Today President Obama announced his choice to replace David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Ms. Sotomayor is a dream candidate and likely to be quickly approved. She was first nominated to the bench by a Republican, the first President Bush, and she had the wisdom never to have children, which eliminates the otherwise automatic nanny-gate fiasco any time a woman is nominated for anything.
She has a compelling story which the Republicans will fail to jump on even though it provides ample proof – as does our President’s ascendancy -- that America is the land of opportunity and that anyone who works hard can achieve beyond their wildest dreams in this great country.
But we will probably miss the opportunity to tell that story and instead we will allow the Democrats to bathe in her glory while simultaneously telling the average American that you cannot achieve anything without the government’s help.
How did she manage to graduate summa cum laude from Princeton and become editor of the Yale Law Review when the United States is such a white-male-dominated bastion of unequal opportunity and institutionalized racism? Perhaps she did it by not believing the Democrats’ version of two Americas and by realizing that the American dream is available to all its citizens.
Now, all this is not to say that I’m thrilled with her selection. She has written some opinions recently that I am entirely opposed to, most notably her ruling supporting the City of New Haven’s decision to discard the firefighter promotion exam results when no black or Latino passed the exam. I would think her own life story would tell her that it is not one’s race or ethnicity that matters, but their abilities. Somehow, she was able to make her way through three separate exams to achieve her goals.
Her confirmation hearing will be interesting because, as an appellate court judge, she has been the author of a number of appellate decisions that her future brethren on the court have overturned. While Obama may want to paint her as a centrist, moderate jurist, that does not seem to reconcile with her record.
Yes, she “saved” baseball by ending the strike when, as a district court judge, she ruled in favor of the player’s association and against the owners who had been trying to end free agency and salary arbitration. With this pro-union decision, her liberal bona fides were secured.
But, as they say in the TV infomercials, that’s not all. We also have her statements to guide us as to her view of not just race and gender issues, but the issue of the role of the Supreme Court. And none of these will warm a Republican’s heart.
In a speech given at the liberal Valhalla, U.C. Berkeley, back in 2002, Sotomayor embraced the idea that a jurist’s gender and racial identity would influence their decision-making. She said in part, "I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society....” She then elaborated, “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."
I haven’t seen such blatant white male bashing since the Wanda Sykes baby shower.
With her belief that the gender and race of a jurist i is at all relevant to making a just decision, one wonders how the all white Supreme Court gave us Brown v. Board of Education or an all male Supreme Court gave us Roe v. Wade.
There is no question that Sotomayor intends to be an activist judge as she has gone on record that it is in the highest courts that does more than merely interpret the law.
During a 2005 panel discussion at Duke University, Sotomayor answered a student’s question about the difference between the Federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals, by saying that the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made." She went on to say, "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."
In addition to obvious elocutionary gifts, Ms. Sotomayor seems to suffer a bit of Biden-esque excessive sharing. This could make this question and answer session during the confirmation hearings DVR-worthy.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Pelosi, Obama and the Facts
The next episode of everyone's favorite political game show "What did she know and when did she know it? -- Pelosi Edition" is brought to you by factcheck.org.
Claim: Pelosi has asserted that she was never informed that the enhanced interrogation technique waterboarding was being used.
Fact: According to a CIA memo released earlier this month, Pelosi was told in September 2002, of the specific times of techniques that were employed.
Bonus Fact: If you choose not to believe the CIA memo -- and we can't pin her down to 2002 -- she's not off the hook. Because she has, since her original flat out denial, now admitted that, yeah, she was informed back in 2003 by an aide. I guess it all just slipped her mind for the past six years.
Yes, Pelosi lied. As my favorite mendacious character on Lost would say about himself, "It's what I do." Well, lying is what Pelosi does as well. I'm not sure that's even the point any more. The more serious matter is that our country is so timorous that we suddenly care whether we're liked. The world is high school and we're the new transfer student.
The bottom line is a year after the devastating attacks by Al Qaeda, virtually no one would object to any enhanced interrogation techniques (short of actual torture, which waterboarding -- while certainly extreme -- does not equal) if they would prevent any further such attacks. Now, almost eight years since the 9/11 attacks, memories fade and we become comfortable and complacent again and suddenly our interest in the safety and security of our country is no longer de rigueur.
Today President Obama claims that these enhanced techniques, and indeed our holding and trying suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe. Prove it. Release the data. And release the data that purports to show the opposite, that planned attacks were discovered and stopped by these methods.
Obama has instead put our moral standing in the world above our safety. How we look to other countries, especially our enemies, is more important that how we keep ourselves safe and strong.
This is scary stuff. I keep hearkening back to Teddy Roosevelt, who, yes, did want to be friendly and accommodating and didn't seek to make enemies of the rest of the world. But he understood you could do that so long as you maintained a strong and determined resolve. Ronald Reagan was affable and courteous, but no country questioned his resolve to take whatever action was necessary to protect the U.S.
We cannot risk appearing weak or fearful or eager to please. We are the greatest country in the world, not the world's lap dog.
Claim: Pelosi has asserted that she was never informed that the enhanced interrogation technique waterboarding was being used.
Fact: According to a CIA memo released earlier this month, Pelosi was told in September 2002, of the specific times of techniques that were employed.
Bonus Fact: If you choose not to believe the CIA memo -- and we can't pin her down to 2002 -- she's not off the hook. Because she has, since her original flat out denial, now admitted that, yeah, she was informed back in 2003 by an aide. I guess it all just slipped her mind for the past six years.
Yes, Pelosi lied. As my favorite mendacious character on Lost would say about himself, "It's what I do." Well, lying is what Pelosi does as well. I'm not sure that's even the point any more. The more serious matter is that our country is so timorous that we suddenly care whether we're liked. The world is high school and we're the new transfer student.
The bottom line is a year after the devastating attacks by Al Qaeda, virtually no one would object to any enhanced interrogation techniques (short of actual torture, which waterboarding -- while certainly extreme -- does not equal) if they would prevent any further such attacks. Now, almost eight years since the 9/11 attacks, memories fade and we become comfortable and complacent again and suddenly our interest in the safety and security of our country is no longer de rigueur.
Today President Obama claims that these enhanced techniques, and indeed our holding and trying suspected terrorists at Guantanamo Bay has made us less safe. Prove it. Release the data. And release the data that purports to show the opposite, that planned attacks were discovered and stopped by these methods.
Obama has instead put our moral standing in the world above our safety. How we look to other countries, especially our enemies, is more important that how we keep ourselves safe and strong.
This is scary stuff. I keep hearkening back to Teddy Roosevelt, who, yes, did want to be friendly and accommodating and didn't seek to make enemies of the rest of the world. But he understood you could do that so long as you maintained a strong and determined resolve. Ronald Reagan was affable and courteous, but no country questioned his resolve to take whatever action was necessary to protect the U.S.
We cannot risk appearing weak or fearful or eager to please. We are the greatest country in the world, not the world's lap dog.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Republicans and Happiness
A new Pew Research Center survey shows that Republicans as a group are happier than Democrats. And this is not, as some might assume, because Republican are wealthier than Democrats (one need only look to Hollywood to see that money does not always equate with Republican Party identity). Adjusting for income, Republicans, whether rich or poor, were happier than their economic counterparts in the other party.
I’m not surprised. Being a Republican means having a clear set of values devoid of the moral relativity that plagues the Democrats. When you fail to have a clear concept of good and bad or right and wrong, it can leave you ungrounded and unsure. You have no touchstone on which to rely, no way to assess the merit or worth of anything. If there is no clear better or worse, then how do you know if you’ve achieved a satisfying result? How can you ever be happy if there is nothing you value as superior to something else? If everything is relative, then nothing is special.
This is why having a leader who represents Democratic Party values is a mistake. If you believe that Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Il-Sung are merely friends we haven’t yet made, you don’t understand friendship. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Gordon Brown are not more important to you than the Castros, then you have no clear cut values. If everyone is treated the same, with no accounting for their character and behavior, then we have moral chaos. This is not the road to peace, it’s a path to our own destruction.
Republicans tend to believe in the inherent ability and value of each person and to trust that people can achieve if they are free to do so. Democrats view people as victims of some wrong or another who need to be taken care of and shown what to do. This is why the Democratic Party proposes the golden handcuffs that come with the welfare state. They don’t want to see individual achievement; they want to have their hand in whatever anyone accomplishes. They need to justify their existence and their continuing control over our daily lives.
The Democrats love the story of Robin Hood and have taken it upon themselves to take from the rich and give to the poor, in some twisted notion of nobility. In reality, they are trying to make the successful feel guilty about their success and the unfortunate believe that their situation is beyond their control and they own the government their very life. This is a dysfunctional relationship that any therapist would encourage you to run from – but it is the basic economic and social platform of the Democrats.
Republicans have no trouble prioritizing, Democrats cannot choose. Republicans put their country first and their family first. Democrats think this is arrogant, biased and uncaring – we should treat all nations, all people the same. It must be hard to figure out if you’re happy or not if you don’t consider one thing more important than another.
Despite the campaign rhetoric from last year, it is the Republicans who believe in hope, the Democrats who believe in doom and gloom. The Democrats ignore any evidence that the world is not coming to an end – scientific studies that dispute the global warming hysteria, for example. The more diseases we get a handle on, the more new threats the Democrats raise (high fructose corn syrup follows second-hand smoke as the scourge of the world). Carbon emissions! Saturated Fats! There’s a new calamity just around the corner for the Democrats.
Republicans aren’t putting their heads in the sand, but they are willing to be satisfied. Republicans can be content, without being complacent. We can appreciate the good, without ignoring the bad. But it takes discernment and a willingness to make value judgments to do that. So, if the Republican Party is on its way out as many in the media are saying, does that mean that happiness is also endangered?
If you see yourself as an optimistic person, with clear values and morals, and you’re not yet a Republican, maybe you should rethink that decision. You might find some happiness here.
I’m not surprised. Being a Republican means having a clear set of values devoid of the moral relativity that plagues the Democrats. When you fail to have a clear concept of good and bad or right and wrong, it can leave you ungrounded and unsure. You have no touchstone on which to rely, no way to assess the merit or worth of anything. If there is no clear better or worse, then how do you know if you’ve achieved a satisfying result? How can you ever be happy if there is nothing you value as superior to something else? If everything is relative, then nothing is special.
This is why having a leader who represents Democratic Party values is a mistake. If you believe that Hugo Chavez or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Il-Sung are merely friends we haven’t yet made, you don’t understand friendship. If Benjamin Netanyahu and Gordon Brown are not more important to you than the Castros, then you have no clear cut values. If everyone is treated the same, with no accounting for their character and behavior, then we have moral chaos. This is not the road to peace, it’s a path to our own destruction.
Republicans tend to believe in the inherent ability and value of each person and to trust that people can achieve if they are free to do so. Democrats view people as victims of some wrong or another who need to be taken care of and shown what to do. This is why the Democratic Party proposes the golden handcuffs that come with the welfare state. They don’t want to see individual achievement; they want to have their hand in whatever anyone accomplishes. They need to justify their existence and their continuing control over our daily lives.
The Democrats love the story of Robin Hood and have taken it upon themselves to take from the rich and give to the poor, in some twisted notion of nobility. In reality, they are trying to make the successful feel guilty about their success and the unfortunate believe that their situation is beyond their control and they own the government their very life. This is a dysfunctional relationship that any therapist would encourage you to run from – but it is the basic economic and social platform of the Democrats.
Republicans have no trouble prioritizing, Democrats cannot choose. Republicans put their country first and their family first. Democrats think this is arrogant, biased and uncaring – we should treat all nations, all people the same. It must be hard to figure out if you’re happy or not if you don’t consider one thing more important than another.
Despite the campaign rhetoric from last year, it is the Republicans who believe in hope, the Democrats who believe in doom and gloom. The Democrats ignore any evidence that the world is not coming to an end – scientific studies that dispute the global warming hysteria, for example. The more diseases we get a handle on, the more new threats the Democrats raise (high fructose corn syrup follows second-hand smoke as the scourge of the world). Carbon emissions! Saturated Fats! There’s a new calamity just around the corner for the Democrats.
Republicans aren’t putting their heads in the sand, but they are willing to be satisfied. Republicans can be content, without being complacent. We can appreciate the good, without ignoring the bad. But it takes discernment and a willingness to make value judgments to do that. So, if the Republican Party is on its way out as many in the media are saying, does that mean that happiness is also endangered?
If you see yourself as an optimistic person, with clear values and morals, and you’re not yet a Republican, maybe you should rethink that decision. You might find some happiness here.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Farewell to Jack Kemp
Jack Kemp passed away this weekend. It’s a sad reality that his passing was better covered by the sports media, who respectfully recalled the former quarterback, than the mainstream media. Kemp was a true ideologue and visionary in the best sense of both words. He believed in something and put his beliefs into action. He wasn’t a politician out of any need for attention or power, but because he wanted to make the world a better place. Only his view of a better world was not the unrealistic, Utopian Kumbaya of the liberals but grounded in economic and political reality. And he eschewed knee-jerk right wing politics for a kinder, gentler capitalist agenda that, if realized, would benefit all Americans.
I once looked to him as the future of the Republican Party. He was the original “compassionate conservative,” the real deal. He was a Republican through and through, yet realized the GOP would need to remind the public of its heart if it wanted to maintain its status. It was quite a blow to me when Kemp finally had the national stage, during his run for VP, when he was unable to articulate his position as well as he had previously. During his debate with the robotic and un-charismatic Gore, Kemp was surprisingly incapable of conveying his passion or his message. It was a golden opportunity missed, and Kemp never regained the national stage.
Still, he continued to speak and his voice was worth listening to. Not long after Obama’s win, Kemp wrote, “the GOP needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.” He was right, again. The Republican Party cannot hand over those issues to the Democrats and hope to win elections in the future. We need to remind the pubic of our core values and how they will make for a stronger America. Kemp took bold stands – his position in favor of drastic changes to the federal tax code, including imposition of a form of a flat tax, was radical, but more necessary today than ever. And as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development he showed that Republican and concern for the poor were not mutually exclusive concepts.
With our party in disarray, we could use a man like Jack Kemp. We need to be the party of strong values, visionary ideas and concern for the health and safety of all Americans. Let’s honor Jack Kemp by living up to his ideals and shaping our party to be a shining beacon for liberty, freedom and justice for all.
I once looked to him as the future of the Republican Party. He was the original “compassionate conservative,” the real deal. He was a Republican through and through, yet realized the GOP would need to remind the public of its heart if it wanted to maintain its status. It was quite a blow to me when Kemp finally had the national stage, during his run for VP, when he was unable to articulate his position as well as he had previously. During his debate with the robotic and un-charismatic Gore, Kemp was surprisingly incapable of conveying his passion or his message. It was a golden opportunity missed, and Kemp never regained the national stage.
Still, he continued to speak and his voice was worth listening to. Not long after Obama’s win, Kemp wrote, “the GOP needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all.” He was right, again. The Republican Party cannot hand over those issues to the Democrats and hope to win elections in the future. We need to remind the pubic of our core values and how they will make for a stronger America. Kemp took bold stands – his position in favor of drastic changes to the federal tax code, including imposition of a form of a flat tax, was radical, but more necessary today than ever. And as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development he showed that Republican and concern for the poor were not mutually exclusive concepts.
With our party in disarray, we could use a man like Jack Kemp. We need to be the party of strong values, visionary ideas and concern for the health and safety of all Americans. Let’s honor Jack Kemp by living up to his ideals and shaping our party to be a shining beacon for liberty, freedom and justice for all.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Conflicting Views on the Threat of Swine Flu
At least we know where the head of Homeland Security stands on, well, securing the homeland. According to a recent interchange between Janet Napolitano and John McCain, when asked by the Senator "What conditions would prevail that would say we need to close the border between the United States and Mexico, if any?" she replied "I don't think there are any."
So unwilling to protect the borders of the United States, Napolitano could not envision any scenario where we would stop entry into America by foreigners. I guess the quote on Ellis Island should be augmented to include "your coughing, feverish masses."
So whether it's a 23-month-old affected with the flu or a terrorist plotting against the U.S., Napolitano's view is the same -- let's keep those borders open!
From her extreme example of lack of concern, we go to the overly-protective Joe Biden who told the media to run, run for the hills, duck, cover, stop, drop and roll. Well, actually, he was more inartful than that, offering to close down the transportation industry as we know it by warning the American public about traveling in any enclosed quarters including planes, trains, and subways. Horse drawn carriages are Biden-approved, however.
Personally, the whole topic seems overblown, the media latching onto a story that they think will excite the public enough to get them to change channels away from Dr. Phil and Oprah -- so being able to throw around terms like epidemic or the cooler sounding pandemic is just a means towards boosting ratings.
So unwilling to protect the borders of the United States, Napolitano could not envision any scenario where we would stop entry into America by foreigners. I guess the quote on Ellis Island should be augmented to include "your coughing, feverish masses."
So whether it's a 23-month-old affected with the flu or a terrorist plotting against the U.S., Napolitano's view is the same -- let's keep those borders open!
From her extreme example of lack of concern, we go to the overly-protective Joe Biden who told the media to run, run for the hills, duck, cover, stop, drop and roll. Well, actually, he was more inartful than that, offering to close down the transportation industry as we know it by warning the American public about traveling in any enclosed quarters including planes, trains, and subways. Horse drawn carriages are Biden-approved, however.
Personally, the whole topic seems overblown, the media latching onto a story that they think will excite the public enough to get them to change channels away from Dr. Phil and Oprah -- so being able to throw around terms like epidemic or the cooler sounding pandemic is just a means towards boosting ratings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)