Sotomayor in Step With Obama, Not Necessarily the Rule of Law
Justice on a whim? Sotomayor's feelings and experiences have no place on the high court
Reader Comments
Sotomayor With Obama Not good for America
Sonia Sotomayor in Step With Obama with this racial to the Rule of Law!
Obama is out-of-touch, He is the New Snake oil salesman! Hey Hey Ho Ho Obamcare Has to go! Just Throw The Obamacare Under the Bus!
Mark Eberle
Commercial Photographer
Website Links
www.eberleenterprizes.com
www.bebo.com/MarkE2848
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tketSx4J2g
www.flickr.com/people/eberleenterprizes/
www.mark-eberle.deviantart.com)
www.twitter.com/Mark_Eberle
www.chrissicoile.com/Mark Eberle
(425) 531-4016
Sotomayor in Step With Obama
Dear Editor,
It's Our tun to take back this country if the Media will not work with us then we go to Rush Limbaugh Sean Hannity witch
Commercial Photographer The Elite media selflessness and will not repot the real story anymore and I’m excited about a group I recently joined and want your readers to know about it. The group is CHANGE THE CONGRESS IN 2010!! (www.ChangetheCongressin2010.com). We have 40 million Americans to stand up together and say we’re taking back our country – one Congressional seat at the time. We represent no political party, no special interests except those of the people. We call our Senators and Representatives to represent us – the voters who elected them – not themselves, not lobbyists, not special interests, not a political party and not having Sotomayor as a judge in this country! We our Under The Liberty Party for all Americans are tired of State Run Media not doing their we file case Number of the FCC Across is # 07-065554391 This land is United Under God May Bless God Bless America May God Bless you as well and our elected officials not listening. We’re tired of it and we want the respect due us. We are the ones with the power – and we use that power every time we vote. YES, we will reach 40 million Americans. YES -- 40 million voices will be heard when we all speak the same words -- CHANGE THE CONGRESS IN 2010!! Join us. Be part of the 40 million Americans willing to stand up and say we're taking back our country -- one Congressional seat at a time! And when we reach 40 million Americans, we’ll make sure our voices are heard all the way to Congress.
www.eberleenterprizes.com
(425) 531-4016
Justice
One should strive for impartiality. Whether or not an individual possesses’ this capacity can easily be seen from their history and decisions. In Soto mayor’s case it is easy to see she is heavily influenced by her "experiences" and I respect her for admitting it. However, to believe that any prejudice in any direction is ok is by the definition of the word is prejudice or bias. While it is impossible to operate entirely impartially and objectively it should however be the goal of all judges. In reality this is not the case and judges frequently do make rulings based on money, politics, race, history, preference, weather, etc. A supreme court justice should be a judge of proven integrity who has demonstrated their ability to be objective and not allow their own emotions or “empathy” to influence their decisions (within reason). I adamantly disagree with the Obama’s decision and rational behind it. When I walk in a court room I want to be heard and be treated fairly and thus receive justice, Nobody should accept or desire judicial activism. I hope she does well and rules Fairly as she is appointed and will be there for many, many years to come.
Judicial activism
In 1968, I received an honorable discharge from the United States Air Force after serving more than two years in Vietnam. Since then, I have been denied all employment opportunity in the United States because of my service in an "unpopular war." I left the country to pursue my career as a scientist, but began filing lawsuits after being illegally denied hundreds of jobs in the United States without so much as an interview. Finally, in 1997, the U.S. Forest Service was forced to hire me after verification of my complaint that two Forest Service employees had offered me $20,000 to withdraw from a federal civil service selection under threat that the selection would be cancelled if I refused the offer. The Forest Service then initiated reprisal measures against me as a whistleblower, which resulted in my being blacklisted since 1999.
Two of my discrimination lawsuits against private employers were successful in getting me settlements I wanted. I also succeeded in forcing the Department of Justice to prepare citizenship papers for my wife, who had been wrongfully denied citizenship for 18 years because she had married a veteran. However, all of my employment discrimination lawsuits against the federal covernment and two states were dismissed for reasons that led me to believe that the majority of federal judges are simply crooks with complete immunity for everything they do, no matter how illegal or reprehensible. Similarly, they support the decisions by administrative agencies, such as the Merit System Protection Board (MSPB), which heard my appeals concerning the reprisal I subsequently suffered for reporting the $20,000 bribe offer. All four of my appeals before the MSPB were decided fraudulently, and the administrative judge was a party to the fraud in each case.
It is clear to me that American courts always decide in favor of whoever judges think can do them the most good. Therefore, government agencies almost always win, regardless of the facts or the clear statements found in the Constitution and statutes. There are few judges left who allow the law or facts to influence their decisions. Because the vast majority of federal judges dodged the draft during the Vietnam War to avoid active service, they seem to feel resentment against those of us who served.
America has not had a rule of law for many years, and obviously the situation continues to get worse. In the end, cases will be decided depending upon who puts the most money in the hand of the judge.
Chris Petty of GA Republican Attack Dog
Hey Chris,
You forgot to wear your Dick Cheney approved muzzle. Dick wants you as his hunting buddy this weekend. Don't be late!
What nonsense!
This article is dangerous nonsense. There is an assumption here that the law exists in a vacuum, that it is always clear, and that unbiased judges are actually unbiased. Sotomayor simply recognizes an important reality: no judge can escape his or her culture or personal history, so every judge will bring a certain amount of bias to his judging (no matter what his intentions). Thus, it is important that all kinds of people be represented on the courts. This is not identity politics; this is reality.
Furthermore, there is no evidence at all that Sotomayor does not try as strenuously as other judges to be impartial. She has had a long and illustrious career as a judge, and she should not be voted down simply because she had the character to be honest.
The Democratic Snake Oil
The rules:
1.Support all nominations made by Democrats, oppose all nominations made by Republicans.
2.When criticizing a Republican nominee, use words like "Pro-Business", "racially biased", and "Conservative agenda".
3. Select partial quotes out of context even though they made perfect sense in their entirety. When the nominee explains what he or she really SAID, ignore the facts because after all CNN and MSNBC won’t possibly cover the truth.
4. When a Republican nominee talks about their ethnic background, ignore their balanced voting history and call them an "Uncle Tom”. When a Democrat nominee talks about their ethnic background, ignore their "activism agenda” and declare they are “fair”.
5. When a judge renders a decision you agree with, it is because he/she relied on “empathy” to reach the “proper” conclusion. When a judge renders a decision you disagree with, it is because he/she practices proper LAW that follows the Constitution.
The Republican Playbook
The rules:
1. Support all nominations made by Republicans, oppose all nominations made by Democrats.
2. When criticizing a Democrat nominee, use words like "Socialist", "biased", and "Liberal agenda."
3. Select quotes out of context. When the nominee explains what he or she meant, scoff at it, because after all, only you know what they were really thinking when they said it.
4. When a Republican nominee talks about their ethnic background, yell "hurray for diversity!" When a Democrat nominee talks about their ethnic background, yell "reverse-discrimination!"
5. When a judge renders a decision you agree with, it is because he/she is sticking to the Constitution. When a judge renders a decision you disagree with, it is because he/she practices "judicial activism." Only liberals are capable of judicial activism.
Tom Fitton is a Republican Attack Dog
Tom Fitton is well qualified as a Republican Attack Dog and nothing more. His opinion is less than worthless since it is biased and unobjective. We never saw a single article by Tom Fitton attacking Bush Administration corruption. WHy?
Judicial Watch's resume of Tom Fitton:
Tom Fitton is the President of Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption. Founded in 1994, Judicial Watch seeks to ensure government and judicial officials act ethically and do not abuse the powers entrusted to them by the American public.
With 20 years experience in conservative public policy, Tom Fitton has helped lead Judicial Watch since 1998 and overseen its tremendous growth and success in recent years. Under Fitton’s leadership, Judicial Watch was named one of Washington’s top ten most effective government watchdog organizations by The Hill newspaper.
Mr. Fitton provides Judicial Watch with strategic guidance and leadership on Judicial Watch’s comprehensive efforts to fight government corruption. He is a nationally recognized expert on government corruption, immigration enforcement, congressional and judicial ethics, and open government.
A former talk radio and television host and analyst, Tom is well known across the country as a national spokesperson for the conservative cause. He has been quoted in TIME, Vanity Fair, The Washington Post, The New York Times, The Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Post, and most every other major newspaper in the country. He has also appeared on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News Channel, C-SPAN and MSNBC.
Mr. Fitton has authored numerous articles such as "Judicial Activism Hurts our Courts," "What Bill Clinton Knew About bin Laden," "Following Terrorism's Money Trail," "Senate Abandons Judicial Nominees," "Every Town is a Border Town," "Obama's Records Problem" and "Jesse Jackson Exposed." Judicial Watch also publishes the monthly 100,000+ circulation Verdict newsletter and runs the cutting-edge Internet site JudicialWatch.org, which includes the oft-cited Corruption Chronicles blog.
Mr. Fitton gained national attention as a political analyst, previously working for America's Voice and National Empowerment Television. He is a former employee of the International Policy Forum, the Leadership Institute, and Accuracy in Media.
Mr. Fitton holds a B.A. in English from George Washington University.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/dirbios.shtml#tom
Who is Tom Fitton?
"And so, here is the question that members of the U.S. Senate must now answer. Will they vote to confirm a justice who will make her decisions based on empathy and her personal feelings about a litigant? Or will they demand a nominee who uses the rule of law as a principal guide, applying the law equally to everyone who comes before the court, regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation?"
A far better question is "Who is Tom Fitton?" and what is his agenda. An intelligent person may not agree with Sonia Sotomayor politics, but there is no question that she is qualified and has no skeletons in her closet.
Is Tom Fitton qualified to assess Sonia Sotomayor's judicial credentials? The answer is no since we have no idea who Tom Fitton is and USNWR makes no effort to tell us his qualifications.
So the only conclusion one can draw from this opinion piece is that Mort Zuckerman is getting desperate to protect his Republican cronies at the expense of journalistic integrity.
