Posts Tagged ‘justice’

Why Liberals Are Quintessential Hypocrites As Illustrated In Three Recent Stories

August 25, 2014

Okay.  You’d probably better sit down for this because I’ve got a newsflash: liberals are suing to get their way [GASP]:

Federal judge rules California death penalty is unconstitutional
By Maura Dolan
A federal judge has ruled California’s death penalty unconstitutional
Long delays in California executions violate Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment, judge rules
July 16, 2014

A federal judge in Orange County ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty violates the U.S. Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney, ruled on a petition by death row inmate Ernest Dewayne Jones, who was sentenced to die nearly two decades ago.

————

FOR THE RECORD

July 16, 1:16 p.m.: An earlier version of this post said U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney was a federal judge in Los Angeles. He is a federal judge in Orange County.

————

Carney said the state’s death penalty has created long delays and uncertainty for inmates, most of whom will never be executed.

He noted that more than 900 people have been sentenced to death in California since 1978 but only 13 have been executed.

“For the rest, the dysfunctional administration of California’s death penalty system has resulted, and will continue to result, in an inordinate and unpredictable period of delay preceding their actual execution,” Carney wrote.

Carney’s ruling can be appealed to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of  Appeals.

Carney, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, said the delays have created a “system in which arbitrary factors, rather than legitimate ones like the nature of the crime or the date of the death sentence, determine whether an individual will actually be executed,” Carney said.

In overturning Jones’ death sentence,  Carney noted that the inmate faced “complete uncertainty as to when, or even whether” he will be executed.

The “random few” who will be executed  “will have languished for so long on Death Row that their execution will serve no retributive or deterrent purpose and will be arbitrary,”  Carney said.

“No rational person,” Carney wrote, “can question that the execution of an individual carries with it the solemn obligation of the government to ensure that the punishment is not arbitrarily imposed and that it furthers the interests of society.”

Natasha Minsker, a director of the ACLU of Northern California, said Wednesday’s ruling marked the first time that a federal judge had found  the state’s current system unconstitutional. She said it was also “the first time any judge has ruled systemic delay creates an arbitrary system that serves no legitimate purpose and is therefore unconstitutional.”

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge in 1995 sentenced Jones to death for the 1992 rape and killing of Julia Miller, his girlfriend’s mother. Jones killed Miller 10 months after being paroled for a previous rape.

A spokesman for Atty. Gen. Kamala D. Harris said only that her office was reviewing the decision.

Okay, so let’s understand what the liberal judge said to this point: the death penalty is “unconstitutional.”  Why?  Because the delays in jumping through all the “due process” hoops took so long that it amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment.”

Okay, so – shocker alert here – liberals don’t like the death penalty so they love to rule that it is “unconstitutional.”  It doesn’t matter that the damn death penalty was being implemented before, during and after the Constitution was written.  It boils down to this: if liberals don’t like something, that thing is “unconstitutional,” because the “Constitution” is a “living, breathing document” that only means whatever the hell a liberal wants it to mean at any given moment.  So the death penalty is “unconstitutional” for the same reason that being opposed to the MURDER of more than fifty-six million innocent babies is “unconstitutional” or being for marriage as it has been defined for all of human history up to now is “unconstitutional.”

But keep in mind that at the center of the liberal judges reasoning is that the lengthy delays in jumping through all the due process hurdles creates “cruel and unusual punishing.”  I mean, like if you could just snuff out these rabid dogs faster, it would be okay.

Okay, this will stun the hell out of you: liberals are suing on a different matter to get their way at the same moment they’re suing here.  Consider their reasoning for this lawsuit:

US sued by immigrant rights groups over expedited deportation process
Coalition says Obama administration policies to deal with influx at border is unfair to women and children who flee to safety
theguardian.com, Friday 22 August 2014 16.48 EDT

A coalition of immigrant rights groups have filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s expedited deportation process, claiming that it is unfair to women and children who flee Central America to seek safety in the US.

The groups claim the Obama administration’s new policies have created a “deportation mill” at a new government family detention center in Artesia, New Mexico.

“As the attorneys on the ground in Artesia have told us, the government is implementing a new expedited removal system which presents procedural obstacles that make it incredibly difficult for these women to even articulate their claim,” said Trina Realmuto, staff attorney at the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.

The National Immigration Project, American Immigration Council, ACLU and National Immigration Law Center filed the suit, MSPC v Johnson, in the US district court for the District of Columbia on Friday. They claim the Obama administration’s policies are unfair and violate the Immigration and Nationality Act and US constitution.

Advocates say women in these facilities do not receive proper counsel or time to file asylum claims, which are known for taking time to process.

[…]

Okay, so liberals – who rabidly hate the death penalty because deep down they KNOW that they frankly deserve it so damn much themselves – claim that it’s “unconstitutional” because of the lengthy time to pursue all the due process hurdles.  I mean, it’s “cruel and unusual” to make somebody go through that many appeals (that liberals themselves turned into a farce that drags on for years and years).  But at the same time, since they are open-borders loons who want to overwhelm and “fundamentally transform” the United States of America using the votes of illegal immigrants to do it, they claim the very opposite thing with immigration.  “It’s taking too long to execute criminals so the death penalty is bad” becomes “it’s not taking long enough to process tens – soon to be hundreds – of thousands of illegal immigrants.

In other words, liberals will literally sue you for zigging and they’ll sue you for sagging.  You can’t win with these hypocrite demoniacs.

Liberalism is circular reasoning that begins with, “I want x” or “I don’t want y” and then plays whatever rhetorical games are needed with the law to get what it wants.

They are not decent people who are driven by any code of ethics.  The ends justify the means for them every bit as much as it did for the Nazis or for the Stalinists.  And they will twist and pervert the system any way that is needed to force it to give them what they want.  Or else they’ll violently riot.  Because in their hearts they are FASCISTS.

We’re seeing it play out in Ferguson, Missouri as we speak: liberals aren’t interested in “justice” or “fairness.”  They want what they want and damn whatever laws or regulations or Constitution that gets in their wicked way.  So the Democrat governor calls for “aggressive prosecution” of a police officer even before a grand jury determines that there should even BE a prosecution:

Missouri governor way out of line
He has made a powder keg situation worse
Posted: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 10:00 pm

The governor of Missouri has become a textbook example of what a politician should not do or say during a crisis that is a racially-explosive powder keg just waiting for the fuse to be lit.

And really that’s being very kind to Jay Nixon. His words in an address on Tuesday night to Missouri residents — and therefore in this case the nation — were incredibly biased and spoken with an almighty know-it-all tone. Those words were outrageous.

Ferguson, Mo., is that powder keg because of the shooting of a young black man by a six-year veteran police officer on Aug. 9.

No one — absolutely no one — at this point can definitively say what happened leading up to the confrontation between 18-year-old Michael Brown, who is black, and officer Darren Wilson, who is white, nor can anyone relate accurately what transpired in the tragic couple minutes of the incident that claimed Brown’s life.

That’s the job of those investigating the situation, including a grand jury that convened on Wednesday.

Nixon on Tuesday night said “a vigorous prosecution must now be pursued” in the case.

That’s not even subtle. He clearly said that there needs to be an aggressive prosecution of Wilson.

Only problem right now, governor, he hasn’t been charged with anything in the case and his side of the story hasn’t even been officially heard yet.

However, the governor of Missouri has charged the police officer with his words and given marching orders to prosecutors to go after him in court with every legal weapon in their arsenal.

The loss of Brown’s life in Ferguson is simply sad and dreadful. But in the name of justice let the process run its course to a conclusion wherever it goes.

As for the governor — what an horrendous abuse of his power

Democrats are people who side with vicious thugs who grab and intimidate business owners and commit strong arm robbery before striding down the middle of the street and punching cops in the face who get in their damn way.

And to quote Eric Holders Department of Injustice, “Never bring a lawsuit against a black.”  It doesn’t matter what “justice” is.  Justice is a totalitarian witch who is only “blind” because rabid hatred and contempt for everything that stands in the way of dictatorial liberalism MAKES her blind.  And bitter and wanting to burn and loot as well.  But don’t you EVER bring a lawsuit against a black in Eric Holder’s Department of Injustice.

The left wants the prosecutor in the Ferguson, Missouri case – whose been in office for 20 years and who was just re-elected only DAYS before the shooting – thrown off the case.  Because they want to jury-rig the outcome and get what they want.  THAT’S “justice” to the left: we get what we want and we destroy all obstacles in the way of getting what we want.  Or else we riot.

They’re claiming that since St. Louis County Prosecutor Bob McCulloch’s father was gunned down by a black man that he’s biased.

Well, I’ll agree that if the prosecutor had said stuff like, “This is personal to me,” or else if he’d said “I’m here for the police,” or if he’d vowed to protect white people, etc., etc., he should be tossed.

But do you know who DID say crap like that coming from the opposite direction?  Obama’s lawthug Eric Holder.

Oh, yes, this matter is “deeply personal” to Eric Holder.  So let’s throw objectivity out the door and let our biases soar:

[…]

Of Holder’s arrival, USA Today writer Kevin Johnson observes that for the AG the situation in Ferguson is “deeply personal.” Johnson quotes as having told Ferguson residents at a community meeting yesterday:

I am the Attorney General of the United States, but I am also a black man. I can remember being stopped on the New Jersey turnpike on two occasions and accused of speeding. Pulled over. … ‘Let me search your car’ … Go through the trunk of my car, look under the seats and all this kind of stuff. I remember how humiliating that was and how angry I was and the impact it had on me.

This of course is nothing new for Holder, who has made race an issue throughout his tenure as the nation’s top cop. As Jeff Dunetz reminds us, Holder has allowed his own skin color to interfere with his judgment as head of the Department of Justice, so why should his handling of the Freguson investigation proceed any differently?

Johnson has another quote by Holder, made to a group of community leaders assembled at a local community college. (As an aside, the AG certainly did a lot of speechifying on his first day in town). He said:

The eyes of the nation and the world are watching Ferguson right now. The world is watching because the issues raised by the shooting of Michael Brown predate this incident. This is something that has a history to it, and the history simmers beneath the surface in more communities than just Ferguson.

Holder is assuming, like the mobs pillaging the town nightly, that racism is involved here. That is not just premature and reckless. It is blatantly outside the scope of the law. It is reminiscent of the very revealing comment about “empathy” made in 2007 by candidate Barack Obama, who said

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old — and that’s the criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges. [Emphasis added]

Empathy and compassion are positive traits. But they have no business in a court of law. Judges are supposed to be interpreters of the law and are sworn to render verdicts dispassionately, based on evidence and testimony. That is why justice as wearing a blindfold.
Read more at http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/08/21/holder-personal-thats-problem/#hHJ1v68WGF2fbIQw.99

Imagine the hellstorm had Bob McColloch said the racial equivalent: “I am the Prosecutor of St. Louis County, but I am also a white man.  I can remember when my daddy was murdered by a black thug…”

The NAACP is in this racial stew up to its neck.  Just imagine if “NAACP” stood for “National Association for the Advancement of Caucasian People.”

Just imagine if our society were actually FAIR and blacks got back the racial bullcrap they’ve been pissing at the rest of America for a change.

I can’t say for sure, but I’ve got a feeling that the black community would very quickly be willing to return to Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” vision.  You know, the one where we’re all equal and nobody gets to be treated any different than anybody else rather than the one we’ve got where blacks get to be as racist as hell is hot while denying they’re capable of racism because they’ve got the most arbitrary and self-serving definition of “racism” in the entire space-time universe.

Eric Holder says he is “here for the community.”  By which he really means the vicious mob that’s been rioting and looting and burning.  He spent HOURS with the Brown family and with the same community rabble-rousers that his boss Obama came from.  But not one nanosecond with the cop who was viciously punched in the face before he was forced to go through a life-or-death struggle for his service weapon while he laid on his back in his own squad car with a giant thug on top of him.

Just imagine how you would feel if you were in a courtroom literally fighting for your life and the judge walked over and hugged your opponent just before taking the bench and calling the court to order.  That’s what’s going on here.

So the same left that demands McCulloch resign, recuse himself, be dismissed, whatever because of the threat of bias LOVES bias.  As long as that rabid bias is distorting legal reality to suit their race agenda.

So if the left can’t get McCulloch forced out, what’s their next move?  Delegitimize the grand jury in advance and threaten to riot if they don’t get their way.

A Democrat State Senator put her call for a race riot in the form of a “prediction”:

“If you should decide not to indict this police officer, the rioting witnessed this past week will seem like a picnic compared to the havoc that will likely occur.”

Well, I mean, yeah, given the fact that you and your race-baiting pal Al Sharpton are going to go out and foment racial violence the way you do whenever you don’t get your way.

I want you to understand what’s going on here: one side – the conservatives – want a government that will basically leave them the hell alone.  They want a LIMITED federal government.  They want a federal government bound by the separation of powers.  They want laissez-faire free market capitalism, rather than liberal crony capitalist regulations that benefit one politically-chosen side and punish the other.  They want individual liberty and individual personal responsibility.  The other side wants more and more and more government.  They want a president who is “sort of God” who will run roughshod over the Constitution to impose his way by raw force.

One side wants life; the other side wants more abortion-murders than were killed on all sides, civilian and military, in the bloodiest war in all of human history combined.  One side wants marriage as all of human history has defined it; the other side wants the perversion of homosexual sodomy.  One side wants individual liberty and individual personal responsibility; the other side wants a totalitarian nanny-state that will redistribute the wealth the way they want to reward their friends and punish their enemies.  One side wants freedom according to the spirit that our founding fathers created America to be; the other side wants totalitarian government slavery in the mode of European socialist leaders like Hitler and Stalin.  And that side that wants all these evil things will break any law, violate any regulation, interfere with justice in any way, to GET their way.

The only way to have a fair fight here is if BOTH sides were out to use the raw power of government and the courts to get their way to crush and to rule over the other.  But only the rabid left is doing that.

Which is why America is doomed and which is why the Antichrist is coming just as the Bible told us the ultimate big-government totalitarian dictator would come.

Just realize that we are dealing with an ideology in the left that defines “justice” as “we get our way no matter what” and “injustice” as if we don’t get our way we’re going to start rioting.”

 

If Conservatives Were Like Liberals, They Would Riot, Burn And Loot In Every City Until The IRS Thug-in-Chief Nixon-Waved And Resigned

August 19, 2014

I was watching the news as I rode my exercise bike/hamster wheel and heard a “journalist” on CNN lecture the space-time universe that in spite of the fact that blacks were violently rioting, looting, burning, throwing Molotov cocktails, etc., etc., etc., there was no “racial pathology” involved and to think otherwise was itself “racist.”  After all, there have been other riots.  And he proceeded to cite riots that were caused … by liberals in every single case.  I mean, we’ve got our violent World Trade Organization protestors (liberals); we’ve got our violent Occupy Movement protestors (liberals); we’ve got our violent union thug protestors (liberals); we’ve got our violent May Day protestors (liberals).  And of course we can go back to the violent gay riots in Stonewall or violent black riots in Watts.  Liberals, all.  Always liberals.

Watts – excuse me, I meant what – we DON’T have is conservatives rioting in Republican cities.  Never, ever, ever.  Nope.

It’s liberals who riot, because it is liberals who are pathologically – to cite that CNN commentator’s term – vicious, violent fascist goon-thugs.

I watched a brilliant Wall Street Journal editorialist take apart Obama’s “neutral” stance on Ferguson (as in no “If I had a son, he’d be just like that strong arm robbery thug, Michael Brown”) by pointing out that in addition to Obama being wrong about his application of moral equivalence, he was even MORE wrong about his diagnosis of the problem being discrimination and poverty in black communities.  The Wall Street Journal editorialist pointed out the inconvenient truth for the left that the black crime rate was far, FAR lower in 1960 before the Great Society, the New Deal or the Civil Rights era.

Who is lying?  Is Obama lying now when he claims that the skyrocketing black crime rate is due to discrimination and poverty, or is it that Democrats have been demonically lying for going on fifty years as they claimed they were making things better for blacks when in reality they were creating even MORE discrimination and poverty for blacks and other minorities???

So either in fact black rioting and violence DOES have a “racial pathology,” or its not the color of their skin that is at issue, but rather the color of their communist red liberal ideology that is pathologically violent.

I actually agree with that CNN commentator: it’s not because they’re black that they’re vicious and evil; it’s because they’re liberals that they’re vicious and evil.  All liberals are fascists who want to impose their fascist totalitarian government on people who don’t want it.  That’s the problem.

So, here’s the deal.  They say they want “justice” in Ferguson, Missouri, do they?  Well, damn, so do I.  I want JUSTICE in Obama’s use of the IRS as his own personal “Internal Revenge Service” against conservatives.

Somebody might say, “Well, you don’t have proof that Obama did anything wrong.”  Well, other than the fact that we’ve got 500 times more proof than the protestors in Ferguson have.  After all, we’ve got 500 conservative organizations that were singled out versus one black punk who was shot.  And we’ve got every bit as much if not MORE proof that Obama was the one who wanted “anti-Obama rhetoric” officially attacked by the IRS than they’ve got proof that that cop did anything criminal.

I want JUSTICE.  I want a damn special prosecutor.  No way Obama’s lawthug Eric Holder “investigates” this fairly, given what we’ve already seen as most of the organizations that were victimized and had their civil rights flagrantly violated by Obama’s criminal IRS were even INTERVIEWED.

Michael Brown’s family defines “justice” as the police officer arrested, prosecuted and convicted.  Okay.  That’s what justice looks like: Barack Obama arrested, convicted and prosecuted.  Nothing short of that is anything close to “justice.”

If conservatives were like liberals, we’d have been violently rioting and burning and looting in every damn city in America until Obama did his Nixon wave and resigned from office like the disgrace he is.  And they would keep tearing America apart and burning the rest until Obama was behind bars.

But the fact remains that we’re not like liberals.  We’re not fascist.  We want justice but we rely on our words and our reason.  Which of course the brainwashed left – hat tip to truthunites – is pathologically incapable of responding to.

All we have is violence and thuggery against the Thug-in-Chief and his criminal co-conspirator Eric Holder.

Here’s another great recent example: Governor Rick Perry got criminally indicted by THE most liberal county in Texas and one of the most flagrantly liberal counties in America.  Why did they do it?  Because they could.  They already illegitimately nailed one Republican – Tom DeLay – and destroyed his career without anything more than rabid liberal hate.

But do Republicans have the right to do the same thing?  Nope.  If they impeach Obama – even thought they have EXCELLENT constitutional grounds to impeach that fascist – there will be hell to pay.  Which is why Republicans wouldn’t DARE do what Democrats are doing as we damn well speak.  So we sit back aghast and appalled as Democrats seek to take down by nothing more than their rabidness one of our front runners for president in 2016.

I’ve made this point before: we aren’t like the left, which is why we’re losing.  The left employs violence and cheating and every nasty, vile tactic there is to ensure that they win and we lose so they get to pick the winners and losers.  If conservatives lose elections, we get regulated and taxed and criminally prosecuted by liberal union thugs using the power of government as a punitive instrument; if liberals lose elections, they get left alone by a smaller, more limited government.  So the way things are framed, either they win or we lose.  Meanwhile, the right is sadly not all that “right” anymore.  It’s like what was said of the so-called Moral Majority movement in the 1980s: we are neither moral, nor a majority.  If we were truly powerfully righteous, it would be one thing.  But we are sadly much more like the Laodicean Church from Revelation chapter 3 than we are like anything else.  So instead of being inflamed for righteousness – as we should be – or inflamed for wickedness – as the left is and has been – we could fight.  But as it is, all we do is hunker down while the left keeps agitating toward the day when they get their beloved Anitchrist to take total government power as they have been dreaming of for sixty years now.

So if you’re a conservative, I know where I WON’T be seeing you.  At the next riot.

As I close, I can’t not cite the following fact: Russia, China and Iran are pointing fingers at America and lecturing us for our criminality and our human rights violations.  And you know who agrees completely with our worst enemies?  Liberals, that’s who.

We keep hearing from the news media that is terrified of being labeled as “racist” that it’s only a “few” bad people “from out of town” who are coming in.  Don’t blame the residents of Ferguson.  Don’t blame black people for what we CLEARLY see BLACK PEOPLE doing.  That’s bullcrap.  Let me tell you something that is simply a fact: if there weren’t those thousands of people out there night after night, the so-called “few outsiders” wouldn’t be there burning and looting.  If those mobs of people weren’t out there at night, the police would easily be able to get control of the situation and crack down on the so-called “few” who are doing all the rioting.  Which is why every single person who is out there is participating in the violence and rioting and looting.  Because it’s only happening because YOU’RE there to give the rioters and looters the distraction and the cover that they need.

Update: we are now getting in the actual facts of what happened to Officer Darren Wilson before the fatal shooting.  In short, Michael Brown assaulted him, punched him hard in the face, and there was a struggle for the officer’s gun.  Officer Wilson fired at Brown and Brown began to run away, but then bum-rushed the officer who – already dazed and beaten from the beating he had just endured – fired and kept firing until Brown was down.

Now, if conservatives were like liberals, we wouldn’t CARE about any evidence that proved Barack Obama wasn’t guilty in the criminal conspiracy to use the IRS to target hundreds of conservatives and violate our civil rights.  Nope.  We would be driven – like the left in Ferguson – entirely by our hatred, our bitterness and our viciousness.  And we would continue to demand “justice,” which means we would continue to demand Obama’s head.  Whether he was actually guilty or not.

 

Redistributing Wealth: Why Not Just Be Consistent And ‘Redistribute’ Beauty And Justice, Too?

March 31, 2010

Max Baucus gave us yet another remark from a Democrat acknowledging the REAL purpose of ObamaCare:

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the maldistribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”

Well, that and “to control the people.”  And to inevitably lead us into a fully socialist single payer system, or course.

Here’s Baucus on Youtube explaining the need to use Obamacare to redistribute wealth:

We can go back to Obama himself, of course, and hear him talking about “spreading the wealth” to Joe the Plumber.

Redistribution of wealth wants to “spread out” equality, such that we’re all  level.

But we’re NOT all level.  Some people are smarter than other people.  Some people are bigger and stronger and faster than others.  Some people are more creative than others.  Some people have a higher work ethic or ethics in general ethic than others.  Some people work harder than others.  And darn it, some people are just better looking than others.

And since we’re not all level, we see wildly disparate economic results.  When liberals try to “level the playing field” and “spread the wealth around” and “address the maldistribution of wealth,” what they are doing is not merely ignoring fundamental economic realities, but fundamental human realities.

If they’re going to “level the playing field,” they should be consistent, and apply their philosophy across the board.

Even when you get aside from the blameworthiness of the poor (i.e., never bothering to get off one’s butt to look for a job; or never working hard enough or showing responsibility enough to advance to the next level), you’ve still got some issues with wealth redistribution.  For instance, is it “fair” that some people are far more physically attractive than others?  Those pretty people get all the opportunities; whereas, non-pretty people, through no fault of their own, must struggle.  We should redistribute beauty!!!  We should be carving up the pretty people and giving some of their beautiful features to the non-pretty people!!!

I mean, why feel sorry for somebody who never bothered to apply himself or herself?  Who never bothered to work hard, or pursue training/schooling, or made smart choices?  It would seem that that short, fat, butt-ugly guy with the unfortunate flatulence should be the one who merits our sympathy, if anyone does.

Here’s another nice take on the idea of redistributing beauty (I wanted to see if redistributing beauty was my brainchild, and darn it, but it wasn’t!).

That’s the SAME idiotic reasoning that is used to justify wealth redistribution.

We could also move to re-distributing justice.

Let’s take it on the liberal’s argument.  It’s not that black inner-city gang banging kid’s fault that he’s a violent criminal; it’s society’s fault.  That poor kid is a victim.  That poor kid didn’t get the economic opportunities that others did.  He didn’t have a safe home environment.  He didn’t have good public schools.  He was surrounded by poverty and the grinding consequences of poverty, and he was literally conditioned into his life of crime.  So let’s take the punishment that falls on that kid for his crime and redistribute it, spread it out, and make it “fair.”  It seems to me that if that inner city gang-banger murders some innocent kid in a drive-by shooting, Al Gore should go to jail.  Maybe Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi, and we can “spread the justice” between the two of them.

I mean, that poor guy doesn’t have any freedom (metaphor for wealth).  He’s facing life.  And there are all sorts of people outside the penitentiary who have all sorts of freedom.  So we can help that guy out by grabbing you and taxing some of your freedom so we can redistribute it to the convict.

If that welfare queen shouldn’t be held responsible for her “inability” to get off her butt and work, why should the gang-banger be held responsible for his “inability” to live an ethical life?

You know what the liberal will say: “Well, that welfare queen isn’t hurting anybody.”

But she damn sure is: she’s hurting me.  She’s hurting my kids.  Because some jerk keeps seizing my wealth and the wealth I want to leave for my children and giving it to that welfare queen.  She sure IS hurting other people with her laziness and indolence.  And in point of fact the only way she’s NOT going to hurt other people is if liberals stop taking other peoples’ money and redistributing it to her.

Burton Folsom, Jr. points out how this mindset was anathema to America until FDR came along:

Throughout American history, right from the start, charity had been a state and local function.  Civic leaders, local clergy, and private citizens, evaluated the legitimacy of people’s need in their communities or counties; churches and other organizations could then provide food, shelter, and clothing to help victims of fires or women abandoned by drunken husbands.  Most Americans beleived that the face-to-face encounters of givers and receivers of charity benefited both groups.  It created just the right amount of uplift and relief, and discouraged laziness and a poor work ethic.

The Founders saw all relief as local and voluntary, and the Constitution gave no federal role for the government in providing charity.  James Madison, in defending the Constitution, observed, “No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”  In other words, if relief, and other areas, were made functions of the federal government, the process would become politicized and politicians and deadbeats could conspire to trade votes for food” (New Deal or Raw Deal, page 76-77).

The way it used to be is the way it ought to be again.

Folsom goes on to document how A) administrations and courts had throughout history repeatedly ruled “welfare” programs unconstitutional until the New Deal and B) how they did in fact become a political boondoggle during the New Deal.  And that has been the growing trend ever since.

Benjamin Franklin put it this way: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Samuel Adams said:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”

Franklin also said:

“Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. … Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.”

These three statements, when combined together, mean: 1) Those who don’t pay their own way are a disgrace to themselves and a disgrace to their countrymen; 2) If you ARE forced to pay your own way in life, you will ultimately be the better for it, both in your provision and in your character; and 3) If we continue on the social welfare spending track we’re on, we will destroy our nation.

Liberals yearn to be more like Europe, just as they always have.  Thomas Jefferson said, “With all the defects in our Constitution, whether general or particular, the comparison of our government with those of Europe, is like a comparison of Heaven with Hell.”  And that is every bit as true today as it was when Jefferson said it.

FDR waged a war on poverty that has been going on for 77 years.  Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty anew in 1964.  And poverty has been kicking our asses ever since.  We’re no better off than we were before; in fact, we’re worse off.

What has the war on poverty got us?  As much poverty as ever, and a debt of ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY THREE TRILLION DOLLARS (just add our total US debt with our debt in unfunded liabilities).

There’s that Dr. Phil question: “How’s federal government war on poverty working for you?

Frankly, if we had been “redistributing” pieces out of Brad Pitt’s and Angelina Jolie’s faces to give to the less beautiful, or if we’d been “redistributing” justice by taking freedom from Al Gore or Hillary Clinton to give more freedom to convicts, it would have been morally idiotic.  Still, if we’d done those things instead of redistributing wealth, it would have saved us a few million tons of money.

Jeff Sessions’ Remarks In Sotomayor Confirmation Hearing

July 13, 2009

Transcript: Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.)
Opening Statement

Monday July 13, 2009

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership.

And I believe you set up some rules for the conducting of this hearing that are consistent with past hearings, and I believe will allow us to do our work together. And I’ve enjoyed working with you on this process.

I hope this will be viewed as the best hearing this committee has ever had. Why not? We should seek that.

So, I join Chairman Leahy, Judge Sotomayor, in welcoming you here today. And it marks an important milestone in your life. I know your family is proud, and rightly so, and it’s a pleasure to have them with us today.

I expect this hearing and resulting debate will be characterized by a respectful tone, a discussion of serious issues, a thoughtful dialogue and maybe some disagreements. But we worked hard to do that, to set that tone from the beginning.

I’ve been an active litigator in federal courts. I’ve tried cases as a federal prosecutor and as attorney general of Alabama. The Constitution and our great heritage of law I care deeply about. They are the foundation of our liberty and our prosperity.

And this nomination is critical for two important reasons. First, justices on the Supreme Court have great responsibility, hold enormous power and have a lifetime appointment. Just five members can declare the meaning of our Constitution, bending or changing its meaning from what the people intended.

Second, this hearing is important, because I believe our legal system is at a dangerous crossroads. Down one path is the traditional American system, so admired around the world, where judges impartially apply the law to the facts without regard to personal views. This is the compassionate system, because it’s the fair system.

In the American legal system, courts do not make law or set policy, because allowing unelected officials to make law would strike at the heart of our democracy.

Here, judges take an oath to administer justice impartially. That oath reads, “I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and to equal right to the rich and the poor, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States, so help me God.”

These principles give the traditional system its moral authority, which is why Americans respect and accept the ruling of courts, even when they disagree. Indeed, our legal system is based on a firm belief in an ordered universe and objective truth. The trial is a process by which the impartial and wise judge guides us to truth.

Down the other path lies a brave new world, where words have no true meaning, and judges are free to decide what facts they choose to see. In this world, a judge is free to push his or her own political or social agenda.

I reject that view, and Americans reject that view.

We have seen federal judges force their political and social agenda on the nation, dictating that the words “under God” be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance and barring students from even private, even silent prayer in schools.

Judges have dismissed the people’s right to their property, saying the government can take a person’s home for the purpose of developing a private shopping center.

Judges have, contrary to longstanding rules of war, created a right for terrorists captured on a foreign battlefield to sue the United States government in our own country.

Judges have cited foreign laws, world opinion and a United Nations resolution to determine that a state death penalty law was unconstitutional.

I’m afraid our system will only be further corrupted, I have to say, as a result of President Obama’s view that in tough cases the critical ingredient for a judge is, quote, “the depth and breadth of one’s empathy,” close quote, as well as his words, quote, “their broader vision of what America should be.”

Like the American people, I have watched this process for a number of years, and I fear that this thinking empathy standard is another step down the road to a liberal, activist, results-oriented, relativistic world, where laws lose their fixed meaning, unelected judges set policy, Americans are seen as members of separate groups rather than as simply Americans, where the constitutional limits on government power are ignored when politicians want to buy out private companies.

I feel we’ve reached a fork in the road, I think, and there are stark differences. I want to be clear. I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality toward every person who appears before them.

And I will not vote for, and no senator should vote for, an individual nominated by any president who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their personal background, gender, prejudices or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of or against parties before the court.

In my view such a philosophy is disqualified. Such an approach to judging means that the umpire calling the game is not neutral, but instead feels empowered to favor one team over another. Call it empathy, call it prejudice, or call it sympathy, but whatever it is, it’s not law. In truth it’s more akin to politics, and politics has no place in the courtroom.

Some will respond Judge Sotomayor would never say it’s never acceptable for a judge to display prejudice in that case, but I regret to say, Judge, that some of your statements that I’ll outline seem to say that clearly. Let’s look at just a few examples. We’ve seen the video of a Duke University panel, where Judge Sotomayor says, “It’s the Court of Appeals where policy is made, and I know, I know that this is on tape, and I should never say that and should not think that.”

And during a speech 15 years ago, Judge Sotomayor said, quote, “I willingly accept the way the judge must not deny the difference resulting from experience and heritage, but attempt continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate,” close quote.

And in that same speech she said, quote, “My experiences will affect the facts I choose to seek.” Having tried a lot of cases, that particular phrase bothers me. I expect every judge to seek all the facts.

So I think it’s noteworthy that when asked about Judge Sotomayor’s now famous statement that a wise Latina would come to a better conclusion than others, President Obama, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs and Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg declined to defend the substance of those remarks.

They each assume the nominee misspoke. But I don’t think it — but the nominee did not misspeak. She is on record as making this statement at least five times over the course of a decade. I am providing a copy of the full text of those speeches for the record.

Others will say that despite these statements, we should look to a nominee’s record, which they characterize as moderate. People said the same of Justice Ginsburg, who is now considered to be one of the most activist members of the Supreme Court in history.

Some senators ignored Justice Ginsburg’s philosophy and focused on the nominee’s judicial opinions. But that is not a good test, because those cases where necessarily restrained by precedent and the threat of reversal from higher courts. On the Supreme Court, those checks on judicial power will be removed, and the judge’s philosophy will be allowed to reach full bloom.

But even as a lower court judge, our nominee has made some troubled rulings. I’m concerned by the Ricci, the New Haven firefighters case recently reversed by the Supreme Court, where she agreed with the city of New Haven’s decision to change the promotion rules in the middle of the game. Incredibly, her opinion consisted of just one substantive paragraph of analysis.

Justice Sotomayor has said she accepts that her opinions, sympathies and prejudices will affect her rulings. Could it be that her time as a leader in the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, a fine organization, provides a clue to her decision against the firefighters?

While the nominee was chair of that fund’s litigation committee, the organization aggressively pursued racial quotas in city hiring and in numerous cases fought to overturn the results of promotion exams. It seems to me that in Ricci, Judge Sotomayor’s empathy for one group of firefighters turned out to be prejudice against another.

That is, of course, the logical flaw in the empathy standard. Empathy for one party is always prejudice against another.

Judge Sotomayor, we will inquire into how your philosophy, which allows subjectivity in the courtroom, affects your decision-making, like, for example, in abortion, where an organization of which you were an active leader argued that the Constitution requires taxpayer money to fund abortions; and gun control, where you recently noted it is settled law that the Second Amendment does not prevent a city or state from barring gun ownership; private property, where you ruled recently that the government could take property from one pharmacy developer and give it to another; capital punishment, where you personally signed a statement opposing the reinstatement of the death penalty in New York because of the inhuman psychological burden it places on the offender and the family.

So I hope the American people will follow these hearings closely. They should learn about the issues and listen to both sides of the argument and — and at the end of the hearing ask, if I must one day go to court, what kind of judge what I wish to hear my case? Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political or religious views to change the outcome? Or do I want a judge that impartially applies the law to the facts and fairly rules on the merits without bias or prejudice?

It’s our job to determine which side of that fundamental divide the nominee stands.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

END

Sonia Sotomayor: Another Radical In Robes

May 26, 2009

In a nutshell: Sonia Sotomayor is an activist judge whose decisions have nearly always been overturned by the very Court to which she aspires, as well as a judge who has expressed racist views.

Let us begin with her racist views.

Have you ever seen the statue representing justice?  Ever notice that “Lady Justice” is wearing a blindfold?

Lady Justice wears the blindfold so that she will NOT be biased by what her eyes see.  She will not notice the race, the gender, the religion, or any other such factor.  Instead, she will balance each case before her with the scales of justice, as determined by the law.

We immediately discover that Judge Sonia Sotomayor has no resemblance whatsoever to Lady Justice.  As CNN provides:

At a 2001 U.C. Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court, Sotomayor said that the gender and ethnicity of judges does and should affect their judicial decision-making. From her speech:

“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society….

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that – it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others….

Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Judge Sotomayor has ripped the blindfold off, and makes race and gender major focal points of her view of “justice.”  That she feels that a Latina woman is able to reach a “better conclusion” than a white male is simply racist.

Imagine for a single nanosecond that a white man said, “I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life.” Imagine the OUTRAGE.  Her statement is every bit as racist; but it is radically leftist, and so it is ignored for any purpose of criticism.

What about the scales of justice that Lady Justice uses to weigh cases?

Sonia Sotomayor lacks proper scales, as well.  She certainly lacks impartiality, by her own acknowledgment.

First of all, let us see how she views the law:

In a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor told students that the federal Court of Appeals is where “policy is made.” She and other panelists had been asked by a student to describe the differences between clerking in the District Court versus in the Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor said that traditionally, those interested in academia, policy, and public interest law tend to seek circuit court clerkships. She said, “All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [audience laughter] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [audience laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.” [Duke University School of Law, 2/25/2005, 43:19, http://realserver.law.duke.edu/ramgen/spring05/lawschool/02252005clerk.rm%5D

Should judges legislate from the bench?  Should they make policy?  Sotomayor clearly acknowledges her view, even as she recognizes how radical and wrong it is, and therefore says the pro forma things to cover her arse.

She uses her position on the bench to impose her views upon the law, to make policy rather than allow the legislative branch to make policy and issue verdicts on the basis of the laws that are written.

Chief Justice John Roberts once put it this way:

“Judges are like umpires.  Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Amazingly, this statement has been attacked by the left.  That is because they want a judge to be able to change the color or shape of the baseballs, or change the size or length of the bats, or subjectively alter the way the game is called.  And they believe that a judge should be able to call the game in a way that favors one chosen side over another (using their “empathy” or their preference for a particular race, for example).  Because THEY are the side that features the activists judges who will do those things to favor leftists causes and arguments.

Justice Scalia, in his response to ACLU president Nadine Strossen’s favoring judicial activism and finding opinions in foreign law that corresponded with the verdicts they wanted to impose, said:

“Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.”

Because the left would howl in unholy outrage if rightwing justices abandoned the Constitution the way the left have and imposed their own views and sought their own sources to justify their subjective rulings.  If you’re on the left, imagine how you would feel if a far right judge invoked sharia law to suppress the homosexual agenda, and you’ll understand how conservatives feel about judicial activists invoking European law to promote it.  We didn’t place ourselves under the authority of European law; we placed ourselves under our very own Constitution.

Justice Roberts made another relevant and powerful statement:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.

But this ISN’T the oath that Sonia Sotomayor will hold herself to.  Rather, she will pull off the blindfold, and judge cases by race and by gender.  And she will “make policy” rather than follow the law.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.” —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.” —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.” —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices. I don’t hear him lamenting that a Latina woman isn’t on the bench due to her superior wisdom over his own (as a white man).  I don’t hear him praising Sotomayor’s desire to “make policy” from the bench.  In fact, what I hear Jefferson doing is rolling in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s and Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Finally, Sotomayor doesn’t make good law.  Too many times, her activist decisions have been overturned.  Of the cases in which she ruled that went before the US Supreme Court, Sotomayor has been reversed fully five out of six times.  And the one time she WASN’T reversed, her reasoning was unanimously faulted by every single justice:

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) — decision pending as of 5/26/2009

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) — reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) — upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) — reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) — reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) — reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

Sonia Sotomayor is a judge who has been humiliated with an 8-0 smackdown of her judicial reasoning.

And the case that is “pending review” – Ricci v. DeStefano (aka the New Haven firefighter case), is precisely the sort of terrible and racist reasoning that should demonstrate how unfit for the highest court in the land Sonia Sotomayor truly is.

A couple of paragraphs from an excellent article on the case:

Mr. Ricci’s saga started in 2003. At the time, he was one of more than 100 firemen who took a written and oral exam that the New Haven Fire Department (NHFD) administered in order to determine whom it would promote to fill 15 openings for lieutenant and captain positions. In preparation for the test, Ricci, a dyslexic who struggles with reading and retaining information, simply outworked most of his competition. He spent more than $1,000 to purchase books that the city had recommended as useful study guides, and he studied for 8 to 13 hours each day. When the test scores were ultimately tabulated, Ricci’s name was near the top of the list. The promotion should have been his.

It didn’t happen that way. It soon emerged that New Haven’s black firefighters, on average, had performed quite poorly on the same test that Ricci had aced. In fact, not a single African American had scored high enough to qualify for a promotion. When word of this got around, a number of local black leaders with political influence thundered that the exam itself was to blame, arguing alternately that it was racially biased on the one hand, and a poor predictor of an applicant’s potential to fulfill the duties of a leadership position on the other.

This is exactly the sort of thing that Roberts was talking about in his analogy.  We had a law in place; we had a universally recognized system of promotion.  One man, in particular, tried to work as hard as he could within the rules that were supposed to be for everyone, and aced the exam.  But Sonia Sotomayor decided she didn’t like the results, and so she changed the rules quite literally after the game had already been played.

Let’s demand a justice who rules according to the law without prejudice rather than a justice who makes prejudice a basis for her rulings.  Let’s demand a justice who understands that she is under the rule of law rather than a justice who uses the legal system to “make policy.”

We don’t need another radical in robes.

The American people have enough black-robed masters and government bureaucrats imposing their will upon us in blatant disregard of the intent of the Constitution which is supposed to be our source of law.  We have enough officials who conflate their own power and explode the size and role of government as master over every sphere of our lives.  We can do far better than Sonia Sotomayor.