to wait for me to get back to respond.
So, I want to inquire to those of you who voted for our current president: Any voter remorse?
Allow me to point out some of his decision that have driven me bonkers.
Did you know: We are now giving Maranda rights to enemy combatants and terrorists? That's right: They now have the "right to remain silent!" That's the surest way to find out what they are plotting, where their troops are, and how to protect American lives: Tell them they don't have to tell us. Reverse psychology? Somehow, I doubt it!
Did you know: That the first qualities our President looked for when determining whom he would present to the Legislature for their rubber stamp into the supreme court wasn't any kind of professional qualifications? No no: Truth be told, The President actually had two qualifications in mind: 1) a woman. 2) Hispanic. Let's see. When I pick someone based on their race or gender that is... what are those terms again? Oh yes: Racist and sexist.
Did you know: Obama's choice for Supreme Court Justice has often allowed racial bias cloud her decision making? Two perfect examples: She determined that there was racial bias when a school board decided to demote a black child from 1st grade back to kindergarten yet ruled that there was no racial bias when a city threw out the results of a firefighter promotion exam because no minority firefighters qualified for promotion. In regards to the Second Amendment, Judge Sotomayor rejected a claim that a New York ban on a martial arts weapon (a nunchuka) violated a man's Second Amendment rights, explaining that the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. In other words: The states can outlaw whatever they want and are not beholden to the Constitution of the United States of America. Frightening? Well, here is probably the scariest thing I've read about Ms. Sotomayor: "In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." Silly me. In all of my extensive study on the subject of law, I thought the legislature was where policy was made. But I guess the judge knows best!
Did you know: That few Presidents have been better at the "it's not my fault" game than our current Commander in Chief? (Clinton actually played the opposite game, taking credit for some of the things his predecessor set in place.) How many times can one man use the word "inherited"? Enough is enough! Look, you inherited a problem. You took an extended look at said problem. You provided a solution for the problem. It didn't work. Guess what: you didn't inherit your poor solution. Nor will you have inherited the further recession we are headed to once your government money runs out. What will he take credit for?
So, just wondering, for those of you who cast your vote for our first black President: Any voters remorse? Anyone?
2 comments:
I would be curious to read your source the explicitly states Obama made his nomination based on gender and race. It's true that Obama believed that the next Supreme Court nominee should be female… along with a high percentage of anyone who pays any attention at all to the Supreme Court. The Hispanic Bar Association was one group urging the nomination of a Hispanic judge to Obama. To say that Obama used these as his "qualifiers" is, as you say, just your opinion.
It was a smart move to choose the two cases you cite to show Sotomayor's racial bias. You picked two contrasting decisions and simplify them so they appear that she can rule for blacks but against whites. In Gant v. Wallingford Board of Education there were documented reports and evidence that there was racial discrimination against the child that was not acted upon by school officials. After that the same school officials moved the child back a grade without the consent of the parents, which is required before a child can be officially demoted. The school officials didn't follow their own rules and so the case was ruled against them. The determination of racial discrimination was true. The school did nothing to stop the several reports of discrimination and proved they were indifferent to the situation.
In the New Haven firefighters case, the fire department officials were covering their own. The Civil Rights Act says any racial disproportionate test results are suspect. By throwing out the test results, they were trying to avoid a lawsuit from the black firefighters who failed the test. In decision based on the good faith decision to scrap the test results, Sotomayor ruled that the white firefighters could not sue. The Supreme Court actually overturned the decision, in a 5-4 vote, saying that the firefighters did lose on promotions because there wasn't enough evidence that the test was intentionally or unintentionally discriminatory. You could argue that New Haven was trying to hide behind civil rights to not promote all white firefighters, or you could argue that they were honestly trying to uphold the spirit of the Civil Rights Act. There was no sweeping decision here in this case, much like there's no sweeping decision on Sotomayor.
Greetings and welcome to JMO Karol K. I'd be more than happy to respond to your comments. However, whenever someone new comments on my blog, I like to make sure they are going to return to read my rebuttal. So, tell me a little about yourself? How did you find us?
Again, welcome and I hope you do return.
Post a Comment