Question: When did being an empathetic liberal minority become the primary eligibility prerequisite for appointment as a Justice to the Supreme Court, the highest court in our country, over other more critical qualifications (e.g., court work experience requirements, etc.), along with the content of their character and their appropriate interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?
These articles lay out Sonia Sotomayor’s controversial background experiences as a Private Practice Attorney and an Appeals Court Judge, along with revealing that she:
- does not believe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals.
- believes that judges make policy;
- believes that Latinas are better than a white male who hasn’t lived that life (Best case scenario for reverse discrimination law suit?);
- believes that she can substitute her own policy preferences for what the law really is;
- believes that international law and policy should be considered in some court decisions; and,
- has been known to have a temperament on the bench which has been that of a “bully”, who is “abusive” to lawyers. (Guess this meets the empathetic requirement for appointment?)-You Decide:
Sotomayor Believes 2nd Amendment Not For Individuals!-Posted on ExposeObama.com-On May 26, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“Today President Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court to fill the seat of retiring Justice David Souter. If confirmed, Sotomayor would become the first Hispanic and third woman to serve on the High Court.
Sotomayor is a graduate of Princeton and obtained her law degree from Yale. She served in private practice and as Assistant District Attorney in New York County and was nominated to the Second Circuit federal Court of Appeals by President George H. W. Bush in 1991.
Despite 17 years on the bench, Sotomayor has never directly decided whether a law regulating abortion is constitutional.
In Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush, she wrote an opinion that upheld the Mexico City Policy prohibiting federal funding of overseas abortions.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to individuals.
While on a panel discussion at Duke Law School, she argued that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.” Judge Sotomayor has had 5 decisions reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, 3 of which have been reversed.
She has carried 11 of 44 possible votes during those cases. In Knight v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Chief Justice Roberts stated that her method of reading the statute in question “flies in the face of the statutory language.”
She has written in support of Affirmative Action, upheld the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and in Amandola v. Town of Babylon, she wrote that denying use of a town hall annex for their worship services violated the First Amendment.
She has written a book called “The International Judge,” which suggests that international law and policy should be considered in some court decisions.
Some have described her temperament on the bench as a “bully” and “abusive” to lawyers.”
Sotomayor Video: Judges Make Policy, Latinas Better Than Whites: Posted on NewsMax.Com-By: Kenneth D. Williams-On May 26, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s pick to become the newest Supreme Court justice, is on the record with some controversial remarks about ‘diversity,’ ‘judicial activism’ and female judges vs. male judges.
For example, the New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor had this to say:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences,” she said later, regarding non-white, female judges, “our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”
Also, there is a 2005 video of Sotomayor, speaking with potential law clerks, saying that a court of appeals is where policy is made. She added: “And I know ok I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it …”
Regarding Sotomayor’s chances to avoid a filibuster of her nomination, Senator Orrin Hatch told Politico, I’ll tell you one thing, I’m not very happy about judges who will substitute their own policy preferences for what the law really is; who think that they can run the country from the bench when they actually have a limited role. And that role is to interpret the laws made by those who have to stand for reelection.”
Despite Hatch’s misgivings, Democratic Senators Charles E. Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York sent a personal letter to President Barack Obama asking him to appoint a Latino to fill the next vacancy on the United States Supreme Court Back in April.
It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and Ken Salazar are two candidates who would make outstanding justices. They have top-notch legal minds, years of experience, moderate approaches to the law, and would make history by being the first Latino on the court. Senator Schumer said.
“We are fortunate in New York State to have jurists of the caliber and intellect that Judge Sotomayor has exhibited during a lifelong career of service to the bench. As an accomplished jurist, as a woman, and as a Latina, she would bring to the United States Supreme Court a much needed voice. We must be committed to diversity on our nation’s highest bench. These candidates will restore the balance that we so desperately need on the Court, Senator Gillibrand said.”
Sonia Sotomayor ‘La Raza member’-American Bar Association lists Obama choice as part of group: Posted on WND-By Joe Kovacs-On May 27. 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“As President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee comes under heavy fire for allegedly being a “racist,” Judge Sonia Sotomayor is listed as a member of the National Council of La Raza, a group that’s promoted driver’s licenses for illegal aliens, amnesty programs, and no immigration law enforcement by local and state police.
According the American Bar Association, Sotomayor is a member of the NCLR, which bills itself as the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the U.S. Meaning “the Race,” La Raza also has connections to groups that advocate the separation of several southwestern states from the rest of America.
Over the past two days, Sotomayor has been heavily criticized for her racially charged statement: “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.” The remark was actually made during a 2001 speech at the University of California’s Berkeley School of Law. The lecture was published the following year in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.
The comment is being zeroed in on by voices from the political right. ”I’m not saying she’s a racist, but the statement sure is,” columnist Ann Coulter said on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
“Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a latina woman,'” blogged former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.
“Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
Radio’s Rush Limbaugh noted, “And the libs of course say that minorities cannot be racists because they don’t have the power to implement their racism. Well, those days are gone because reverse racists certainly do have the power to implement their power. Obama is the greatest living example of a reverse racist, and now he’s appointed one. …”
But others are suggesting Sotomayor’s racial views will have little impact on her confirmation to the bench.
“She’s gonna get confirmed. Get out of the way of the truck,” political analyst Dick Morris said tonight on Fox News’ “The O’Reilly Factor.”
Host Bill O’Reilly responded, “The core conservative person … does not understand that the GOP is shrinking and needs to expand.”
The NCLR is applauding the Obama for his selection of Sotomayor. ”Today is a monumental day for Latinos. Finally, we see ourselves represented on the highest court in the land,” said Janet Murguia, NCLR’s president and CEO.
La Raza also praised former President George W. Bush for nominating Alberto Gonzales to succeed John Ashcroft as attorney general.
As WND previously reported, La Raza was condemned in 2007 by former U.S. Rep. Charles Norwood, R-Ga., as a radical “pro-illegal immigration lobbying organization that supports racist groups calling for the secession of the western United States as a Hispanic-only homeland.”
Norwood urged La Raza to renounce its support of the Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan – which sees “the Race” as part of an ethnic group that one day will reclaim Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs. In Chicano folklore, Aztlan includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas.”
Debate over who Sotomayor is a sensitive one: Posted on Yahoo! News-By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer-On May 29, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“WASHINGTON – There are two sides to Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor: a Latina from a blue-collar family and a wealthy member of America’s power elite.
The White House portrays Sotomayor as a living image of the American dream, though its telling of the rags-to-riches story emphasizes the rags, a more politically appealing narrative, and plays down the riches.
Branding a complex person in a simplistic way can backfire in the highly charged environment surrounding her coming Senate hearing.
Discussions about Sotomayor and her ethnicity, gender and tax bracket carry risks for supporters and detractors. Inartful criticism by Republicans risks offending voters they’d like to win. Democrats, likewise, need to be cautious about how they conduct the debate in a nation uncomfortable talking about matters of race and gender.
On ethnicity, Sotomayor herself has recognized — and contributed to — the dichotomy. She proudly highlights her Puerto Rican roots but hasn’t always liked it when others have. She once took issue with a prospective employer who singled her out as a Latina with questions she viewed as offensive yet has shown a keen ethnic consciousness herself.
In a California speech in 2002 now under renewed scrutiny, she remarked that, on a court, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
In that same speech, “A Latina Judge’s Voice,” Sotomayor drew attention to cultural differences between Mexican-Americans and Puerto Rican-Americans, and she narrowed her ethnicity beyond American, Hispanic and Puerto Rican to “Newyorkrican.”
“For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II,” she explained.
Yet years ago, during a recruiting dinner in law school at Yale, Sotomayor objected when a law firm partner asked whether she would have been admitted to the school if she weren’t Puerto Rican, and whether law firms did a disservice by hiring minority students the firms know are unqualified and will ultimately be fired.
Afterward, Sotomayor confronted the partner about the questions, rejected his insistence that he meant no harm and turned down his invitation for further job interviews. She filed a discrimination complaint against the firm with the university, which could have barred the firm from recruiting on campus. She won a formal apology from the firm.
In speeches, Sotomayor has harkened back to her and her brother’s beginnings in a poor Bronx neighborhood, roots that President Barack Obama highlighted in introducing her this week.
“Born in the South Bronx, she was raised in a housing project,” Obama said. “And even as she has accomplished so much in her life, she has never forgotten where she began, never lost touch with the community that supported her.”
Yet Sotomayor did not live her entire childhood in a housing project in the South Bronx — she spent most of her teenage years in a middle-class neighborhood, attending private school and winning scholarships to Princeton and then Yale.
And Sotomayor’s life and lifestyle after law school largely resemble the background of many lawyers who rise to powerful positions in Washington.
She climbed her way up through New York’s Democratic power structure boosted by its ultimate brokers over those years — Gov. Mario Cuomo, Mayor Ed Koch, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and District Attorney Robert Morgenthau. That’s the access of a partner in a corporate law firm, not a kid from the South Bronx.
She now earns more than $200,000 a year and owns a condominium in Greenwich Village, a neighborhood of million-dollar-plus homes. Her brother, Dr. Juan Sotomayor, is a physician in North Syracuse, N.Y., whose practice doesn’t accept Medicaid or Medicare — programs for the poor and elderly — according to its Web site.
Her ethnic consciousness was apparent in the earliest days of her career, in the New York City prosecutor’s office.
“What I am finding, both statistically and emotionally, is that the worst victims of crimes are not general society — i.e., white folks — but minorities themselves,” she told The New York Times in 1983. “The violence, the sorrow are perpetrated by minorities on minorities.”
The “riches” part of Sotomayor’s rags-to-riches story began when she left her low-paying job in that prosecutor’s office and joined the Pavia & Harcourt law firm. Her clients included Fendi, maker of luxury purses that she was unlikely to have seen as a child in the Bronx.
Still, she kept her hand in the Puerto Rican community — possibly to the point of a conflict of interest.
She served simultaneously on New York’s campaign finance board and the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, an advocacy group that took legal action in 1991 to fight what it considered discriminatory redistricting. Sotomayor didn’t recuse herself from a finance board discussion of the redistricting battle, despite the involvement of her own advocacy group.
Also during this time, Sotomayor served on the state board that makes mortgages available to low- and middle-income New Yorkers. She missed nearly a third of the board’s meetings during three of those years but apparently still left a mark.Cuomo said Sotomayor’s respect for the law, her “life story” and her integrity were deciding factors in his decision to name her to the agency.
And when she left in 1992, the agency’s board adopted a resolution praising her for defending “the rights and needs of the disadvantaged to attain, maintain, and secure affordable housing appropriate to their need.” It went on: “Ms. Sotomayor also served as the conscience of the Board concerning the negative effects of gentrification which can harm communities and create hopelessness and homelessness if individuals and families are displaced.”
Republicans are scrutinizing her full record and background, but carefully. The White House warned as much earlier this week.
“It is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they’ve decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said.
With Hispanics a growing voting bloc, and ethnic sensitivities high, few are willing to be as blunt as former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who said of her comment that a Latina woman would rule more wisely than a white man: “New racism is no better than old racism.”
Associated Press writers Cal Woodward in Washington, Sara Kugler in New York and Jessica M. Pasko in Albany, N.Y., contributed to this report.”
GOP divided over tone of Sotomayor debate: Posted on Yahoo! News-By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS, Associated Press Writer- On May 30, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“WASHINGTON – Republicans are divided over how aggressively to go after federal judge Sonia Sotomayor, a family feud about the tone of the coming debate over confirming the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic.
A growing chorus of GOP lawmakers and conservative strategists are voicing concern over the strident rhetoric some prominent Republicans have used to describe Sotomayor, and some are denouncing right-wing groups for swiftly launching negative advertisements against her.
The spat reflects a vexing question facing the GOP as it confronts President Barack Obama’s first high court nominee: They can’t defeat Sotomayor or block a final vote to seat her on the court, so what should they do instead?
The answer, according to high-profile Republicans like radio host Rush Limbaugh and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia is to harshly criticize Sotomayor. They both branded the federal judge — the daughter of Puerto Rican parents who was born and raised in New York — a “racist” this week for past remarks about how her ethnicity affected her judging. On Friday, Limbaugh likened picking Sotomayor to nominating former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for the job.
But other leading Republicans, cognizant of the political risks for their party of opposing the first Hispanic woman to be named to the court, are struggling to change the terms of the debate. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, the head of his party’s Senate campaign committee, sharply criticized Limbaugh and Gingrich for their words.
“I think it’s terrible. This is not the kind of tone that any of us want to set when it comes to performing our constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent,” Cornyn told NPR. “Neither one of these men are elected Republican officials. I just don’t think it’s appropriate. I certainly don’t endorse it. I think it’s wrong.”
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, GOP strategist Peggy Noonan urged her party to “play grown-up,” and dismissed as “idiots” conservatives who were out to attack or brand Sotomayor.
The criticism comes as some conservatives are quietly expressing dismay at the tactics of outside interest groups that are engaged in an intense public-relations offensive against Sotomayor that includes a daily drumbeat of negative statements about her.
A leading organization on the right, the Judicial Confirmation Network, launched an advertising campaign the day Obama named Sotomayor that bashes her record and concludes that “America deserves better.”
“These things just taint the debate because it causes (people) to become callous toward our message. It becomes a ‘cry wolf’ situation,” said Manuel Miranda, chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a conservative group, and a former senior Senate GOP aide. “They’re just out to bash the nominee. This isn’t about bashing the nominee; it’s about engaging on issues.”
Miranda said he is concerned that Senate leaders — knowing that they don’t have the votes to beat Sotomayor and worried about the political consequences of a prolonged effort to do so — will pass up the opportunity to have a drawn-out debate about her record and the two parties’ dueling philosophies about the role of a judge.
“These fissures are very real, and they’re not settled,” Miranda said. “I am afraid that (Senate Republicans) will miss an opportunity.”
GOP leaders are pushing back against that notion. They circulated a document late Friday titled“It’s Going To Take Time,” filled with quotes from senior Democrats who said following the selections of the last two Supreme Court justices to be confirmed, GOP nominees John Roberts and Samuel Alito, that the Senate should take its time considering the nominations.
Republicans face competing pressures in the debate over Sotomayor and the Supreme Court. Opposing her nomination is important to their core supporters, comprised in large part of social conservatives who regard the courts as a key battleground. But the party also is struggling to reach beyond that base and draw more diversity — a goal that could be frustrated with a bitterly partisan fight, especially given Sotomayor’s background.
Gary Marx, the executive director of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said the divisions were more about style and tone than substance. He said conservatives agree that Sotomayor is a“judicial activist” — someone who puts her own views above the law — regardless of how they express themselves.
“Our ads are focused on highlighting her published writing and her own words, making sure those are raised because we feel they speak to the issue of judicial activism,” Marx said. “We can have a healthy debate when we focus on her own writings, her published writings and spoken words.”
Sotomayor’s nomination has caused some angst on the left as well, although Democrats have remained united in public in support of her selection. Still, pro-abortion rights groups are withholding their endorsements until they can learn more about her stance on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established a woman’s right to end a pregnancy.
The White House fielded calls this week from some concerned groups. Few of the organizations have taken much solace from Sotomayor’s past rulings — which have not touched on the issues underlying Roe — or from the White House’s claim that neither Obama nor any other official ascertained her views on it.”
Sotomayor’s Autobiography Whitewashes Radical College Years!-Posted on Western Journalism-By B. CHRISTOPHER AGEE-On February 1, 2013:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article and/or blog post:
“People in general – and leftists specifically – have a tendency to view their own past achievements through rose-colored glasses, and many go as far as to completely rewrite history.
Bill Clinton’s autobiography all but ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal that triggered the downfall of a morally bankrupt president. Al Gore, in addition to his steady stream of lies concerning the environment, infamously took credit for the creation of the Internet.
In the continuous orgy of self-congratulation that is American politics, an autobiography might be the only place to find a more sickening whitewash of history than accounts from sycophants in the media.
Such is the case with U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recently released tome.
Instead of the familiar “tell-all” book, Sotomayor apparently wrote a “tell-all-she-wants-us-to-know” book leaving out key experiences during her college years.
To be clear, she wrote in great lengths about her time at Princeton University; but her association with openly racist organizations and other left-wing fringe movements are conveniently absent.
She does describe her involvement in groups such as Puerto Rican organization Accion Puertorriquena and the civil rights association the Third World Center.
What the book fails to reveal, however, are the radical policies and ideologies espoused by members of those two organizations.
As co-chair of Accion Puertorriquena, Sotomayor pushed relentlessly for racial quotas in her quest for affirmative action.
Accusing Princeton of “an attempt … to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion,” she stoked backlash from campus newspaper “The Daily Princetonian”‘s editorial staff.
“Affirmative action should not mean positive efforts to reverse a historical pattern of minority under-representation at the expense of traditional standards of excellence,” the paper published at the time. [Emphasis in original.]
Her pro-minority bias seemed to morph into an anti-white bias with her involvement in the Third World Center at Princeton.
In addition to a radical agenda put forth in the group’s founding documents, Sotomayor added her own leftist fingerprint by inviting speakers such as Manuel Maldonado-Denis, who reported that the “only solution” to the U.S. “exploiting” Puerto Rico is “through the establishment of national liberation and the establishment of socialism.”
If this was her inspiration back then, is there any wonder Barack Obama chose her to sit on the highest court in the land – possessing the power to change public policy without worrying about re-election?
Perhaps most relevant to her current position of power, Sotomayor showed partiality toward minorities as a student judge in college.
After inappropriately disparaging eight students who broke into the dorm room of two gay individuals in a letter to the Daily Princetonian, Sotomayor heard the case and demanded those involved be expelled, sources familiar with the incident report.
In the end, the eight students were given two years of probation and were stigmatized with a permanent mark on their records.
Even the victims of the break-in said at the time the punishment was too severe.
While I certainly want a Supreme Court sensitive to injustice, Sotomayor’s past seems to indicate she is receptive to only the suffering of her favorite minority groups.”
Note: This is an article by Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, who is urging senators to take a very close look at her record before commenting on her fitness for the job, which I believe is pertinent and relates to this issue-You Decide:
Black Leader Urges Senate Scrutiny for Sotomayor Supreme Court Nomination: “No Rubber Stamp for Controversial Nominee”: Press Release Posted on The National Center For Public Policy Research-Posted By Mychal Massie-On May 26, 2009:
These are pertinent excerpts from this article:
“Washington, D.C. – With President Obama’s nomination of U.S. Circuit Court judge Sonia Sotomayor to the vacancy being created by U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s impending retirement, Mychal Massie, chairman of the Project 21 black leadership network, is urging senators to take a very close look at her record before commenting on her fitness for the job.
“Of all the possible nominees suggested over the past few weeks, it appears Obama selected the most radical one,” said Massie.
“The U.S. Senate has a duty to scrutinize Judge Sotomayor’s record to ensure she has the demeanor and aptitude to be elevated to such a solemn post.”
Massie continued: “During the Bush Administration, it was common for liberal senators to demand a consensus nominee with broad political appeal. By selecting an avowed liberal in Sotomayor, it would appear Obama is not following the stipulation he and his former colleagues sought to impose upon his predecessor. This should open up the nomination to the scrutiny it justly deserves.”
The Sotomayor nomination, Massie notes, is the perfect catalyst to begin a national debate on the appropriateness of “judicial activism” – when judges essentially cut lawmakers out of the legislative process and try to rule from the bench.
For example, in a 2001 speech at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, Sotomayor said it was appropriate for a judge such as herself to use her “experiences as women and people of color” to “affect our decisions.”
In 2005, she told a crowd at the Duke University Law School that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made” – rather than by lawmakers beholden to voters.
Massie commented: “Considering Justice Souter’s record, Sotomayor will not change the balance of the Supreme Court. But she will likely dramatically alter the temperament of the Court and the way in which it operates. Senators must keep this in mind as they take on the very solemn process of vetting her fitness.”
Project 21, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since 1992. For more information, contact David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or Project21@nationalcenter.org, or visit Project 21’s website at: http://www.project21.org/P21Index.html
For Release: May 26, 2009 Contact: David Almasi at (202) 543-4110 x11 or or firstname.lastname@example.org”
Note: This magazine article reveals President Obama’s planned attacked on the courts, which I believe is pertinent to this issue-You Decide:
Obama’s Coming Attack on the Courts: Alert Posted on Recently Published News Max Magazine:
These are pertinent excerpts from the review of this alarming magazine article:
“More than any of his recent predecessors, President Barack Obama will have an opportunity to dangerously realign America’s courts with activist judges.
With one-time law professor Obama in the White House and a Democratic majority in Congress, the ruling party stands ready to launch the biggest assault on conservative jurisprudence since the Earl Warren Court with the appointment of federal judges.
Will Republicans be able to stave off what could be seen as the legal rollback of the Reagan Revolution?
Newsmax magazine’s special report “Judges Are Not Our Rulers: Obama’s Coming Plan to Liberalize America’s Courts” examines what is likely in store for the courts under the administration of the first president who, as a senator, participated in the filibuster of Bush judicial appointments.
This exclusive Newsmax report explores:
- The biggest fear among conservative legal activists
- The key cases that could soon test federal courts’ political stance
- Why Obama’s judicial philosophy shocked leading GOP senators
- The “greatest hits” in outrageous Democrat-sponsored jurisprudence
- How the “blue slip” rule can torpedo judicial appointments
- The real agenda for legalizing same-sex marriage
- The “conservative nightmare scenario” regarding the courts
- Why Obama wants judges to employ “empathy” in dealing with cases
- The legal moves that most threaten religious organizations
- The “Shangri-La” of judicial conservatism
- How Republicans can inflict political costs for judicial nominees
- The study assessing Democratic and Republican courts and its surprising result
- Obama’s point man on judicial appointments
- The pending bill that will federalize the abortion issue
- Why federal judges wield tremendous power
- What Obama’s appointees tell about the future of the courts
- The lesson Obama has learned from Ronald Reagan
- How a political maneuver will bolster Democrats’ control of the courts
- How the district courts and appellate courts interact
- Why the “Gang of 14” angered conservatives
- The best hope for reappointment among Bush’s judicial candidates
- How court decisions could imperil national security
And much more.”
Note: These articles and/or blog posts relate to and/or support this issue-You Decide:
36 STATES DID NOT RATIFY 17TH AMENDMENT – WHAT WILL STATES DO?-Posted on News With Views-By Devvy, NewsWithViews.com-On January 16, 2012:
Obama’s Judicial Nominees Deemed “Unqualified” by ABA!-Posted on American for Constitutional Government Reform–On January 7, 2012:
Ratings Shrink President’s List for Judgeships!–Posted on The New York Times-By CHARLIE SAVAGE-On November 22, 2011:
Note: These blog posts relate to and/or support this issue-You Decide:
NYC Police: Terror Suspects Wanted to Commit Jihad!
This blog post contains an article that should put some chills down each American’s spine because, it proves that our biggest terrorist threat here at home is from our own “home grown terrorists”, the likes of Bill Ayers and his 1960’s Weather Underground cronies, who set the example for others to follow without retribution–You Decide:
Do Alinsky’s Rules Define This Administration’s Governing Style?
This blog post contains articles that revel that we are witnessing the ramped use of Alinky’s Rules by this President, his administration and/or individuals/organizations connected to them-You Decide:
Another Imminent Homeland & National Security Issue!
This blog post reveals that I, as a Veteran, believe that some deplorable and hap-hazard actions taken by this President and his administration, along with the Democratic majority in Congress, not only threaten our Homeland and National Security, but are systematically eroding our Constitution and will ultimately destroy this great country of ours-You Decide:
These are just a few examples of what I believe to be their deplorable actions:
- DHS Extremist Alert Report Targeting Veterans, President apologizing to the world, to include our enemies here at home and abroad, for this country’s alleged arrogance;
- Trying and convicting members of our Armed Forces for killing their enemies and, in the heat of battle, allegedly other innocent civilian by-standers; and
- Are open to investigating, and possibly prosecuting, officials and lawyers involved in the drafting of the allegedly harsh water-boarding interrogation techniques, although there is credible evidence that shows that the application of these procedures are credited with keeping us safe from other terrorist attacks.
It’s Getting Very Serious Now!
This blog post contains an article that reveals that the MIAC profiled certain people as being potential violence-prone “militia members”: including people who supported Presidential candidates Ron Paul, and Bob Barr. In addition, anyone who opposed one or more of the following were also included in the list: the New World Order, the U.N., gun control, the violation of Posse Comitatus, the Federal Reserve, the Income Tax, the Ammunition Accountability Act, a possible Constitutional Convention, the North American Union, the Universal Service Program, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), abortion on demand, or illegal immigration-You Decide:
Comment: As a Latino I adamantly disagree with and literally deplore the President’s reasoning behind his appointment of a supposedly empathetic minority (AKA: Radical Liberal) Supreme Court Justice, while disregarding what I would consider to be other more critical qualifications, along with pertinent court experience requirements, to include the content of their character and interpretation of the Constitution.
Regardless of my ethnic background and somewhat overwhelming life adversities, upon enlisting into the U.S. Marine Corps and during my twenty year tenure I was systematically promoted from the enlisted rank of Private to the Commissioned Officer rank of Captain based solely on my performance and merits and not on my ethnic background, race or life adversities.
And I honestly wouldn’t have it any other way. I am who I am today because of my twenty year tenure in the Marine Corps where I learned and honestly believe that adversities multiply the end benefit, build character and make you a better person.
I also believe that the President’s decision has little to do with him historically appointing the first Latina to the Supreme Court, but more to do with him covertly attempting to further his own radical agenda of continuing to erode our “Constitution” and destroying our country, knowing very well that if anyone dares to disagree with his appointment and/or attempts to block his appointment, they will be labeled as a “racist” and we now know that we are a nation of cowards when it comes to dealing with racism, as our illustrious U.S. Attorney General eloquently informed us during his acceptance speech, along with being “cold hearted” because they are not sympathetic to the historical appointment of a minority woman with overwhelming life adversities to the Supreme Court.
An action that I also believe will further divide our country by pitting individuals of differing ethnic backgrounds against Latinos, which seems to be just fine with the President as evidenced by his other numerous deplorable actions, which I believe are permanently dividing our country to a point of no return. And, if he continues without restraint, his actions will more than likely cause civil unrest and/or an uprising, which may be his ultimate goal because it would allow him to declare “Marshal Law” as a means of doing away with our “Constitutional Rights” and take over as our country’s life-long dictator-You Decide.
Note: The above articles and/or blog posts and videos relate to and/or support my following blog posts-You Decide:
Is Obama looking for empathy by another name in his supreme court nominee?
President and DOJ have contributed to the racial mess in our country!
The Racial Mess!
Obama is fomenting a race war?
Obama’s Arizona Immigration Law Hypocritical Lie!
‘Game Change’: New Book Reveals 2008 Campaigns’ Messy Moments-To Include Racism!
Were We Forewarned About What to Expect If President Obama Got Elected?
What we haven’t been told about the President’s background!
Where Is America Today?
Is it time to call for Obama’s resignation!
Washington Times Calls for Obama’s Impeachment!
A Nation Adrift Theme and Disclaimer:
“Food For Thought”
God Bless the U.S.A.!