The rays from this beacon, lighting this gateway to the continent, will welcome the poor and the persecuted with the hope and promise of homes and citizenship. It will teach them that there is room and brotherhood for all who will support our institutions and aid in our development; but that those who come to disturb our peace and dethrone our laws are aliens and enemies forever.
When it comes to defending one’s homeland, one should be able to concentrate outward upon the borders and the the threats massed past them. Sadly, however, in these degenerate times you have to always check your six because there’s traitors within the gates ready and willing to throw them wide, destroy you and your homeland’s defenses, and usher the enemy within.
Yes, in these days it’s not just necessary to man and watch the borders. It’s even more important to take action against the traitors, e.g., the judges of the 9th Circuit Court and their families, to ensure the security and integrity of our nation and our people.
So right now there’s a lot of discussion and spewing of hatred over the SCOTUS’ decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which now demands that all 50 States allow Queers to marry under the law. Most of the hate being spewed is, unsurprisingly, coming from the Liberals and Progressives and is both an orgy of gloating and implied threat of persecution – persecution now more likely after Obergefell.
In all truth, I’m rather ambivalent about this ruling from the SCOTUS. I’ve read the decision and it seems a solid and well-founded piece of law overall, but with one glaring problem – Judicial Tyranny over the States and the unintended negative consequences that bit of overreach may very well engender.
The Law Seems A Queer Things These Days
While I have exactly zero issues with the idea of queers being able to marry and have always been an opponent and detractor of DOMA I firmly believe that the SCOTUS’ hearing of this case and rendering such a broad opinion is contrary to best interests of the nation and flies directly in face of previous SCOTUS rulings – utterly ignored by Justice Kennedy and the four Liberals on the Court – that unequivocally stated in Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo that all laws pertaining to marriage are the purview of the several States and not the Federal Government.
Insofar as marriage is within temporal control, the States lay on the guiding hand.
“The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.
Indeed, I’m displeased by Obergefell for exactly the same reason as I was against DOMA. Marriage law has historically been a province of state law in the United States and it should stay as such. While the Supremacy Clause does allow the SCOTUS to do what they’ve done – it’s perfectly valid under Constitutional Law – one should not do something merely because one can or one feels for some person or group of persons.
And yes, this is what Justice Kennedy did. He ignored history and the long-standing weight thereof, previous SCOTUS rulings, and the negative impacts of the legal precedent this sets so as to lend aid and comfort to a group he favors – homosexuals. Remember always that Justice Kennedy is the one who through judicial action effectively legalized sodomy in America with his opinion on Lawrence v. Texas.
So, to all the queers out there – I’m honestly happy for you but I shudder to think of the damage you’ve caused the nation by how you’ve gotten what you felt you deserved.
A lot of Americans are less than totally pleased that Mitt Romney is the Republican Presidential Nominee, feeling that the choice between Romney and Obama is not really much of a choice at all. Romney is, after all, not fundamentally different from Obama in most meaningful ways.
The resulting apathy among Americans is compounded by the fact that Obama isn’t the great Socialist demagogue that he portrayed himself to be. He is, instead, a weak, petty, and narcissistic, and has no real agenda beyond his own aggrandizement. Additionally, with Conservatives in control of the House and having a strong enough force in the Senate to block the Liberal agenda, the tenant of the White House seems largely immaterial to the more casual observer.
Any Questions As To Why Obama Must Be Defeated?
The similarities between Obama and Romney once again compound the issue. Romney too is weak, petty, and narcissistic, and has no real agenda beyond his own aggrandizement. He has no moral or policy positions and will, as he has always done, flip-flop on one issue after another based upon what he and his handlers feel will serve him best at that moment.
This malaise must be countered firmly and put to rest. Beyond all foreign and domestic policy (non)positions, beyond all legislative attempts that can be altered or blocked by the Americans in Congress, it is imperative that Obama be defeated and removed from office in November, 2012. The threat he poses to America is dire and of a generational nature.
Any Questions As To Why Obama Must Be Defeated?
US Supreme Court justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Ginsburg are all expected to retire soon, quite likely within the next four years. Given the nature of the Court this means that whoever is President over the next four years will likely be able to shape the nature of the SCOTUS for a generation!
Are there any questions left as to why Americans must do everything and anything in their power to ensure that Obama is not the to be in a position to do that? Does any American want another Warren Court?!?
The US government is broken down into three separate branches, respectively the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches. Each have separate duties and mandates in order to provide for checks and balances to the power of the other branches. By this means it was envisioned by our Founders that America could stay the creep of tyranny and maintain our Constitutional liberties.
Ironically freedom requires restraint.
Nowhere in America’s government are the restraints upon the proper roles and activities by members of that branch of government stricter than within the Judicial branch. Nor is there any other branch where more restraint is needed, for neither of the other two branches of America’s government can do the lasting harm that our Courts and their rulings and opinions can cause.
It is therefor cause for hope and joy when it’s proven that a judge, especially US Federal Judge, understands the Court’s proper role. Judge Roger Vinson, senior federal judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, is one who understands this.
For purposes of this case, it matters not whether the Act is wise or unwise, or whether it will positively or negatively impact healthcare and the economy. Nor (except to the limited extent noted in Part III.A(7) infra) am I concerned with the manner in which it was passed into law. My review of the statute is not to question or second guess the wisdom, motives, or methods of Congress. I am only charged with deciding if the Act is Constitutional. If it is, the legislation must be upheld — even if it is a bad law. United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 79, 56 S. Ct. 312, 80 L. Ed. 477 (1936) (“For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government”) (Stone, J., dissenting). Conversely, if it is unconstitutional, the legislation must be struck down — even if it is a good law. Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (Child Labor Tax Case), 259 U.S. 20, 37, 42 S. Ct. 449, 66 L. Ed. 817 (1922) (reviewing court must strike down unconstitutional law even though that law is “designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature, because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it, without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant, or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards.”).
— Judge Roger Vinson Florida v. US Dept. of Health and Human Services, pp 2-3
That is a perfect example of a judge constraining himself to only the proper role set forth for his position and limiting himself to exercise only that authority that is rightfully his to exercise. It is not the place of any judge to engage in judicial activism and thereby violate the Separation of Powers. It’s obvious that Judge Vinson knows this.
On Tuesday, May 26, 2009 President Obama announced his first appointee to the US Supreme Court, US Appellate Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor. As anyone would expect, the debate over Judge Sotomayer’s qualifications followed immediately upon the heels of the announcement.
Sadly, the debate is distinctly lopsided with each side putting forth different points in the argument instead of arguing the merits of the same points.
A lot of the talking points in the debate that are coming from the Liberals and their pet media have much to do with realpolitik and social engineering and very little to with any valid qualification for any job, much less a Supreme Court Justice. None the less, these trivialities or irrelevancies are important because Sotomayer’s appointment is far more about the politics of the Legislature than it is about the law or the SCOTUS.
Sotomayor Grew Up Poor
Sotomayor was born in the South Bronx and grew up the Bronxdale Houses housing project and then to moved to Co-op City. Her father, Juan Sotomayor, who died when Sonia Sotomayor was nine, was a tool-and-die worker with a third-grade education who did not speak English. Her mother, Celina Sotomayor, was a nurse.
Despite her economic woes as a child, Sotomayor managed to graduate from Princeton University (BA) and later from Yale Law School (JD).
That’s a very touching and heartwarming tale. If Horatio Alger had ever written a rags-to-riches story featuring a Latina protagonist, I’m sure that the character would have had much in common with Judge Sotamayor. It also plays very well with the press and fits nicely with President Obama’s politics of class warfare. The poor being rejected and denied an opportunity by the evil rich is always a useful political ploy for the Liberals.
However, Sotomayor’s upbringing has little or nothing to do with her capabilities in- and proclivities towards jurisprudence and Constitutional law. The last I checked, neither poverty at birth nor wealth at birth were hard and fast prerequisites for knowledge of the law. The phrase, “All Men Are Created Equal” cuts in both directions without discrimination.
Sotomayor Has Battled Diabetes
Sonia Sotomayor was diagnosed with Type I diabetes at age eight. Since then she has been insulin-dependent.
Sotomayer’s perseverance in the face of a debilitating disease is certainly inspirational, especially for other sufferers of the affliction. Much like her upbringing, it’s great fodder for the press and great political capital. It will be easy for the Liberals to spin any attack against Sotomayor’s appointment as being a de facto attack against the hopes, dreams, and aspirations of the many children growing up with Type I diabetes.
Appointing a person with diabetes to the SCOTUS is also a useful means for further painting any Republicans who argue against Sotomayor’s appointment as being against healthcare, the socialization of which is a key plank in President Obama’s platform.
With the very remotely possible exception of Asperger’s Syndrome, I cannot think of any positive effect a chronic disease would have on Judge Sotomayer’s ability to understand and interpret US laws and the US Constitution. Inversely, Type I Diabetes is very easily managed with modern medicine and has few serious negative impacts on personality or cognition, so Judge Sotomayor’s affliction has no negative effect upon Judge Sotomayer’s abilities as a SCOTUS Justice.
Sotomayor Is A Woman
Judge Sotomayor was born female. She has chosen to retain her gender throughout her life to date.
Politically speaking this has a lot of value in the appointment process. Women are a slight majority in the US population very large voting block. The GOP has always been somewhat weak in its appeal to female voters, so appointing a woman to the SCOTUS is a decently effective political wedge to drive between the Republican Party and the female voters.
President Obama, after the rampant, virulent, and ongoing misogyny that was evidenced during his Democratic Primary campaign against Sen. Hillary Clinton, also needs to make visible strides towards gender equality in his administration in general and his political appointments in specific. Judge Sotomayor is very useful in that capacity.
Practically speaking, however, men and women have equal capacities for understanding the law and the US Constitution. Judge Sotomayor’s gender has no impact, despite her own assertion to the contrary, in her actual ability to be a SCOTUS Justice. If her gender does, due to her own subjective feelings and agenda, have an impact on her abilities it would be, by necessity, a negative impact.
Sotomayer Would Be the 1st Hispanic SCOTUS Justice
Judge Sonia Sotomayor is Hispanic, a Latina in common parlance. In point of fact she is Puerto Rican (Boricua) and English was her second language, one she did not start becoming fluent in until after her father died. While she was born in New York, her mother and father were both born in Puerto Rico – her father in the Santurce area of San Juan and her mother in the Santa Rosa area of Laja.
Appointing a Hispanic to the SCOTUS is politically important for several reasons. It allows President Obama to transcend the divide between the Black and Hispanic worlds of racial politics, thereby increasing the attractiveness of the Democrats to Hispanic voters, a minority group that the Dems have not successfully wooed as of yet. It also makes it easy to paint the GOP as standing in the way of the nomination of The First Latina SCOTUS Justice. This would, they hope, create a schism between the GOP and the Hispanics, the one minority group that the GOP has previously done well with.
Alright, breaking barriers, especially racial barriers, is a good thing, and the The First Latina SCOTUS Justice certainly makes a compelling and inspirational headline; I’m sure Hispanics appreciate the thought. Race has, however, no bearing on the ability of a person, Sotomayor in this case, to interpret US law and the Constitution in an intelligent and objective fashion.
There is no denying that Judge Sotomayor is a compelling figure. She has media potential that few in politics can equal, possibly second only to President Obama himself. Yet the Liberals’ and their media’s emphasis on her upbringing, illness, gender, and race seems to be nothing but political ploys that are focused more on weakening the GOP in the upcoming 2010 House and Senate elections than on affecting the makeup of the Supreme Court’s bench.
These so-called qualifications and talking points certainly are all irrelevant to Sotomayor’s worthiness to be a US Supreme Court Justice, or a waitress – or to hold any other job I can think of with the exception of actress.