Sonia Sotomayor's Controversial Decisions: Examining Her Judicial Record

[LowlyPion]

This optional line of attack was mowed down today by the 7^th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aJqmPBKQmpMw

She's so mainstream that Regan appointees have come to the same conclusion under Law.

As an aside, now comes this fallout from the 7th Court of Appeals gun verdict, that supported Sotomayor's previous ruling.:

WASHINGTON — An Internet radio host known for his incendiary views was arrested Wednesday in North Bergen, N.J., after federal officials charged that his angry postings about a gun case in Chicago amounted to death threats against three judges.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/us/25threat.html?ref=us

 

[WheelsRCool]

I have not heard anything like that from her, Russ, so perhaps we should wait until there are some hearings. Pre-judging her based on statements made as the keynote speaker to a conference that was INTENDED to examine the disparity in the representation of females and minorities on the highest courts (federal district, appeals, etc) is about the only thing her critics have to whack her with. Obama was a professor of constitutional law, and it is highly unlikely IMO that he would nominate a SC justice that didn't have the respect and confidence of constitutional scholars. Why not dial back on the political rhetoric on this issue and let her be questioned (toughly, I expect, by the GOP and Dem blue-dogs) and see what her temperament is? The GOP sound-machine is flailing.

She is very clearly a racist, sexist, activist, judge who makes a mockery of the Constitution.

BTW, as Ivan and I have pointed out too many times to count, we were both Republicans until the neo-cons hijacked what used to be a conservative party, and now we are both Independents. The closest thing we have have to '60s conservatives these days are the Libertarians, and they can't generate the lobbyist money that the neo-cons can, and so will never be a viable repulsive force against the Dems absent a popular revolution.

60's conservatives ran Barry Goldwater, who ran and lost against that period's Barack Obama, Lyndon B. Johnson. The only real difference between modern "neo-cons" and Reagan and Goldwater conservatives are on government; "compassionate conservatives" believe in bigger government, not in keeping government limited like the Reagan and Goldwater types.

Today's GOP is just a different variant of the Democrats.

No true conservative could ever have voted for Barack Obama.

 

[turbo]

She is very clearly a racist, sexist, activist, judge who makes a mockery of the Constitution.

Would you please offer some substantiation for these claims or retract them?

60's conservatives ran Barry Goldwater, who ran and lost against that period's Barack Obama, Lyndon B. Johnson. The only real difference between modern "neo-cons" and Reagan and Goldwater conservatives are on government; "compassionate conservatives" believe in bigger government, not in keeping government limited like the Reagan and Goldwater types.

Today's GOP is just a different variant of the Democrats.

No true conservative could ever have voted for Barack Obama.

I think you may have missed about 40+ years of perspective. Once, the GOP had actual conservatives. Today, they have been mostly driven out.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Barry Goldwater said much the same. He said that abortion was not a conservative issue, and that the choice was up to the pregnant woman, not the Pope or some right-wing religious do-gooders.

Being pro-life has little to do with religion, although many religious are pro-life. And whether it is the woman's choice is very debatable, as it is a separate life form inside her body, not her body itself. I always find it odd how the political Left emphasize the government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their body, but then wants to control whether you can smoke, what healthcare you can get, put a tax on this junk food or that junk food, etc...

Strictly legally-speaking, the woman has no right to choose if one is a strict Constructionist because Roe v. Wade was judicial activism. What one "thinks" personally doesn't change the law as it is written.

Being pro-life also deals with the issue of the state determining the intrinsic value of human life, which if not careful can lead to things like the eugenics movement which led to the Holocaust in the 1930s.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and very important person in the history of the abortion movement, was a staunch supporter of eugenics theory.

Would you please offer some substantiation for these claims or retract them?

She made clearly racist statements on the Berkeley campus in 2001.

I think you may have missed about 40+ years of perspective. Once, the GOP had actual conservatives. Today, they have been mostly driven out.

How exactly do you define "conservative?" Furthermore, how is Barack Obama "conservative" and not the complete antithesis of everything a "conservative" stands for?

 

[LowlyPion]

And whether it is the woman's choice is very debatable, as it is a separate life form inside her body, not her body itself.

What's curious to me is why it seems that so many middle aged men seem so stuck on sticking their nose into the debate and want to decide it in the first place, by whatever means, legal or illegal. (e.g. Scott Roeder and Randall Terry as a for instance)

Generally speaking it seems to me that it is seldom the mothers of unexpected pregnancies, or the inadvertent fathers that swell the ranks of protesters eager to intrude in what I'd say is a highly personal decision. (That's not to say that there aren't any.)

Women are the ones with the most skin in the game, so what better choice than securing a woman's perspective on the issue than another woman on the Court, who also happens to be a Catholic?

 

[WheelsRCool]

What's curious to me is why it seems that so many middle aged men seem so stuck on sticking their nose into the debate and want to decide it in the first place, by whatever means, legal or illegal. (e.g. Scott Roeder and Randall Terry as a for instance)

The problem with the pro-life versus pro-choice issue is it can go both ways. On the one hand, once conception starts, it is human life. That's not religious belief, it's science. Now whether or not it's a person or not is all very debatable, as there is no real way to determine when the embryo turns into a fetus and so forth. But it is human life. It's like a child versus a teenager versus an adult. There are clear differences between each but no one knows exactly when a child turns into a teenager and then when a teen becomes an adult.

No one knows when the embryo becomes a fetus either. And different people have differing opinions. Many believe since it is human life, it is human life, and you do not abort it. But it is not necessarily a human being.

Others believe that it is fine to abort an embryo, but once it becomes a fetus, you do not abort it. And some believe it is okay to abort the fetus too.

Because the pro-choice side can't figure out when the embryo becomes a fetus, they just decide to say the fetus isn't a child until it is born, and then it's a baby. Because otherwise, they'd have to regard all human life, from embryo to fetus to baby, as the same.

The Left tend to brainwash their constituency into thinking all pro-life people are trying to ram religion down people's throats, tha is nothing of the sort. Sure some are, but that's no different than how some on the Left want to ram socialism down people's throats, both sides have bad apples.

The history of the abortion movement is darker than many realize, as it is tied into the eugenics movement.

Many with evil intentions to this day hide behind the abortion "pro-choice" point-of-view who are really eugenicists, or quasi-eugenicist, but can't say it publicly.

This is also why pro-life people are against embryonic stem cell research, or claim it needs to be watched very closely if we pursue it, because it can be a very dangerous road to go down.

Remember, eugenics theory, which started off as a way to engineer more perfect humans, but turned into a huge boondoggle of junk science which claimed that Jews, blacks, etc...anyone who wasn't white essentially, were "feeble-minded" and weakening the gene pool and would kill off the whole human race.

It was supported by all major politicians, celebrities, universities, research institutions, etc...at the time. America led the research at first, although eventually Germany took the lead (you can see where this is going).

This of course led to the Holocaust.

People at the time who dared criticize the movement were lambasted and called idiots and all sorts of harsh language.

The only major institution that stood against the whole idea was the Catholic Church.

Many on the Left love to call Republicans quasi-Nazis, but in fact your Rush Limbaughs, Sean Hannity's, Ann Coulter's, Laura Ingraham's, etc...would have been the very "quacks" at the time calling the whole eugenics movement a crock, saying the State has no right to forcibly sterilize people or say one group is superior or inferior to others, etc...it was the Progressives who were the racists and staunch eugenics proponents in America at the time.

One has to thus be very careful when giving the State the right to determine the intrinsic value of human life and to experiment on it or with it.

As I said, some of the abortion rights movements biggest people, such as Margaret Sanger, were noted eugenics supporters.

Another guy who ran Planned Parenthood during the 1960s also was a eugenicist, although I forget his name (the government was aware of it though I believe).

Being against embryonic stem cell research is not about infringing on science because of wanting to ram religion down people's throats, no more than being pro-choice means being a eugenicist. It is about adherence to science but also morality.

This is not to say that there aren't extremists, on both sides, folks who do want to ram religion down people's throats on the right, and the folks who are eugenicists on the Left who hate humanity (they in particular can be found among the ultra-environmentalist types who worship trees on the Left--extreme environmentalism is essentially to the Left what ultra-self-righteous evagelicals are to the Right).

Women are the ones with the most skin in the game, so what better choice than securing a woman's perspective on the issue than another woman on the Court, who also happens to be a Catholic?

Because no one has any right to bring their "perspective" to the issues when on the Supreme Court. You leave your perspective out of it and just interpret the law as it is written.

Regardless of whether she is a woman or not should mean nothing, nor her religion, nor her upbringing. An appointment to the Supreme Court is for life. It influences the lives of millions of people for decades to come.

Many in the media have made a big deal about the fact that she had to struggle in her career because she came from poverty, as if this should mean anything regarding whether she's qualified for the job.

If you were going to go under the knive of a surgeon, would you care whether the surgeon rose up from poverty or whether they had been born with a silver spoon in their mouth?

NOPE, all you'd care about is whether they are a good surgeon!

Anyone who cannot keep their own personal views out of it has no business being on the Supreme Court. It is outright dangerous to have people on the Supreme Court who will bring their personal views and perspective into making decisions.

The political Left love to spin this and trick their constituency by saying, "But the Constitution is a living document, it has to change with the times, it is not supposed to be rigid, unchanging, and inflexible..." in order to justify their placing of justices on the Supreme Court that have "empathy" and bring their personal views and perspectives to their decisions.

In other words, implying that Constructionists want the Constitution to be rigid and unchanging. This is completely wrong.

The Constitution is very much meant to be a flexible document that changes with the times. But it is NOT supposed to be changed by justices on the Court because they want to interpret the law according to how they feel it should be written, instead of how it actually IS written. The process to change it is via formal amendment, which requires two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

You might remember how on his appearance on "The View" during the campaign, when John McCain said he wanted to appoint strict Constructionist justices to the Supreme Court, and Whoopie Goldberg said to him, "Do you want me to become a slave?" or something like that.

No, the whole reason to appoint Constructionists to the Court is so that she never could be made into a slave.

A Constructionist interprets the words of the Constitution in their strict, ordinary, and regular meaning, and this includes all amendments (remember the Founders themselves would not sign the Constitution without the first ten amendments, which became known as the Bill of Rights). They do not read into the words of the Constitution and try to amend it via judicial interpretation. Amendment, under the Constitution, is the role of the legislative branch of the government. Not the judiciary.

If you find that the Founders got something wrong, or flat-out forgot something in the Constitution, or in the case of slavery, messed it up in the first place, the process to change it is via formal amendment, NOT judicial activism.

If slavery had been overturned by the Supreme Court, then whether or not blacks could be made into slaves again would literally reside with five justices on the Court instead of with two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

And since it's seen by many as an EXTRAconstitutional practice, many refuse to respect such judicial "amendments" no matter how just their cause. The weakness of judicial fiat is that it never really gets set in stone and it always LACKS a real sense of legitimacy.

But because the Constitution was formally amended, with the 13th Amendment, under ANY reading of the Constitution, slavery is illegal. It is set in stone.

But getting a formal amendment can take years, or even decades, and thus the pro-choice movement decided to take it to the Supreme Court to try to get them to secure a woman's "right to choose."

Because Roe v. Wade was blatant judicial activism, whether or not a woman's right to choose (if you're a pro-choice person) can be overturned rests with five on the Court, rather than with two-thirds of the Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures.

This thus always has the pro-choice side panicked that a Republican President will appoint Constructionists to the Court, as Constructionists could overturn Roe. v. Wade.

Now, let's pretend that the pro-choice movement was to succeed in getting a formal amendment to the Constitution, saying that a woman has a right to choose.

In this instance, it behooves every pro-choice person to have strict constructionist justices on the Court, who will interpret the law as it is written, rather than how they "think" it should be written.

In such an instance, would you want a Republican President saying he would assign a judge to the Court who would bring her "life experience" to her decision-making, who would bring "empathy" to her decisions?

If a formal amendment says a woman has a right to choose, do you want a justice who will have empathy for the embryo and/or fetus in such a decision, who could then infringe on what you see as a woman's right to choose?

Because such court cases would eventually result. You'd just see the opposite of what we see with the Second Amendment. The Left say, "Well, the Constitution may say citizens have a right to bear arms, but we can create 'responsible gun control laws and regulations.'" This of course results in clashes between the right and left and there have been multiple Supreme Court decisions on the Second Amendment.

Well if it was the reverse, and it was Republican legislators saying, "The Constitution may say a woman has a right to choose, but we can create 'responsible abortion control laws and regulations,' " WELL IN THIS INSTANCE, the pro-choicers will want Constructionists.

Would you want, as a pro-choice person, a Republican President appointing say a Sarah Palin to the Supreme Court, saying, "She will bring her perspective from being a woman and a mom, and bring empathy to the Court..."?

NO, you'd want someone who would just interpret the law as it is written, their personal views aside, regardless of if it was a Sarah Palin or not.

In such an instance, if you are a pro-life justice, YOU KEEP YOUR PRO-LIFE VIEWS OUT OF IT. If you don't like that the Constitution has an amendment saying a woman has a right to choose, TOO BAD, you interpret the law as it is written. If you want to MAKE law, then you should be in Congress.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said that he "loathed" many of the people in whose favor he voted on the Supreme Court. This is because he had the integrity to put aside his personal views and just interpret the law as it was written, not as he felt it should be written.

The Left love to claim George W. Bush made a mockery of the Constitution, but they have no problem bending it and/or essentially re-writing it when they don't like it themselves.

So from a strict LEGAL standpoint, a woman really has no "right to choose" right now, that is if the justices in Roe v. Wade had been Constructionists. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If you want to change it, that's for the legislature.

But since they essentially made law from the bench, they decided a woman does have a right to choose.

And this is why judicial activism is so incredibly dangerous. Because it:

1) Let's the Judicial, people with LIFETIME APPOINTMENTS, legislate from the bench essentially, and

2) If their legislation is morally just, it is NOT SET IN STONE, WHICH MEANS IN THE FUTURE OTHERS ON THE COURT COULD OVERTURN IT.

President Barack Obama knows all this. He is a graduate of Harvard Law School and is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR.

The ONLY reason he wants justices with "empathy" on the court is because he is an ideologue. And he wants people with his similar ideology on the Supreme Court who will re-write the law according to this ideology, instead of putting their ideology aside and just interpret the law as is.

He is also a man with very sharp, almost pro-abortion (as opposed to just pro-choice) views who wants to undo every law making restrictions on abortion that have been made since Roe v. Wade.

Justice Sonia Sotomayer in a video was saying, "I know we're not supposed to 'legislate from the bench,' " and the whole room chuckles, essentially making a mockery of the Constitution and the judiciary.

She made clearly racist comments on the Berkeley campus in 2001.

And she just recently voted to dismiss the appeal of those white firefighters who were denied their promotions because they passed an exam that too many other minorities did not pass, thus failing to create "diversity."

She has absolutely no business being put onto the Supreme Court.

 

[LowlyPion]

The problem with the pro-life versus pro-choice issue is it can go both ways.

Since as you say it can go both ways, I'd say then it's a matter of choice for the person involved and not middle aged white men to impose that choice on them, as though they were required to wear the chador by those middle aged clerics in Iran.

And she just recently voted to dismiss the appeal of those white firefighters who were denied their promotions because they passed an exam that too many other minorities did not pass, thus failing to create "diversity."

I'd say this opinion of yours shows a profound misunderstanding of the issues involved with the Hartford case. Maybe you should seek other authorities than Pat Buchannan on the issue? It's interesting to me how there is a cry for her not to be an activist, and not read more into the Law than would be there, and then from the same throats come the squeals about her reading the Law as written.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Since as you say it can go both ways, I'd say then it's a matter of choice for the person involved and not middle aged white men to impose that choice on them, as though they were required to wear the chador by those middle aged clerics in Iran.

It is an issue about life. One cannot just conclude that since it can go both ways, that it is solely a matter of choice for the person carrying the child.

I'd say this opinion of yours shows a profound misunderstanding of the issues involved with the Hartford case. Maybe you should seek other authorities than Pat Buchannan on the issue?

Her decision disturbed her fellow judges. Justice Jose Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, criticized her decision for ignoring the Constitutional issues at stake. The Supreme Court itself feels the issue is worth hearing at least. It is likely that the Supreme Court will overturn her panel's ruling on this, only then for Sotomayor herself to appointed to this very Supreme Court.

As for her experiences, empathy, etc...that is fine for private life and legislation, NOT for the Supreme Court. A Supreme Court justice is supposed to be blind to such things, as everyone must stand equally before the law. SC justices are not supposed to favor one group over another because of their status as disadvantaged, poor, black, white, rich, whatever.

The very oath itself that she must take if appointed is:

"I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich...So help me God."

President Obama, the alleged Constitutional scholar, and Judge Sotomayor, are apparently unaware that things like empathy have no business being on the Court. Which I do not believe for one minute. He is just an ideologue and so is she.

And so much for transcending race, President Obama has gone and chosen a woman who seems to be race-obsessed to the point that it governs her judicial philosophy, at least looking at her statements and published views.

And BTW I don't read or listen to Pat Buchanan.

It's interesting to me how there is a cry for her not to be an activist, and not read more into the Law than would be there, and then from the same throats come the squeals about her reading the Law as written.

Her panel's dismissal of the issue was done in a perfunctory and unpublished manner. She sure doesn't interpret the law as written regarding the 2nd Amendment.

 

[LowlyPion]

It is an issue about life. One cannot just conclude that since it can go both ways, that it is solely a matter of choice for the person carrying the child.

Certainly it is the choice of the mother. It's preposterous to impose otherwise. It is no more the obligation of the mother to bear an insemination, accidental or otherwise, if it is unwanted, than it is to suffer a debilitating disease without medication or recourse to other treatment. After all bacteria and viruses are life too.

At some point though I think we can all agree that there is a line well after the first trimester that requires a greater burden of social responsibility, and for my money, I think as it is embodied in current Law, there is a pretty compelling and practical processes available - the Randall Terry nut jobs notwithstanding. Now if you want to support a world view for yourself that defines life in your terms as some point before the Federal standard, I'd say that's your certainly your choice to act on for your own conscience, and if you get pregnant, then of course I would support your right to have the baby.

Remember that a fundamental principle of the drafting of the Constitution was to establish a system that protects the many from the tyranny of the few, while at the same time protecting the few from the tyranny of the many. A tricky balance at best, but one that I think the Founders did a pretty good job of.

She sure doesn't interpret the law as written regarding the 2nd Amendment.

Don't look now but as regards her decision on the 2nd Amendment case, it has been affirmed in the 7th District Appeals Court by Regan appointees independently, of the case that was before Sotomayor. Game. Set. Match ... for gun lovers.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Certainly it is the choice of the mother. It's preposterous to impose otherwise.

One could say it is preposterous to say the mother has a right to kill it as well. It depends.

It is no more the obligation of the mother to bear an insemination, accidental or otherwise, if it is unwanted, than it is to suffer a debilitating disease without medication or recourse to other treatment. After all bacteria and viruses are life too.

Yes, but not human life. We do not give other forms of life the rights we give to human life. I mean we raise cattle to eat them. It would be impossible to take the view that "every life has a right to live," as all forms of life infringe to some extent on other life forms. If you get a disease, you have every right to kill it.

And you can abort the embryo or fetus if it will otherwise kill you.

At some point though I think we can all agree that there is a line well after the first trimester that requires a greater burden of social responsibility, and for my money, I think as it is embodied in current Law, there is a pretty compelling and practical processes available - the Randall Terry nut jobs notwithstanding. Now if you want to support a world view for yourself that defines life in your terms as some point before the Federal standard, I'd say that's your certainly your choice to act on for your own conscience, and if you get pregnant, then of course I would support your right to have the baby.

Remember that a fundamental principle of the drafting of the Constitution was to establish a system that protects the many from the tyranny of the few, while at the same time protecting the few from the tyranny of the many. A tricky balance at best, but one that I think the Founders did a pretty good job of.

True; but there is nothing in the Constitution that supports abortion. Even certain feminists who are pro-choice have concluded that Roe v. Wade was a lousy decision, precisely because it isn't solid and doesn't secure what they see as the woman's right to choose.

Don't look now but as regards her decision on the 2nd Amendment case, it has been affirmed in the 7th District Appeals Court by Regan appointees independently, of the case that was before Sotomayor. Game. Set. Match ... for gun lovers.

Sotomayor believes that the Second Amendment is a state's right. So it would be okay then if the states wanted to deny people 1st, 4th, and/or 5th Amendment rights based on their interpretation of them?

The Bill of Rights to the Constitution guarantees inalienable rights to all Americans. States should only be able to restrict things not guaranteed by the Constitution. A SC justice who thinks that states should be able to deny any Constitutional rights that they choose to does not, IMHO, understand the Constitution or the intent of the authors.

And Ford, Reagan, and Bush I all appointed Leftist justices to the Supreme Court.

 

[turbo]

Don't look now but as regards her decision on the 2nd Amendment case, it has been affirmed in the 7th District Appeals Court by Regan appointees independently, of the case that was before Sotomayor. Game. Set. Match ... for gun lovers.

I know one of the judges involved in that 7th District Appeal decision pretty well, and he is definitely NOT anti-gun! There is a problem when every decision made by a judge comes under the scrutiny of their opponents and they are vilified with simplistic attacks that fail to take into account the legal reasoning behind their decisions. OMGZ! They'll take away our gunz!

 

[BobG]

And she just recently voted to dismiss the appeal of those white firefighters who were denied their promotions because they passed an exam that too many other minorities did not pass, thus failing to create "diversity."

I'd say this opinion of yours shows a profound misunderstanding of the issues involved with the Hartford case. Maybe you should seek other authorities than Pat Buchannan on the issue? It's interesting to me how there is a cry for her not to be an activist, and not read more into the Law than would be there, and then from the same throats come the squeals about her reading the Law as written.

I'd agree with LowlyPion. New Haven was going to face a lawsuit from minorities if they accepted the test results and are facing a lawsuit because they rejected the test results.

Having an outside agency create the test was fair. Having an outside review of the test was fair (no way for New Haven officials to pass tips on to favored friends, etc). Establishing a requirement that the test be job related was fair (and an absolute requirement per Title VII).

The problem comes into play when New Haven would be required to prove that the test truly did test the things that are critical to being a fire fighter. Doing so would be similar to proving that the written driver's test alone was adequate to prove whether or not a person should get a driver's license.

New Haven's test methods don't square up against newer testing procedures used by police departments and fire departments as far as testing things like group interaction, leadership, etc. On the other hand, methods that do test "fuzzier" attributes are necessarily graded somewhat subjectively by humans, introducing yet another chance for discrimination.

We've kind of reached a point where there is no method capable of passing muster. If minority groups are under represented, the test discriminated against them either inadvertantly or advertantly with both being equally bad. If all minorities are represented proportionally and humans played a part in the decision, then the test must have used a quota system, which is reverse discrimination.

Regardless of which side wins, any kind of substantial decision will probably be an improvement over the current situation.

By the way, WheelsRCool, nice post on the difference between constructionist and activist judges. I think there are exceptions, though. I do think there are times where today's world creates situations that haven't been encountered before and justices certainly have to interpret those situations from scratch.

 

[LowlyPion]

It would be impossible to take the view that "every life has a right to live," as all forms of life infringe to some extent on other life forms.

Well there you go. Once you accept that other forms of life are not all that different from humans, and you admit that choices can be made ... you are only limited by the hubris of your homo-sapient centric perspective in embracing all fractions of it, from spermatozoa to adult. (For a planet nearing over-population, maybe not the best approach.)

True; but there is nothing in the Constitution that supports abortion.

Nothing that prohibits either. What kind of tyranny of the State over women would that be to deny them choice? How different than making them all wear the chador?

Sotomayor believes that the Second Amendment is a state's right. So it would be okay then if the states wanted to deny people 1st, 4th, and/or 5th Amendment rights based on their interpretation of them?

Your understanding of the 14th Amendment appears incomplete. As far as rights go, there is equal protection, which necessarily restricts abridgment of individual rights by the States. (Your Second Amendment case is a poor example of this, btw.)

 

[WheelsRCool]

Well there you go. Once you accept that other forms of life are not all that different from humans, and you admit that choices can be made ... you are only limited by the hubris of your homo-sapient centric perspective in embracing all fractions of it, from spermatozoa to adult. (For a planet nearing over-population, maybe not the best approach.)

Human life always has to be valued higher than other lifeforms. You regard other life as equivalent to human life, and you open up a real can of worms for all sorts of evils if you are not very careful.

Nothing that prohibits either. What kind of tyranny of the State over women would that be to deny them choice? How different than making them all wear the chador?

Depends on how one views it, whether as an individual or just "biological material." Scientifically, it is human life once conception occurs; at 18 days, the heart starts up; at 21 days, it is pumping through a closed circulatory system, with blood different from the mother's. At 40 days, brain activity starts up. When viewed as an individual, the Fourteenth Amendment forbids it (abortion). Regarding liberty, you are guaranteed to liberty so long as you do not harm other individuals in a free society. If you view it as just "biological material," that changes things around, but that is a big can of worms, as one can see.

It is not tyranny of the State to deny "choice" if one considers it an individual inside. Once conception starts, it is a growing person. A fetus with a brain and heart and so forth is a growing person; once born, a baby or a child is a growing person. You cannot just kill your child if you decide you do not want it, even though it is still growing and obviously not an adult. "Choice" there is denied. But we do not consider it tyranny. A born child that is growing is not technically any different from an unborn child that is growing inside the womb.

You also need to consider the tyranny that can result (and has resulted in the past) when the State can determine the intrinsic value of human life.

Your understanding of the 14th Amendment appears incomplete. As far as rights go, there is equal protection, which necessarily restricts abridgment of individual rights by the States. (Your Second Amendment case is a poor example of this, btw.)

Sotomayor has a consistent anti-Second Amendment record, and was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

 

[jreelawg]

In some countries, it is legal to kill your wife under certain circumstances. I imagine those men wish to have the right to choose in that case, however, in the United States, no person owns another person, and no person can choose to end another persons life out of convenience.

I find it rationally no different for a person to choose to end the life of the elderly once they can no longer support themselves. Or to end the life of those who are born with a disability, or any other instance in which a person relies upon others to function.

 

[LowlyPion]

Human life always has to be valued higher than other lifeforms.

Unless there are aliens with advanced technology of course, and then I trust you will learn to say Sir when spoken to. Which speaks to your "valuing higher" ideas insofar as you are thinking you are comfortably at the top of some power pyramid.

In the meantime attempting to intertwine observations about aggregated cells, even if expressing distinct differentiated function, with some legal notion of what is an individual, or what is a higher individual, only seems to lead you to this mischievous dead-end of suggesting some right to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate an insemination to full gestation before the 24th week.

Sotomayor has a consistent anti-Second Amendment record, and was part of a three-judge panel earlier this year which ruled in Maloney v. Cuomo that the Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

I think you are going to have to decide whether you want a Judicial Activist or a Judge that exercises Judicial Restraint. Sotomayor's opinions in the realm of the Second Amendment reveals a Judge that has relied on settled law and precedent of the Court, not someone with an agenda to strike out in new ground and vitiate the intent of the Second Amendment. I'd say this issue is a loser issue for those looking to remove her from consideration.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Unless there are aliens with advanced technology of course, and then I trust you will learn to say Sir when spoken to. Which speaks to your "valuing higher" ideas insofar as you are thinking you are comfortably at the top of some power pyramid.

Do not fall into this trap of thinking "all life is equal" or other such environmental-centric ways of thinking. All lifeforms do things that mess things up for other life forms. That is how nature works. If you want to fall into this belief that other life forms must be valued at the same as humans, then you are opening the door to an enormous can of worms. We raise, and slaughter, various animals for food. We also keep animals for doing various jobs, and we grow fruits and vegetables and so forth to eat. We raise and grow trees to use for different things.

If you think animals can be regarded as humans, what's to stop us from regarding certain humans as animals? The Nazis sure had no problem with doing just this. They regarded the Jews and other peoples they were slaughtering as no better than cattle.

Valuing humans as higher has nothing to do with some "power-pyramid," it has to do with keeping tyranny at bay.

In the meantime attempting to intertwine observations about aggregated cells, even if expressing distinct differentiated function, with some legal notion of what is an individual, or what is a higher individual, only seems to lead you to this mischievous dead-end of suggesting some right to interfere with a woman's choice to terminate an insemination to full gestation before the 24th week.

I know we will have to agree to disagree on this. And BTW I am not saying abortion should be outright banned. But it is no "mischievous dead-end of suggesting some right to interfere with a woman's choice." One could easily flip that statement and say it's a mischievous dead-end of suggesting some right to kill what is a person growing inside of the womb. The hard truth is if you adhere to the hard science, one sees it is clearly a separate individual within the woman's body, which some people for whatever reason deem it is not a developing person at that point, but do consider it as such once born, which is very arbitrary. For example, a fetus with just a heart and brain is obviously far less developed than an infant, but an infant is far less developed than a three year-old, and a three year-old less so than a six year-old, and so forth. An infant is a child, but it cannot feed itself, nor is it's brain fully developed or even the skull fully developed; a fetus with a heart and brain but without say lungs is still a person growing. As I said, I am not flat-out against abortion, but I do not see how it is any woman's "right" to choose to "abort" (aka kill) the developing person inside.

I think you are going to have to decide whether you want a Judicial Activist or a Judge that exercises Judicial Restraint. Sotomayor's opinions in the realm of the Second Amendment reveals a Judge that has relied on settled law and precedent of the Court, not someone with an agenda to strike out in new ground and vitiate the intent of the Second Amendment. I'd say this issue is a loser issue for those looking to remove her from consideration.

I hope you are correct, but from what I have read of her views on the 2nd Amendment, she seems very anti-gun. Regardless, it is pretty much assured she will get appointed.

 

[signerror]

Back on topic:

Justices Rule for White Firefighters in Bias Case

The Supreme Court has ruled that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
...
"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," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/29/business/AP-US-SupremeCourt-Fire.html

About time. Racial discrimination is simply inexcusable.

 

[LowlyPion]

Valuing humans as higher has nothing to do with some "power-pyramid," it has to do with keeping tyranny at bay.

Keeping tyranny at bay? Not if you're a cow. Or an oven roaster. There is a tyranny already, simply because we can. We sit at the top of the decision pyramid, and eat what we want. I'd say your describing this process as keeping tyranny at bay is a little suspect, as long as we are king of the hill.

I know we will have to agree to disagree on this. And BTW I am not saying abortion should be outright banned.

It's all a matter of how the line is drawn. The Supreme Court has drawn the line. End of story.

Btw you might want to be careful what you wish for. If you are for Judicial Restraint then the issue of abortion rights is decided already. If you want Judicial Activism to roll back what is an established basis of Society now after 30 years, that is a sword that cuts both ways, not just on issues you want to see changed, but also on those that you might currently think are settled Law, decided to your liking.

 

[LowlyPion]

About time. Racial discrimination is simply inexcusable.

It's always been inexcusable. But then that didn't stop slave owners. Or the original framers of the Constitution from getting it right the first time around. The fact that the Country has undertaken to redistribute the cargo for future generations by law necessarily means that there will be wrinkles along the way to remediation. The Supreme Court ironed out one of those wrinkles, in a case passed to it by the Appeals Court according to precedent and existing Law.

One wonders whether the outcome necessarily would have been different, even if Sotomayor would have been casting a vote in place of Roberts.

 

[mheslep]

It's always been inexcusable.

No, racial discrimination was explicitly excused as the law of the land until a few years ago via remediation arguments, less so now, but just barely, 5-4. Some would still have excused racial discrimination if they http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/06/29/business/AP-US-SupremeCourt-Fire.html?_r=1"

But Ginsburg said the court should have assessed "the starkly disparate results" of the exams against the backdrop of historical and ongoing inequality in the New Haven fire department. As of 2003, she said, only one of the city's 21 fire captains was African-American...

 

[LowlyPion]

Some would still have excused racial discrimination if they could

No one is excusing racial discrimination. The wrinkle in this case seems to arise out of the failure of Hartford to have determined if the test itself was discriminatory and contributed to a disparate result. Apparently they chose to throw the results out, without sufficiently determining if there was anything to the notion that the test itself was flawed, they merely took the position that it would expose them to litigation.

 

[mheslep]

No one is excusing racial discrimination. ...

As a general matter, and you used 'always' above, that's simply wrong. The law of the land since Bakke at least was to sanction racial discrimination when it could be argued it was being used to correct the wrongs of past racial discrimination. One can use euphemisms all day long, but it is what it is.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Keeping tyranny at bay? Not if you're a cow. Or an oven roaster. There is a tyranny already, simply because we can. We sit at the top of the decision pyramid, and eat what we want. I'd say your describing this process as keeping tyranny at bay is a little suspect, as long as we are king of the hill.

I'm talking about tyranny as regards humans. We eat other animals for food, not "because we can." As I said, you start giving cattle equal value as humans, and certain people will want to regard humans as cattle. That's a dangerous road to go down.

It's all a matter of how the line is drawn. The Supreme Court has drawn the line. End of story.

No end of story, the Supreme Court made a very controversial decision that was blatant judicial activism. Furthermore, just because the Supreme Court has decided something, does not make it correct, it just makes it law (and right now a weakly protected law at that). You wouldn't have the same attitude if the Supreme Court had "decided" that woman are property.

Btw you might want to be careful what you wish for. If you are for Judicial Restraint then the issue of abortion rights is decided already. If you want Judicial Activism to roll back what is an established basis of Society now after 30 years, that is a sword that cuts both ways, not just on issues you want to see changed, but also on those that you might currently think are settled Law, decided to your liking.

It wouldn't be judicial activism if the Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade, it would be adherence to the Constitution.

 

[turbo]

It wouldn't be judicial activism if the Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade, it would be adherence to the Constitution.

The Constitution never addressed abortion, nor women's rights, nor the human rights of minorities. In fact, it is a rather sparse document that has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the years. The thought that the Constitution is the inviolate end-all is pretty dangerous. Such arguments are generally used by ideologues who wish to impose their views on others with a spurious appeal to authority. Ever wonder why we have amendments?

 

[WheelsRCool]

The Constitution never addressed abortion, nor women's rights, nor the human rights of minorities. In fact, it is a rather sparse document that has been interpreted and reinterpreted over the years. The thought that the Constitution is the inviolate end-all is pretty dangerous. Such arguments are generally used by ideologues who wish to impose their views on others with a spurious appeal to authority. Ever wonder why we have amendments?

Adherence to the Constitution means you interpret it as written, all amendments included. There is nothing dangerous or ideological about it. What is dangerous and ideological is not adhering to the Constitution and trying to essentially make law from the bench.

Yes, of course the Constitution is meant to change, just as you said, via formal amendment. Formal amendment requires 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the state legislatures.

If something is wrong with the Constitution, we get it changed via formal amendment. As I said before, if the Supreme Court had overturned slavery via judicial activism, whether or not blacks could be made into slaves again would reside with a few people on the Court instead of with the 13th Amendment.

As abortion stands, if you believe it is a right, then whether or not it could be overturned resides with the Court rather than with a formal amendment right now because Roe v. Wade was judicial activism. The Constitution doesn't directly address abortion, and as we've debated, whether abortion is a right is a huge issue. If there is a formal amendment ever created, saying a woman has a right to choose, you want Constructionists who will interpret the law as written, regardless of their personal views on the subject.

 

[LowlyPion]

We eat other animals for food, not "because we can."

No. They are food because we can kill them and eat them, and we do. I imagine our place on this planet would be significantly altered if we were the ones cultivated at the appetite of another species. To suggest otherwise ignores the reality of our position now.

It wouldn't be judicial activism if the Court ever overturned Roe v. Wade, it would be adherence to the Constitution.

Of course it would be Activism. It's established Law now. It will take an activist approach to not only modify existing Law, but to extend the reach of the Constitution in such a way as to justify adopting some faith based approach to the issue.

Protecting the many from the tyranny of the few and the few from the tyranny of the many is the overarching intent of the balance that the Constitution seeks to provide. I'd say codifying religious belief as Constitutional dogma would be an extraordinary step even for the Conservatives on this Court.

 

[WheelsRCool]

No. They are food because we can kill them and eat them, and we do. I imagine our place on this planet would be significantly altered if we were the ones cultivated at the appetite of another species. To suggest otherwise ignores the reality of our position now.

We need meat to eat, we are omnivores. Humans are not by nature vegans. If we were the ones cultivated as food for another species, that doesn't change anything, each life has to favor itself first. Humans like milk, but we get milk from cows, because cannot declare women as cows and create "woman farms" where women are for the purpose of milk.

Of course it would be Activism. It's established Law now.

It's not a formal amendment, it's a very flimsy law, and if another Supreme Court case on the issue ever occurred, if there were enough Constructionists on the Court, reading the law in the Constitution as written they could overturn it. Judicial activism is when you try to read the Constitution as one thinks it should be written instead of how it actually is.

It will take an activist approach to not only modify existing Law, but to extend the reach of the Constitution in such a way as to justify adopting some faith based approach to the issue.

Protecting the many from the tyranny of the few and the few from the tyranny of the many is the overarching intent of the balance that the Constitution seeks to provide. I'd say codifying religious belief as Constitutional dogma would be an extraordinary step even for the Conservatives on this Court.

It has nothing to do with religion, as I have already explained. However, even if it was determined it did, it doesn't matter. That's what formal amendment is for. Your statement about protecting the many from the tyranny of the few and the few from the tyranny of the many is why you don't want judicial activism.

One could also say the many people who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade have suffered at the tyranny of the decision of a few on the Court. BTW, if you are against what you see as judicial activism now, then why would you have been for it originally?

 

[LowlyPion]

Your statement about protecting the many from the tyranny of the few and the few from the tyranny of the many is why you don't want judicial activism.

The one has nothing to do with the other. The Court only acts as a check to the tyranny of the Laws against the people insofar as they would conform to the interpretation of the Constitution. Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board are neither one examples of activism so much as balancing the rights afforded by the 14th Amendment to the application of the Law.

 

[LowlyPion]

One could also say the many people who have been aborted since Roe v. Wade have suffered at the tyranny of the decision of a few on the Court.

Unfortunately to say that, one must make the leap that "persons" have in fact been aborted. According to the definition of viability used in Roe, no "persons" apparently have been aborted.

Again you seek to confuse the meanings of aggregated cells and individuals, an equivalency that only appears to be supported by Religious belief, not by the language considered by the Court.

Unfortunately this thread is not on the underpinnings of the Anti-abortion movement, but on Sotomayor, so I suggest that you consider returning to the topic, as I will.

 

[WheelsRCool]

Unfortunately to say that, one must make the leap that "persons" have in fact been aborted. According to the definition of viability used in Roe, no "persons" apparently have been aborted.

Yes, and it's a very arbitrary definition. One can easily also say that in order to justify abortion as a right, that one must make the leap that the life inside the womb is not a developing person.

Again you seek to confuse the meanings of aggregated cells and individuals, an equivalency that only appears to be supported by Religious belief, not by the language considered by the Court.

They are not "aggregated cells." If the heart is beating at 21 days and brain activity beginning at 40 days, those aren't "aggregated cells." It's a developing person. Just as a newborn baby is still a developing person, only by that point it no longer needs to remain in the womb. There is nothing religious about it. Now maybe BEFORE things like heart and brain it could be said it is just aggregated cells, but the Court didn't decide abortion is only okay within that time span.

Religion is more in play if one is flat-out against things like birth control as well, as the Catholic Church is.

Unfortunately this thread is not on the underpinnings of the Anti-abortion movement, but on Sotomayor, so I suggest that you consider returning to the topic, as I will.

Okay.

 

[LowlyPion]

It's a developing person.

It may become a person, but it is not one. That is still a faith based view that it possesses any particular sanctity prior to viability that the State may intrude to override a woman's choice to discontinue. It is not even viable to the point that it can be an individual until about 24 weeks, which is roughly about the 50% survival rate with some assistance point. (Hence the Roe v. Wade threshold.)

As to Sotomayor, it seems that only the obstructionist play book that the Republicans are attempting to cling to is her obstacle to taking her seat. I saw poor old Mitch McConnell tonight sad-sacking that they found 300 boxes of filings from 20 years ago that they now want more time to comb through. Their excuses are just pitiful. I suspect the country will become tired of their just saying NO all the time to everything as the Summer wears on.

I say good riddance to the Republicans running things into the ground. Bring on 2010 and let's sweep some more of these feet draggers out.

 

[drankin]

It may become a person, but it is not one. That is still a faith based view that it possesses any particular sanctity prior to viability that the State may intrude to override a woman's choice to discontinue. It is not even viable to the point that it can be an individual until about 24 weeks, which is roughly about the 50% survival rate with some assistance point. (Hence the Roe v. Wade threshold.)

As to Sotomayor, it seems that only the obstructionist play book that the Republicans are attempting to cling to is her obstacle to taking her seat. I saw poor old Mitch McConnell tonight sad-sacking that they found 300 boxes of filings from 20 years ago that they now want more time to comb through. Their excuses are just pitiful. I suspect the country will become tired of their just saying NO all the time to everything as the Summer wears on.

I say good riddance to the Republicans running things into the ground. Bring on 2010 and let's sweep some more of these feet draggers out.

An unborn BABY isn't a person? That's the contention. I can't buy it. Nothing to do with religion. It's a person in the most helpless and dependant condition one can be in. Developementally disabled, disadvantaged, and weak. Thrown in a waste basket.

But... back to the OP.

It's interesting that Sotomayor actually referred to herself as a affirmative action baby. And the Supreme Court kills affirmative action. Wow!

 

[WheelsRCool]

It may become a person, but it is not one.

Based on what though? That is more your opinion. How is a newborn baby a person but the embryo or fetus, in particular once heart and brain activity start up, not one?

That is still a faith based view that it possesses any particular sanctity prior to viability that the State may intrude to override a woman's choice to discontinue.

Nothing religious about it. Religion is when they say birth control is evil because it infringes on the egg, which is an EGG, with only 23 chromosomes. Or when they say for a man to masturbate is evil because he is "spilling his seed" (all those millions of sperm you "waste" each have 23 chromosomes, you sinner!"). That stuff is grounded in religion. A sperm is not a human, nor is an egg.

It is not even viable to the point that it can be an individual until about 24 weeks, which is roughly about the 50% survival rate with some assistance point. (Hence the Roe v. Wade threshold.)

But based on what? Brain and heart activity start a good deal before then.

As to Sotomayor, it seems that only the obstructionist play book that the Republicans are attempting to cling to is her obstacle to taking her seat. I saw poor old Mitch McConnell tonight sad-sacking that they found 300 boxes of filings from 20 years ago that they now want more time to comb through. Their excuses are just pitiful. I suspect the country will become tired of their just saying NO all the time to everything as the Summer wears on.

I say good riddance to the Republicans running things into the ground. Bring on 2010 and let's sweep some more of these feet draggers out.

Republicans didn't run things into the ground. What they did do that was bad was spend too much, which is what the Democrats seem bent on doing right now, only the level they want to spend will make the Republicans look puny by comparison. It is also completely unsustainable. This country has never, not once, done well under the Leftist policies we are seeing right now. Nor has any city, state, or other countries.

Leftist policies almost destroyed New York City. Now they have practically wrecked California, a state that taxes everything they can, with the highest taxes it can, that have incredibly restrictive regulations, are outright anti-business, where the unions, trial lawyers, and environmental lobbyists, etc...have a stranglehold...not to mention the state is the worl'd 7th largest economy. New York State is also going the way of California right now. I know, because I live here. They run commercials about how businesses are leaving the state, forcing taxes up higher, which leads to more businesses fleeing, thus creating a vicious cycle.

Also the public employees unions are so strong. Unlike a business, in which a union has to be careful because if the business dies, then so does the union, with government, unions can demand far more money and benefits, because the government can always increase taxes...that is until they run the state into the ground.

Michigan and Illinois, also Leftist states, are also in trouble.

Or one could look at the experiences of the European nations with leftism, where they refused to try to stimulate their economies when President Obama asked them to because they have experience with it creating inflation. Because their labor laws are so much more stringent and their regulations tougher, they have chronically high unemployment (in Germany in the good times it averages as high as 10%, that's considered a disaster here in America). Now in this recession, they are in almost depression-level conditions unemployment-wise.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with saying no to a huge "stimulus" that no one had time to read, that was too long to really read, when historically stimulus spending doesn't even work.

Nothing wrong with saying no to universal healthcare without serious debate on the subject.

Nothing wrong with saying no to some carbon cap-and-trade program that will infringe on freedoms and liberties and could tank the economy and hurt businesses (and then the Democrats will complain when those same businesses start shifting more jobs overseas), not to mention being grounded in a theory that is not even proven. It will also make some big corporations and individuals incredibly rich. It also is approximately 1,300 pages long, too long to read.

I mentioned California being a wreck. Well this new "cap-and-trade" bill will mandate California's housing standards for all communities nationwide. GREAT! Let's copy the state that is the shining example not to copy, only this time for the whole nation!

Oh and it also resulted in exactly what any conservative will tell you happens with such regulations. Barack Obama said he would make the government no longer one for the special interests. He apparently seems oblivious to the fact that the whole reason it is currently a government more of special interests is because of its excessive size already.

Because you see when you try to regulate the private sector more, the private sector seeks to regulate government more.

And this cap-and-trade bill is a primary example. Industry sent an ARMY of lobbyists up onto Capitol Hill to lobby for special freebies in the bill.

This bill is nothing but a huge power grab, correction an ENORMOUS power grab, by the Federal government.

So yes, Republicans should, quite loudly, give it a big fat "NO!" It just narrowly passed in the House, I am praying it the Senate will kill it.

You see, the problem is that the Democrats and the political Left are trying to say the Republicans will not embrace "change."

This is pure nonsense. Republicans are all for change. But the Left hijack the term, because they want to actually change the fundamental principles that this country was built on, that made it great. Republicans are all for change, but they are not for changing these actual principles. They got kicked out of office for violating some of those principles (whatever happened to limited government, for example? And morals? (all those scandals, Sanford being the latest)). The Left are trying to claim that the Right's clinging to these sacred principles is somehow refusing "change."

If they expect Republicans to be for wealth redistribution, which IS a form of socialism, no they are not. Modern Democrats, or Leftists, may not necessarily want to nationalize the MEANS of production, but they do want to nationalize the OUTCOMES of production.

If they expect Republicans to be for government being the solution for our healthcare problems, for our energy problems, for our educational system problems, when:

1) Government interference is one of the reasons all three of these industries have problems in the first place, and

2) Government has an outright awful record of ever doing anything even remotely well

then they are hitting the bong. It almost seems like a religion in some senses. The solution to fixing healthcare? More government. The solution to fixing education? More government. Energy? More government. Economy? More government.

One of the reasons Texas is the nation's leader in wind energy (yes, that evil Republican oil state, Texas, is the leader in wind energy), is because in 1999, then Governor George W. Bush deregulated the electric utilities sector.

Government most certainly has a role to play, but the focus needs to be on limited government, and of taking the government we have and making it into good government, not in adding more government.

If they expect Republicans to be for government acting as some parent for American society, they will not.

If they expect Republicans to support activism on the Supreme Court, they will not.

If they expect Republicans to support the various infringements on freedoms the Left want, they will not.

I mean, who want to dictate whether people can drive SUVs? The Left (California tried to ban SUVs outright some years ago).

Prevent people from living in a huge, "energy-guzzling" McMansion if they can afford it? The Left.

Prevent people from smoking? The Left.

Prevent people from owning guns? The Left.

Prevent people from eating fast food? The Left.

Control healthcare? The Left.

Control free-speech (hate speech laws)? The Left.

Control the media (Fairness Doctrine)? The Left.

You know in California, the government actually tried to make it where the state government could control your central air conditioning in your home? Where your air conditioning system would be hooked up so that the state could control your thermostat, so if they thought too much electricity was being used, they could actually turn up your thermostat.

Luckily enough hell broke loose that it was not passed.

About the only thing Republicans want to control perhaps is when the ultra-religious evangelicals come in wanting to control whether you can open up a porn shop somewhere or force school prayer or something, otherwise, true conservatives for the most part could care less what you do.

You want to smoke, fine. Drink, fine. Drive SUVs, fine. Drive a Prius, fine. Own guns, fine. Eat McDonald's all the time, fine. Live in a huge home, fine. Work yoru butt off and become wealthy, fine.

The Left, if they cannot directly control these things, they seek to tax and regulate them.

What will happen, if the Democrats in Congress right now and President Obama keep going at their rate, they will literally wreck the country. They'll do to the nation what they first did to NYC in the 1970s, which had to be bailed out by the state of New York and the Federal government, and now to California.

OR, they'll go more to the Right, and not do as much harm.

As for 2010, has it ever occurred to you just WHY they are trying to do all of this stuff so fast? Why not give it more time? Because they know that it is very risky stuff, and if they do not get it done, and fast, come 2010 enough Republicans may get in that it will not be passed.

If the stuff was truly good for America, they'd have no such worry.

As for Sotomayor, relax, she will get appointed. It will be a HUGE shock if she somehow isn't.

 

[drankin]

Based on what though? That is more your opinion. How is a newborn baby a person but the embryo or fetus, in particular once heart and brain activity start up, not one?



Nothing religious about it. Religion is when they say birth control is evil because it infringes on the egg, which is an EGG, with only 23 chromosomes. Or when they say for a man to masturbate is evil because he is "spilling his seed" (all those millions of sperm you "waste" each have 23 chromosomes, you sinner!"). That stuff is grounded in religion. A sperm is not a human, nor is an egg.



But based on what? Brain and heart activity start a good deal before then.



Republicans didn't run things into the ground. What they did do that was bad was spend too much, which is what the Democrats seem bent on doing right now, only the level they want to spend will make the Republicans look puny by comparison. It is also completely unsustainable. This country has never, not once, done well under the Leftist policies we are seeing right now. Nor has any city, state, or other countries.

Leftist policies almost destroyed New York City. Now they have practically wrecked California, a state that taxes everything they can, with the highest taxes it can, that have incredibly restrictive regulations, are outright anti-business, where the unions, trial lawyers, and environmental lobbyists, etc...have a stranglehold...not to mention the state is the worl'd 7th largest economy. New York State is also going the way of California right now. I know, because I live here. They run commercials about how businesses are leaving the state, forcing taxes up higher, which leads to more businesses fleeing, thus creating a vicious cycle.

Also the public employees unions are so strong. Unlike a business, in which a union has to be careful because if the business dies, then so does the union, with government, unions can demand far more money and benefits, because the government can always increase taxes...that is until they run the state into the ground.

Michigan and Illinois, also Leftist states, are also in trouble.

Or one could look at the experiences of the European nations with leftism, where they refused to try to stimulate their economies when President Obama asked them to because they have experience with it creating inflation. Because their labor laws are so much more stringent and their regulations tougher, they have chronically high unemployment (in Germany in the good times it averages as high as 10%, that's considered a disaster here in America). Now in this recession, they are in almost depression-level conditions unemployment-wise.

BTW, there is nothing wrong with saying no to a huge "stimulus" that no one had time to read, that was too long to really read, when historically stimulus spending doesn't even work.

Nothing wrong with saying no to universal healthcare without serious debate on the subject.

Nothing wrong with saying no to some carbon cap-and-trade program that will infringe on freedoms and liberties and could tank the economy and hurt businesses (and then the Democrats will complain when those same businesses start shifting more jobs overseas), not to mention being grounded in a theory that is not even proven. It will also make some big corporationa and individuals incredibly rich.

I mentioned California being a wreck. Well this new "cap-and-trade" bill will mandate California's housing standards for all communities nationwide. GREAT! Let's copy the state that is the shining example not to copy, only this time for the whole nation!

Oh and it also resulted in exactly what any conservative will tell you happens with such regulations. Barack Obama said he would make the government no longer one for the special interests. He apparently seems oblivious to the fact that the whole reason it is currently a government more of special interests is because of its excessive size already.

Because you see when you try to regulate the private sector more, the private sector seeks to regulate government more.

And this cap-and-trade bill is a primary example. Industry sent an ARMY of lobbyists up onto Capitol Hill to lobby for special freebies in the bill.

This bill is nothing but a huge power grab, correction an ENORMOUS power grab, by the Federal government.

So yes, Republicans should, quite loudly, give it a big fat "NO!" It just narrowly passed in the House, I am praying it the Senate will kill it.

You see, the problem is that the Democrats and the political Left are trying to say the Republicans will not embrace "change."

This is pure nonsense. Republicans are all for change. But the Left hijack the term, because they want to actually change the fundamental principles that this country was built on, that made it great. Republicans are all for change, but they are not for changing these actual principles. They got kicked out of office for violating some of those principles (whatever happened to limited government, for example? And morals? (all those scandals, Sanford being the latest)). The Left are trying to claim that the Right's clinging to these sacred principles is somehow refusing "change."

If they expect Republicans to be for wealth redistribution, which IS a form of socialism, no they are not. Modern Democrats, or Leftists, may not necessarily want to nationalize the MEANS of production, but they do want to nationalize the OUTCOMES of production.

If they expect Republicans to be for government being the solution for our healthcare problems, for our energy problems, for our educational system problems, when:

1) Government interference is one of the reasons all three of these industries have problems in the first place, and

2) Government has an outright awful record of ever doing anything even remotely well

then they are hitting the bong. It almost seems like a religion in some senses. The solution to fixing healthcare? More government. The solution to fixing education? More government. Energy? More government. Economy? More government.

One of the reasons Texas is the nation's leader in wind energy (yes, that evil Republican oil state, Texas, is the leader in wind energy), is because in 1999, then Governor George W. Bush deregulated the electric utilities sector.

Government most certainly has a role to play, but the focus needs to be on limited government, and of taking the government we have and making it into good government, not in adding more government.

If they expect Republicans to be for government acting as some parent for American society, they will not.

If they expect Republicans to support activism on the Supreme Court, they will not.

If they expect Republicans to support the various infringements on freedoms the Left want, they will not.

I mean, who want to dictate whether people can drive SUVs? The Left (California tried to ban SUVs outright some years ago).

Prevent people from living in a huge, "energy-guzzling" McMansion if they can afford it? The Left.

Prevent people from smoking? The Left.

Prevent people from owning guns? The Left.

Prevent people from eating fast food? The Left.

Control healthcare? The Left.

Control free-speech (hate speech laws)? The Left.

Control the media (Fairness Doctrine)? The Left.

You know in California, the government actually tried to make it where the state government could control your central air conditioning in your home? Where your air conditioning system would be hooked up so that the state could control your thermostat, so if they thought too much electricity was being used, they could actually turn up your thermostat.

Luckily enough hell broke loose that it was not passed.

About the only thing Republicans want to control perhaps is when the ultra-religious evangelicals come in wanting to control whether you can open up a porn shop somewhere or force school prayer or something, otherwise, true conservatives for the most part could care less what you do.

You want to smoke, fine. Drink, fine. Drive SUVs, fine. Drive a Prius, fine. Own guns, fine. Eat McDonald's all the time, fine. Live in a huge home, fine. Work yoru butt off and become wealthy, fine.

The Left, if they cannot directly control these things, they seek to tax and regulate them.

What will happen, if the Democrats in Congress right now and President Obama keep going at their rate, they will literally wreck the country. They'll do to the nation what they first did to NYC in the 1970s, which had to be bailed out by the state of New York and the Federal government, and now to California.

OR, they'll go more to the Right, and not do as much harm.

As for 2010, has it ever occurred to you just WHY they are trying to do all of this stuff so fast? Why not give it more time? Because they know that it is very risky stuff, and if they do not get it done, and fast, come 2010 enough Republicans may get in that it will not be passed.

If the stuff was truly good for America, they'd have no such worry.

As for Sotomayor, relax, she will get appointed. It will be a HUGE shock if she somehow isn't.

Here is what happens now, your extremely well thought out and worded, completely practical and obvious (fantastic to be precise) response is going to be parsed out and responded to. Completely missing the forest for the trees. Making little points of contention here and there, demanding sources, blah freakin blah. This is completely true. It is like people do not understand the freedom and liberty they were born into. And so it dissolves in front of them without notice.