The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Americans against unreasonable search and seizure.  Many states have decided to overlook this right when prosecuting DUI cases so to award officers the ability to stop suspected drunk drivers based on anonymous tips.  In the case of Commonwealth vs. Joseph A. Moses Harris, Jr., the defendant was stopped by police after they received a call that he was driving a green Altima down the street while intoxicated.  The arresting officer never saw Harris violate any laws.  Virginia courts ruled there was not a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to warrant the stop and the case was dismissed.

This ruling prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to request the Supreme Court review the case particulars for possible reversal.  Roberts could not convenience the majority of his colleagues and the case stands as dismissed.  Roberts was not quiet about his discontentment with the decision stating: “The effect of the rule below will be to grant drunk drivers ‘one free swerve’ before they can legally be pulled over by police.”

We must remember, anonymous tips are not always creditable.  Stopping a vehicle based solely on an anonymous tip that a law is being broken opens the door for false arrests and harassment issues.

This documentary is perhaps the most wonderful that I have seen showing the inside of the Supreme Court of the United States–the area in which “the nine,” the most prestigious Court in all of our land, hears cases of particular relevance–those in which the path, and the future, of our liberties are tested, won, and, in some cases, are lost as well.

I hope some of my readers will take the time to view this excellent video.  Special thanks to Professor Orin Kerr, an author at The Volokh Conspiracy, for providing this link.

      Although she has already participated in the campaign film case a few weeks ago, today was Day 1 for the new Associate Justice “from the Bronx”. The sessions are behind closed doors, but the beginning of the Supreme Court career of Justice Sonia Sotomayor will be watched very closely.

       The other Justice being watched closely if 89 year old Justice John Paul Stevens. Justices typically have 3-4 law clerks, but Justice Stevens has only hired one for this term. This has given to speculation that once the Court is in full session, and Justice Sotomayor is settled in, Justice Stevens will announce his retirement. Retired Justices have 1 law clerk as a part of their retirement package.

       Since Justice Stevens and Justice Ginsberg have both ruled or leaned toward the liberal side, their replacement by Barack Obama may not have a bold change on the Court initially, but they will undoubtedly be forces to contend with as the conservative side of the Court might change, depending on whether Obama is able to pull a rabbit trick, and win a second term.

Don’t expect conservative Republicans to object if the Court rules that limits on campaign spending by businesses and advocacy groups incorporated as businesses are a violation of the First Amendment’s free speech guarantees.

Source:
http://blog.kiplinger.com/politics/2009/09/the-activist-roberts-court.html

  Flip a coin 1,000 times to see if prayer really works?

 This is in regards to today’s DR Letter to the Editor, entitled: ” DOES PRAYER REALLY WORK? Let’s flip a coin and find out.” by James Trotman, Morristown.

 Well, I do say that this gets my head gears turning. Maybe this method sounds logical to an unbeliever, but the idea of Chief Justice John Roberts flipping a coin 1,000 times while the devout of all faiths pray for “heads,” shows a big misunderstanding about prayer and faith. Who or what are you praying to?, –the air? Do we think creation came to be, and is held together, by chance? Do we believe that man can make a mockery of God?

If a person, or group, is going to pray to God; than I would suggest that a prerequisite might be, is to first get to know God. What is the nature of God? How does God work? How does God think? How does God hear and answer prayer? “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Romans 10:17).
 
With over 15,000 references to God, the Bible is the best book to read to find out about him.

 Does prayer have anything to do with faith?
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.” (Hebrews 11:6).

 Now, the second point in this letter To the Editor, talks about the separation of church and state according to our Constitution.

 It is obvious and clear, that our forefathers were writing about separation of church and state. They were not writing about separation of God and state. To think otherwise, is to deny all the many and overwhelming evidences adorning our federal buildings, currency, and monuments, along with the practice of prayer in the schools and federal buildings at that time.
 
When determining truth, is it not rational, logical and honest, and indeed correct and righteous to look at the examples of the interpretations applied by the very authors who wrote our Constitution? To ignore the examples set down by our forefathers is nothing more than a blatant disregard for truth. Our forefathers would be ‘rolling over in their graves’, so to speak.  –dc

Judge Sonia Sotomayor, seen here with her family looking on, becomes the first Hispanic justice on the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor is sworn in by Chief Justice John Roberts as her mother, Celina Sotomayor, and her brother, Juan Luis Sotomayor share in the moment. Photo: Jim Young/Reuters

Today, August 8 2009, Sonia Sotomayor was sworn in as the Supreme Court’s first Hispanic justice, and only the third female justice (behind Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg) in the court’s 220-year history. Chief Justice John Roberts swore Sotomayor in today in the second of two oaths. The first oath was a private ceremony, but the second oath was first ever to be televised for the public.

(Sources: AOL news)

     There may never have been a question that Judge Sonia Sotomayor would be confirmed as the Associate Justice to the United States Supreme Court, as the replacement for retiring Justice David Souter. But the White House had been emphatic from the start that her confirmation vote must be a better vote than the Senate vote for the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, which was 78-22.

     Despite her “wise Latina” comment, which was stated in numerous speeches, yet downplayed as a “one time” occurrence, no Democrat wanted to challenge the President.  The vote was  68   for her confirmation, and 31  opposed. It is important to remember that the junior Senator from Illinois voted AGAINST the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, an action that has been brought up when the Dems commented that the Republicans should fall into line behind the President.

     Justice Sotomayor, touted as the first Hispanic justice on the Court (although Justice Cardozo’s Portuguese heritage actually qualifies him to be labelled as the first Hispanic), is the third woman appointed to the bench.

     The wise Latina woman appeared on Capitol Hill, and Sen. Leahy began the “dog and pony” show that is being choreographed for the benefit of the American public. But if this process is to be truly sincere, truly honest to the Constitution, then Sen. Lindsey Graham’s statement that “elections have consequences” is false. The young Sen. from Illinois, now the President, didn’t see it that way when he voted against the nomination of Chief Justice John Roberts, not on his record or his qualifications, but because he did not think that Roberts would have the empathy that would be needed to affect social justice.

        From “America’s Right”:

                Voting against the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor will take a wealth of political courage. Giving Sotomayor a rough time with regard to the plethora of reasons why she should not sit on the United States Supreme Court will take even more.

It would be relatively easy for a senator to explain to his or her constituents that he or she look forward to a day when they could vote in favor of confirming a nominee who is both Hispanic and qualified. Explaining why they relentlessly pointed out overt, repeated acts of racism and judicial activism on her part—not to mention the several occasions where her decisions, rooted in a stark dearth of intelligence, were overturned by the Supreme Court—would be slightly more difficult.
 

Here are my questions for the Hon. Sonia Sotomayor:

1. Is a Hispanic female party more or less likely to bring a bona fide grievance before the Court than a white male party?
2. If you were in my shoes, and Chief Justice John Roberts were to have said, on several occasions, that he has been able to come to a better decision because of his life experiences and his being a white male judge than, say, a Hispanic or black or Native American female judge could, how fit would you consider him to be objectively adjudicating matters where the legal and constitutional issue, rather than the parties, are of the utmost importance?
3. Most of your decisions which have reached the Court at which you aspire to sit have been overturned or otherwise scrutinized for your failure to properly interpret the law. With no court to review the Supreme Court, should the American people be confident you’ll get it right?

For the full list and article: http://www.americasright.com/2009/07/law-and-wise-latina.html

Schumer: Sotomayor ‘by a large margin’ Politico
Leahy predicts Sotomayor will be confirmed Politico
Republicans set to challenge Sonia Sotomayor at congressional hearing guardian.co.uk
Sotomayor faces friendly jury as hearings begin The Associated Press
Sotomayor May Get Hardball Questions From Her Own Party Wall Street Journal
Let the Hearing Begin Huffington Post
Sotomayor Girds for Hill Showdown Washington Post
What Would You Ask Judge Sotomayor? New York Times
Sessions “Flabbergasted” by Sotomayor’s Philosophy CBS News
FACTBOX-Judge Sotomayor would be top court’s first Hispanic Forbes

Jeffrey Toobin writes an interesting piece at The New Yorker on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.

He reviews the history of ‘diversity’ in connection with appointments and concludes that this is not new in the history of the Court, recalling for instance the existence of the ’so called Catholic seat’.

He concludes his article:-

Supreme Court Justices are less bound by precedent than any other kind of judge, so one can never know for sure how even an experienced jurist like Sotomayor will rule once she has that freedom. As a judge on the Second Circuit, she has heard scarcely any cases involving the death penalty, gay rights, or the limits of executive power, which are all mainstays of the Supreme Court docket. Yet, like Obama, Sotomayor has been sympathetic to claims of discrimination by members of racial and religious minorities, and by the disabled. Also like the President, she is a believer in a strong federal government; she rejected claims by an abortion-rights group that the Bush Administration had violated the First Amendment by withholding aid from foreign groups that promote abortion. When the government pays the piper, she said, in effect, it gets to call the tune. It’s hard to attribute any of her opinions directly to her gender or to her ethnicity, but, as she has observed, her background is inseparable from her views—a circumstance that has applied to every Justice who has ever served on the Court. At this point, one can say only that Sotomayor looks to be what the tableau of President and nominee in the East Room suggested—a fitting representative of a changed and changing nation.

In fact Justice Souter once on the Court ruled in a way many found at variance with their prior pre-conceptions of Souter. So if the nomination passes, Justice Sotomayor may well surprise, delight and dismay people.

Toobin authored an excellent piece on Chief Justice Roberts recently. Adam commented on that piece as well.

The Washington Post has an article titled “Court rules for white firefighters over promotions.“  The U.S. Supreme Court overturns a case in which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed regarding a highly publicized case out of New Haven, Connecticut.

Some key parts:

“Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer’s reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his opinion for the court. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.“

and this:

“In New Haven, Nancy Ricci, whose son, Frank, was the lead plaintiff on the lawsuit, carried a large cake decorated with red, white and blue frosting into the law office where the firefighters were celebrating their victory.

Ricci’s father, Jim Ricci said the ruling is a victory for firefighters across the country. “Now we’re going to get the best managers as far as firefighters go. That’s really important,” Ricci said.”

and this:

“Kennedy said an employer needs a “strong basis in evidence” to believe it will be held liable in a disparate impact lawsuit. New Haven had no such evidence, he said.”
My take?  Yeah this creates some interesting issues, but I think this is a good ruling.

Congratulations to Frank Ricci and New Haven FD!

How about we move beyond race versus injecting race right back into so many things as we run around shouting that we want a color blind society? When your house is on fire, you’re trapped in a car wreck, or what not, I doubt you’re going to care a bit about the race of the guys/gals coming to your rescue. Personally I just want the most qualified ones responding!

Hey, no one wants racial based discrimination in the workplace. That said, I  tend to think a lot of this is taken way too. I think we can find a much better balance between protecting employees from racial discrimination concerns and employers unable to get the best employees out of fear of being sued.

Want to fix a lot of the problems we face today?  Ah, how about we start with tort reform!

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court will decide the constitutionality of a federal law that permits sex offenders to be kept behind bars after they complete their prison terms.

The justices, acting Monday, say they will consider the Obama administration’s appeal of a lower court ruling that invalidated the law.

The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., ruled in January that Congress overstepped its authority when it enacted a law allowing for indefinite commitment of people who are considered “sexually dangerous.”

In April, Chief Justice John Roberts granted an administration request to block the release of up to 77 inmates at a federal prison in North Carolina. These were people whose prison terms for sex offenses were ending. The justice’s order was designed to allow time for the high court to consider the administration’s appeal.

The challenge to the law was brought by four men who served prison terms ranging from three to eight years for possession of child pornography or sexual abuse of a minor. Their confinement was supposed to end more than two years ago, but the government determined that there would be a risk of sexually violent conduct or child molestation if they were released.

A fifth man who also was part of the legal challenge was charged with child sex abuse, but declared incompetent to stand trial.

Civil commitment was authorized by the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which President George W. Bush signed in July 2006. The act, named after the son of “America’s Most Wanted” television host John Walsh, also establishes a national sex offender registry, increases punishments for some federal crimes against children and strengthens child pornography protections. Those provisions are not being challenged.

State laws allowing civil commitments of sex offenders also are unaffected.

The case will be argued in the court’s next term, which begins in October.

The case is U.S. v. Comstock, 08-1224.

Monday’s Supreme Court Decision on a key provision of the 1965 Voting Rights Act seems to have caught the civil rights community by surprise. The high court affirmed, for the time being, the validity of Section Five of the Act, which requires a pre-clearance before a municipality covered by it can bail out of it. The decision, however, seems to have raised as many questions as it answered.

The court allowed a Texas jurisdiction covered by the Voting Rights Act to opt out, largely because it had no past history of discrimination against black voters.

At the same time, they punted on the constitutionality of the Act itself. Maybe that’s because Congress passed an extension back in 2006, and  an 8-1 majority decided they didn’t want to be the ones that struck it down. The ruling did allow for challenges in the future, and make no mistake, those will come, and come quickly.

There are those who would argue that the election of Barack Obama makes the Voting Rights Act obsolete (knock wood, the court wasn’t one of them).

What nonsense! One need only look at various attempts (mostly by Republicans) to pass voter ID laws to realize that attempts to disenfranchise people of color and the poor are alive and well.

Chief Justice Roberts was right when he said “The South has changed”. That, however, would mandate an update of Section 5, not gutting the Act itself.

Isn’t it ironic that some of the same politicians who criticize President Obama for not being forceful enough in speaking out about elections in Iran want to gut a law that provided for free and fair elections here?

And what specific harm has the Voting Rights Act done to America?

Has it disenfranchised Americans, as was the practice of many jurisdictions prior to 1965? Has the Justice Dept. been accused of using Section Five (or any other section for that matter) in an arbitrary manner?

No, the effort here, and on the part of some conservatives in Congress, was to eviscerate the Act before the redistricting that will come with next year’s census. Some states, free of the Act and on the brink of passing voter ID laws, could draw legislative lines that could make it that much more difficult to elect people of color. Some of those places are not in the South. But then, the Voting Rights Act didn’t just cover the South.

I’ve posted my personal mea culpa on this blog in the past to those who sounded the alarm about the Act back before Congress extended it. It wasn’t that I thought it wasn’t needed, I just never thought Congress would let it lapse without renewal. I may have been right about that, but I was wrong about the need for continued vigilance. If the recent p;ast has taught us anything, it’s that taking rights for granted can sometimes lead to them vanishing before our eyes.

What do you think? Was Monday’s Supreme Court ruling on the Voting Rights Act a victory?

The Supreme Court said it is up to the states to allow or not allow those found guilty in a criminal case access to biological material that may prove their innocence.  The kicker?  Even if the convicted person is offering to pay for the DNA tests themselves, they still do not have a right to access biological evidence.  Or maybe they do, it depends on which state they are in. 

It is difficult to know what the eff the Supreme Court was thinking, unless they somehow believe that criminal trials are infallible.  And this idea is a difficult one to accept, as The Innocence Project has freed over 200 people after testing DNA, 17 of them on Death Row. 

From the Supreme(ly Lame) Court:

“A criminal defendant proved guilty after a fair trial does not have the same liberty interests as a free man,’’ he wrote, and thus states have more “flexibility’’ in deciding procedures for postconviction relief.

_______________________________________________________

The language in that statement alone is stunning, “A criminal defendant PROVED GUILTY?”  That is right up there with saying that O.J.’s earlier criminal trial proved him innocent of the double homicide, since he was acquitted (and in that case, in spite of DNA evidence).  And the court seems to not have noticed the number of inmates found to be innocent after their conviction through DNA testing, what exactly happened to those cases of being “proved guilty?”

Or am I to understand by the Court’s reasoning that even though people have been found to be innocent and released from prison, that they are still considered to have been guilty of the crimes they were imprisoned for.  This ranks right up there with when a church declares itself to be infallible, all evidence to the contrary.

Courts decision PDF

While this decision admittedly only would affect a small number of cases, as only a few states bar convicted persons from obtaining biological evidence, the point is that if someone has the misfortune of being found guilty in one of these states, that they could not even test samples with their own money, which just seems nuts.  Why bother to have an appeals process at all, since the court has already found someone guilty?  They obviously must be guilty, otherwise they would have been found innocent in the system that never ever fails.

Strangest quote from this case may be this one:

“DNA testing has an unparalleled ability both to exonerate the wrongly convicted and to identify the guilty.”

_____________________________________

While that quote seems to make perfect sense, the strange part is that it was from Chief Justice Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion denying the right of those convicted to DNA testing.

Recently, conservative SCOTUS justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas in addition to Chief Justice John Roberts dissented in the SCOTUS decision—Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc.—that determined a West Virginia judge should have recused himself, since “the Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule requiring recusal when a judge has ‘a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest.’”

In this case, Chief Justice John Roberts “argued [in his dissent] that the ruling would damage public confidence in the judiciary,” since the “Court’s new ‘rule’ provides no guidance to judges and litigants about when recusal will be constitutionally required.”  However, the Court in this case asserted, “[T]he Court has identified additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal. These are circumstances ‘in which experience teaches that the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable.’” The Court also provided this guidance: “The inquiry is an objective one. The Court asks not whether the judge is actually, subjectively biased, but whether the average judge in his position is ‘likely’ to be neutral, or whether there is an unconstitutional ‘potential for bias.’”

Chief Justice John Roberts also argued, “This will inevitably lead to an increase in allegations that judges are biased, however groundless those charges may be. The end result will do far more to erode public confidence in judicial impartiality than an isolated failure to recuse in a particular case.” Certainly, the courts can manage groundless charges, and I believe the dissenting conservatives justices in this case—including the Chief Justice—have done more to “erode public confidence in judicial impartiality,” especially since this case was about judicial impartiality. From Facing South:

After the Massey Energy coal mining company lost a $50 million verdict to a competitor, CEO Don Blankenship spent $3 million electing a friendly judge to West Virginia’s Supreme Court of Appeals who went on to cast the deciding vote in a case that overturned the verdict.

.       .       .

“At its core, the Caperton case was about the inherent conflict of interest when our elected officials depend on or are aided by large campaign contributions and excessive spending in the electoral process,” said Nick Nyhart, president of Public Campaign, a nonprofit that promotes public financing of elections. “Americans know that campaign contributions from wealthy special interests impact the policy decisions made by Congress on matters that affect the life and well being of all of us.”

Massey’s stock was down 6% in yesterday afternoon’s trading on the New York Stock Exchange, while other coal company stocks were down between 2 and 4%, Reuters reports.

The high court’s ruling is the latest in a series of recent setbacks for Richmond, Va.-based Massey. Last month Ohio State University President E. Gordon Gee resigned from Massey’s board under pressure from activists who argued that his promotion of sustainable energy was incompatible with Massey’s reliance on mountaintop removal mining.

And earlier this year, Santa Clara University in California divested its holdings in Massey because of the company’s record of environmental destructiveness. The company has also been the target of nonviolent protests over its environmentally destructive business practices.

White House photo by Paul Morse found here.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

There are times when our elected officials act like little more than sullen, spoiled children (witness what’s happening in the New York State Legislature, but that’s another post). Now that Senate Judiciary Chair Patrick Leahy has announced a July 13th start date for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, Republicans are crying foul. “Not enough time”, they bleat. Senator Jeff Sessions argues “It’s far more important we do this right then we do it quick”.

In other words, there isn’t enough time for the GOP to play “Gotcha” with this nominee. They know they don’t  have the votes to stop her confirmation, so now they grasp at straws. When confronted by the fact that Leahy’s timeline is remarkably similar to that of Chief Justice John Roberts when he was confirmed, they counter that she’s ruled on ten times more decisions than he , hence the need for more time.

And of course, the flaw in the Republican argument. If experience on the bench is an important qualifier for the nation’s highest court (and we’ve heard the GOP trot this out many times in the past), Judge Sotomayor would make the grade just by the number of decisions she’s rendered. Still, the Republicans argue that under the July 13th timeline announced by Leahy, they’d have to review 76 cases per day to be prepared for her confirmation hearing.

Well, if Senate familiarity on national security briefings is any indication, Most of them won’t be doing the heavy lifting themselves anyway. That’s why they have paid staffs, and trust me, they don’t skimp on them. No, the GOP wants time because they want to find something, anything that would torpedo Sotomayor’s nomination. To be fair, this isn’t new, nor is it the sole province of Senate Republicans. But they ought to be honest and say that’s what they’re doing.

If they were totally frank, they’d say they need more time not  not to study Sonia Sotomayor’s record but to figure out how to make themselves look good to moderate and independent voters during the televised confirmation hearings. Seen from that vantage point, the political stakes are high, high enough to make a big stink about the timing of the process. Make no mistake. If the Republicans still controlled the Senate, those hearings wouldn’t start until after Labor Day, and no power on earth would make them move faster.

All this attention around Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation is a good thing. Americans ought to have something substantial to focus on besides “Jon and Kate, Plus 8″ (lol).

The Supreme Court  has a tremendous impact on the way we live our lives. The Senate should look at her record. Barring any surprises, it shouldn’t be found wanting.

What do you think. Is July 13th too early for Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings to begin?

George Will has an OpEd piece at The Washington Post on Obama’s nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court.(H/T Daniel Finkelstein)

Will makes some interesting observations. Adam had posted the other day on The New Yorker profile of Chief Justice John Roberts. The New Yorker profile had some interesting comments on Justice Roberts attitude to race and anti-discrimination statutes. Now Judge Sotomayor would appear to come from a very different perspective. One of the cases cited in the New Yorker article is one where Sotomayor was part of the panel hearing the case. It is probable that the case will be overturned by the Supremes.

Will points out that Stuart Taylor of the National Journal has:-

also noted this from a Sotomayor speech to a Hispanic group: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Says Taylor, “Imagine the reaction if someone had unearthed in 2005 a speech in which then-Judge Samuel Alito had asserted, for example: ‘I would hope that a white male with the richness of his traditional American values would reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life’ — and had proceeded to speak of ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences.’ “

Her ethnicity aside, Sotomayor is a conventional choice. The court will remain composed entirely of former appellate court judges. And like conventional liberals, she embraces identity politics, including the idea of categorical representation: A person is what his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference is, and members of a particular category can be represented — understood, empathized with — only by persons of the same identity.

Thus the hypocrisy of empathy. We see it in NZ as well. In this regard Contra Celsum has written on the issue of racism in NZ and taken the New Yorker profile of Roberts as a starting point. The post postulates the following argument:-

Discrimination on the basis of race is odious, but sadly lawful. In New Zealand racism is now institutionalised, so interwoven into the legal and government fabrics that virtually everyone just accepts it. We feel good about it though. It is OK–because it is “positive” racism.

Contra Celsum points out that it is this attitude which exercises Justice Roberts.

Adam commends the George Will article and the Contra Celsum post.

Washington—In a bold, yet tear-filled press conference, Sonia Sotomayor guaranteed her confirmation on the Supreme Court, and urged Americans to remain calm as she rewrites the U.S. Constitution.  The tears came when she accepted the nomination as both Obama and Biden practically slobbered in her presence.

“What we’ve seen over the last 230 plus years,” stated Sotomayor, “is that the U.S. Constitution is outdated.  It was written by whitey for whitey.  I’m here to change all of that.  So remain calm in your homes while I replace your job with a less than qualified minority candidate.”

Sotomayor challenged Senate Republicans to try and stop her from confirmation, going as far as to guarantee that no one could touch her.  “I know I’ll be on the court,” added Sotomayor.  “No Republican will even think about touching me.  I’m a Hispanic woman, and that’s gold in Washington.  John Roberts better think about removing himself from Chief Justice, because this Chica is taking over!”

Senate Republicans, however, said that they were willing to dig as deep as they could to keep her off the court.  “We’re going to dig so deep it hurts,” noted Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-KY.  “By the time we’re through, she’ll feel like she’s had a colonoscopy.  The thought of her painful confirmation sends a tingle down my leg.”

Somebody needs to do some ’splainin’ to me as to why the last time a Princeton University and Yale Law School graduate  was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States of America, nobody said one fucking word about him not being smart enough for the job!

I’m really hoping the GOP commits hari-kari on this one as it should provide terrific fodder for the upcoming midterm election season hijinks.  And somebody needs to tell Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty to get off his ass and start putting the weight of his office behind an effort to tell Norm Coleman to give it up and seat Al Franken to his rightfully, albeit weakly, elected office in the US Senate.  

The Senate Democrats, especially Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), need to grow a set and start getting control of their own caucus… I’m looking at DINO Ben Nelson (D?-NE) specifically.  I seem to recall  two months and three months confirmation periods for Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito respectively that the Dems can point to when the Republicans start hyperventilating during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.

Besides, I’ve been watching the POTUS’ moves since late January and if President Obama selected her, then she can’t be that liberal even if she did find for the players and end the Major League Baseball Strike of 1994.

Ladies and gentlemen, Judge Sonia Sotomayor…

Read what Glenn Greenwald has to say about the GOP noise machine and why it will fail with Sotomayer and his editor at Salon.com Joan Walsh thinks too.

Barack Obama’s nominee to fill the soon-to-be vacant seat on the Supreme Court should be chosen “American Idol” style. Disregard political views, academic law dissertations, job qualifications, or “liberal” or “conservative” biases. Don’t even consider gender, race, religion, or creed. Consider what Simon Cowell might think.

If democracy is a popularity contest, then let the most popular judge win. Or lawyer, or law professor, or politician. The Supreme Court is a really big deal, after all. Those nine robe-wearing justices decide what’s legal or illegal in this country. That is no small task.

Americans are divided about how they view issues like abortion, assisted suicide, presidential war powers, and free speech. Should a woman have the right to terminate the life of her unborn child? Should non-heterosexual people have the same rights to marry as their straight counterparts? How should the federal government handle gun rights? Did the Founding Fathers intend every American to own an M16 assault rifle that they can bring with them to school and public parks? People want answers to these questions.

If the law is supposed to protect the rights of the people, then it is logical that the people should be able to choose who writes these laws. And besides, who wouldn’t want to watch Clarence Thomas and Sandra Day O’Connor sing a duet from “Les Misérables?” Forget Kris Allen or even that underdog Brit Susan Boyle. The real surprise talent all come from the Judicial branch of the government.

People in the western world value their freedom. It is a hallmark of Americana. Our Constitution is imbedded with the assumption that all men (and women, as we have later discovered) are created equal and are endowed with certain inalienable rights that have been given to them by their Creator (or any other theistic or non-theistic deity of your choosing). When we value freedom, we value our lives. And this is why the next member of the Supreme Court should not be chosen by the president. It should be chosen by any Joe Six Pack in the good old U.S.A.

And already the names are pouring in. Advocacy groups want Obama to choose either a racial minority or a woman to replace the soon-to-retire David Souter. He can be fancy and choose a minority woman. That’s right. A “Two-fer” because that’s two for the price of one. We are living in more progressive, hope-filled times, are we not?

Former President George W. Bush was so lame to choose two middle aged white guys to the Court when he was in office. Chief Justice John Roberts looks like the guy next door whose hosting a barbeque that he’s invited your family to attend. Justice Samuel Alito looks like a guy you’d see teaching your daughter’s cello lessons or coaching your son’s soccer team. In other words, these guys so are boring! Obama, the hip young dude that he is, should know better.

Names being thrown around as possible replacements for Souter are U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan, federal appeals judges Diane Wood and Sonia Sotomayor, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, California Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. Choosing either a woman or a Hispanic American seems to be the trend right now.

After all, this is America, right? If people want either a woman or a racial minority on the Court, they should get it. We should have a system where people can call in to choose who they want and have Ryan Seacrest announce it on television. That is reality TV that I’d be willing to watch.

But instead Obama is saying that he will not pay attention to demographics when making his choice. Oh great! The 44th President even had the nerve to say on a C-SPAN interview:

“I think in any given pick, my job is to just find somebody who I think is going to make a difference on the courts and look after the interest of the American people. And so, I don’t feel weighed down by having to choose a Supreme Court justice based on demographics. I certainly think that ultimately we want a Supreme Court that is reflective of the incredible variety of the American people.”

Wait a minute! Picking a Supreme Court justice who reflects the interests of the American people? You mean someone who’s actually qualified to look after the law? Someone who knows how legal decisions affect the lives of everyday people? Someone who isn’t tied down to a certain political ideology? What a concept. A justice whose views, values, and integrity are more important than their gender or skin color? How un-American. How weird. How unpatriotic.

Okay, now I’ll try to be serious for a moment.

I am all for having women and minorities in positions of political power in our country. I am a minority myself, in case you didn’t know that. But all the talk from advocacy groups commanding Obama who to pick harkens back to the days when Washington lobbyists owned U.S. senators in their pockets. Wait a minute, that’s still going on.

I think it is important that the Supreme Court have more gender and racial diversity. Justices Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg seem awfully lonely up there. We need more diverse voices in order to make our laws truly reflect our country’s values. But more important than that is a judge who will uphold our constitutional laws and make sure our nations doesn’t condone horrendous actions like torture, waterboarding, and unwarranted domestic spying. Integrity is more important than the demographic one belongs to.

Advocacy groups pressuring Obama to be “progressive” and choose a woman or a minority disrespects the institution that is the U.S. Supreme Court. Our laws are more important than fulfilling white guilt (though Obama is black) obligations. Feminist or minority lobbyists making decisions of who should go on the Supreme Court is like “American Idol” viewers deciding who is talented enough to win a recording contract. These decisions should be made by people who are smart, deliberate, and wise, not those who are blind warriors for “equality.”

If Obama picks a woman, great. If he picks a Hispanic, African, or Asian American, great. But I hopes he picks someone who is intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable, and not ideologically driven. That is the direction our country needs to go in right now.

But seeing John Paul Stevens singing and dancing would be pretty funny.

Justice Souter having announced his retirement from the US Supreme Court, this appraisal by Jeffrey Toobin Of Chief Justice John Roberts in the New Yorker is timely and worth reading in full. Note the comments of how Roberts has come to differ from the preception he left at the confirmation hearings.

Jeffrey Toobin on Chief Justice John Roberts:

His jurisprudence as Chief Justice, Roberts said, would be characterized by “modesty and humility.” After four years on the Court, however, Roberts’s record is not that of a humble moderate but, rather, that of a doctrinaire conservative. The kind of humility that Roberts favors reflects a view that the Court should almost always defer to the existing power relationships in society. In every major case since he became the nation’s seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff. Even more than Scalia, who has embodied judicial conservatism during a generation of service on the Supreme Court, Roberts has served the interests, and reflected the values, of the contemporary Republican Party.

—
Photo source for attribution here and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::