Mario Diaz: Sotomayor Stands Alone

This is a fantastic column by a Latino about Sonia Sotomayor:

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, October 26, 2001 speech at the University of California–Berkley. Really? So now judges are supposed to ignore facts because they don’t comport with their heritage? As a Hispanic, I can proudly say Judge Sotomayor’s views do not represent my views or those of the Hispanic community in which I participate. Do you want to know what we believe in? We believe in justice, fairness, freedom, and equality. I have never met a Latino who thinks he is wiser than a white person because he is a Latino. Sotomayor stands alone on that one. Although I proudly join her in celebrating her heritage, I strongly disagree with her judicial philosophy. I believe judges must look away from personal heritage and look to the rule of law. Judge Sotomayor’s own words indicate that she is incapable of doing this. Therefore, senators should not confirm her to the Supreme Court. The idea that personal experience instead of facts and law should determine the outcome of cases runs counter to the underlying premise upon which our judicial system is founded: Equal Justice Under the Law. President Obama and Judge Sotomayor have apparently proposed a new system: Justice According to Race, Gender or Sexual Preference. They propose we rip the blindfold from Lady Justice, destroying the very foundation of the ideals we strive for. One need look no further than the Ricci and Maloney opinions to understand why everyone, including Latinos, should be concerned about Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy. Sotomayor’s opinion in Ricci is just the latest example of her judicial philosophy in which she chooses to ignore facts to advance a cause in which she believes. Apparently discrimination against certain kinds of people is okay with Sotomayor, no matter what the law says. Reversing her decision, the very Supreme Court to which she aspires was clear in its disagreement with such a stance, stating, “[t]he City made its employment decision because of race. [It] rejected the test results solely because the higher scoring candidates were white. … [A]fter the tests were completed, the raw racial results became the predominant rationale for the City’s refusal to certify the results.” In Maloney, Judge Sotomayor ruled that “[i]t is settled law … the Second Amendment applies only to limitations the federal government seeks to impose on this right.” She based her ruling on a case that dated back to 1886, before the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. In Judge Sotomayor’s view, every amendment in the Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment, represents a fundamental right. Why? Because she says so. Ironically, while Judge Sotomayor believes that gun ownership is not a fundamental right, she believes that the right to have an abortion is fundamental. No matter your heritage, Americans should be concerned about a judge who believes that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” The bench is not the place to create, make, or advance personal preferences on public policy and impose them on the American people. An activist ruling by the Supreme Court comes with dire consequences. In examining Judge Sotomayor’s record, senators must look past her Latina heritage and directly at her judicial philosophy. A Justice of the Supreme Court, regardless of his or her heritage, must be able to uphold Constitutional principles for all people, not just the ones that look like me.

Says it all, doesn't it?

You can access the original column on-line here:

Sotomayor Stands Alone
Mario Diaz
TownHall.com
July 13, 2009

Sotomayor Defends 'Wise Latina' Remark; Wants To Be Held To A Different Standard

Can you imagine if a white, Republican male said, "I can make better decisions than a Latina woman without similar experiences" what the reaction from Old Media and the leftist Democrats would be? Such a man would be run out of town and his political or legal career would be over. Period.

But, when a Latina woman makes the reverse statment, Old Media and the leftist Dems fall in love with her.

Whatever happened to Obama's promise of a "post-racial" America? He broke it when he nominated Sotmayor to the Supreme Court. Of course, the Dems in the Senate will validate the broken promise by rubber-stamping Obama's nomination, but the rest of America has taken note of this.

Here is Sotmayor's attempt at garnering sympathy for her own miscue:

"I want to state upfront, unequivocally and without doubt: I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gender group has an advantage in sound judging. I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge, regardless of their background or life experiences," Sotomayor declared.

Except when refering to herself as a "wise Latina." Then she seems to be all about racial identity.

It even showed in her decision against the white firefighters of New Haven, Connecticut. She and two other judges ruled that it was okay to toss out promotion exam results because not enough "non-white" firefighters scored high enough to get promotions. That was clearly a racial decision and thankfully, the Supreme Court overturned her.

Even though the Dems are going to force the confirmation, the Republicans are going to make sure that the public knows as much about her as possible, especially those things that Old Media and the Dems don't want you to know.

[T]he GOP made clear, despite the Democrats' Senate majority that makes her confirmation likely, it would not let Sotomayor's hearings pass without raising questions about her impartiality. By extension, Republicans also are attacking Obama for what they see as a double standard in calling for her quick confirmation after he voted against President George W. Bush's two high-court appointees. The thrust of the Republican case against Sotomayor stems from a variation of a line she used on several occasions between 1994 and 2003 in which she talked about personal experience and judging. "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," Sotomayor said in a speech at 2001 at the University of California, Berkeley, law school.

The Dems are going to hold her to a lower standard but the Republicans will try to hold her to the same standard that the Dems would hold for a white male.

You should also read about Sotomayor's relationship with the vote-fraud organization known as ACORN:

Sotomayor And ACORN Joined At The Hip
Rick Moran
The American Thinker
July 3, 2009

Sotomayor will be confirmed. And I will make the prediction that in her rulings on the Supreme Court, she will inject the racial and prejudicial character of her previous speeches and her left-wing outlook into her decisions. I doubt she will be anything that she is proclaiming before the Senate and everything that the leftist, socialist Obama wants her to be.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Sotomayor Defends 'Wise Latina' Remark
Mark Sherman
TownHall.com
July 14, 2009

Chrysler Deal Highlights The Democrats' Culture Of Corrpution

You may get tired of hearing this, but it needs to be repeated over and over and over. Back in 2006, the Democrats campaigned on a Republican culture of corruption. Their claim was that they would bring back transparancy and fairness to Washington D.C.

Well, the Dems lied to us. They are more immersed in a culture of corrpution than the Republicans ever were, even more than they claimed the Republicans were. Now, we can see that this culture of corruption extends all the way to Barack Obama and the White House.

The Chrysler bankruptcy deal was supposed to sail through with no problems and Fiat would be the new majority owner at the end. But, the Obama administration didn't count on a group of Indiana pension funds looking critically at the deal and finding out what was really going on.

This whole deal with Chrysler was about paying off union supporters at the expense of Joe and Jane Average American.

From the Dow Jones Newswires:

Fiat would initially own 20% of the new company, though it would have the option of increasing its stake to as much as 51%. A United Auto Workers health-care trust would initially get a 55% stake, while the U.S. and Canada, which are lending Chrysler $4.9 billion during the bankruptcy, would own 8% and 2%, respectively. Senior lenders owed $6.9 billion would receive $2 billion, giving them a recovery of about 29 cents on the dollar. The Indiana funds own about $42 million of the senior debt. The UAW's health-care trust has an unsecured claim against Chrysler for about $10.5 billion. In addition to the equity stake in Chrysler that the trust, an unsecured creditor, would receive, it would also get a $4.5 billion note under the plan.

In other words, the UAW, a junior creditor, would be given preference over the Indiana pension funds, part of the senior lenders group. This is why the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the sale, to look at the legality of this situation.

Giving junior lenders preference over senior lenders is wrong. This is clearly an attempt by the Obama administration to pay off their leftist union supporters through the sale of Chrysler and screw over hard-wroking Americans in the process.

(BTW, didn't Obama promise to get the automakers back on their feet? Why is he now so hot about selling them off?)

The concept of fairness and the due process clause in the Constitution dictate that senior lenders must be tended to first and junior lenders after that. Obama is trying to turn that around. In other words, he is changing the rules in mid-stream so that his supporters get the greater benefit at the expense of everyone else.

The Democrats' culture of corruption now adds to Nancy Pelosi, Tim Geithner, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson and Todd Blagovich the name of Barack Obama.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Pension Funds Ask High Court To Delay Chrysler Sale
Mark H. Anderson
Dow Jones Newswire via Wall Street Journal
June 8, 2009

And another good analysis can be found on-line here:

Don't Like the Game? Change the Rules
Glenn Beck
Fox News
June 8, 2009

Leftist Democrat Double Standard: Sotomayer Gets A Pass On Racist Comments, Affiliations

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If it weren't for double standards, the Dems would have no standards at all. Take for example Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor and the statements she has made about race:

"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 ..."

Now, let's say the situation were reversed and a generic white man said, "I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a latina woman..."

Would not the leftist Dems in Congress be screaming that this generic white man was a "racist" and therefore should not be considered for the highest court in the land?

Absolutely they would. So, why aren't they applying the same standard to Sotomayor?

Because the Dems are hypocrites. Ditto for any Republican who supports Sotomayor without calling her on her racist remarks.

What else has Sotomayor done that's racist?

Read this from Sean O'Donnel of the Baltimore Republican Examiner:

[W]hen firefighter Frank Ricci – the lead plaintiff in Ricci v. DeStefano – claimed racial discrimination by being denied a promotion and appealed to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (after losing in the federal district court), Judge Sotomayor denied his claim. The Washington Post wrote that Sotomayor’s decision “was devoid of legal reasoning for affirming the decision of a lower district judge, a curious dismissal for a case that represents significant questions of law and the Constitution."

Even the left-leaning Washington Post can see the racial sentiments of Sotomayor.

More:

When Sotomayor served as a judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, she was a member of National Council of La Raza – the largest national Latino advocacy and civil rights group in the country. NCLR has been criticized for advocating separatist views and has been accused of encouraging illegal immigration. Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) has described NCLR as “a Latino KKK without the hoods or nooses.”

Any one of these situations would completely disqualify a white man. We should hold Sotomayor to the same exact standard. Anyone who does not is nothing more than an arrogant hypocrite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Is Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor Racist?
Sean O'Donnell
Baltimore Republican Examiner
June 3, 2009

Barack Obama's Plan To Force Socialism On The United States, Even Though We Don't Want It

84%. That's how many Americans think that the Marxist philosophy of "redistributing the wealth" is wrong. Thus, even if Barack Obama wins next week, he will run into a wall of opposition from the American people. So, what will he do about it?

Simple. He will stack the courts.

Steven G. Calabresi over at the Wall Street Journal has penned a great column and shows us exactly how Obama plans to do it. With a possible four Supreme Court appointments, Obama would certainly appoint socialists and other extreme leftists to the High Court. That will be majorly bad news for America since it would mean a permanent socialist government from which we may never escape and any attempts to remove such a government could be struck down by Obama's socialist judges. (I can say this with a straight face because Europe, despite the troubles they have faced, have never been able to get rid of the socialism that they are shackled under for the same reason.)

From Mr. Calabresi's column:

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges." On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

And here we are, back to redistribution of the wealth, an idea that only brought disaster to the economies of any nation that has ever tried it.

And it wasn't just his comment to Joe the Plumber. Obama had designs on socialist intervention long before that:

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

The prospect of a socialist presidency should scare everybody. In his misguided attempts to bring about "social economics" to the poor, Obama is going to hurt them even more. By taking money away from those who pay the wages, those who work for the wages will be hurt. He may be giving away $1000 checks to those wage earners in exchange for their vote, but that won't make up for the jobs that wage earners will lose under a cruching tax increase.

And for those of you who don't believe that history can repeat itself:

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

It happened under Carter, and will be even worse under Obama.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution
Steven G. Calabresi
The Wall Street Journal
October 28, 2008

What Does Barack Obama Really Stand For And Do You Agree With Him? Take The Test!

Take the Barack Obama test and see if you know what he really stands for and how often you agree or disagree with his positions:

The Barack Obama Test

Top Ten Things To Expect From An Obama Supreme Court And The Dems Energy Charade

One of the biggest issues facing Americans today is where the Supreme Court will be headed in the next 4 to 8 years. It took over 30 years to undo the Court that back in the 60's and 70's rode roughshod over the American public and forced upon us many ill-advised liberal policies that resulted in the coddling of criminals and walking all over the victims of crimes.

Committee for Justice Executive Director Curt Levey wrote supporters an email which Amanda Carpenter over at TownHall has partially reprinted. Included is a Top Ten list of what we can expect from an Obama Supreme Court. Here they are:

10. Expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences 9. Creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and human cloning 8. Expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA interrogations 7. Prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools 6. Banning the death penalty 5. Requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights 4. Creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and medical care programs 3. Stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance 2. Eroding property rights 1. Ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage

Pretty interesting list, especially for those of us who remember how chaotic the 70's were with respect to criminal justice.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Top 10 Things To Expect From Obama Court
Amanda Carpenter
TownHall.com
July 28, 2008

---

And the Democrats still don't get it when it comes to energy. What are they thinking? That we won't see through their smoke and mirror tricks?

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michele Bachmann, a Republican congresswoman from Minnesota, deconstructs the Dems energy non-policy very nicely and in accurate detail.

From the WSJ:

Consider the details of Drill. It would not have opened new lands to energy exploration. Instead, it would have increased the number of lease sales in the National Petroleum Reserve -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR's) sister territory on Alaska's North Slope -- from one lease sale every two years to one every year. The problem here came in the fine print. The bill would have mandated that leasing be done in an undefined, "environmentally responsible" way. ... The Democrats' focus on the National Petroleum Reserve is also striking. While it contains comparable known reserves to ANWR -- 10.6 billion barrels compared to an estimated 10.4 billion barrels in the wildlife refuge -- its fields are spread over 23 million acres. The portion of ANWR territory that should be opened to exploration covers a mere 2,000 acres. The National Petroleum Reserve's fields are a little over 250 miles from the current pipeline infrastructure, while ANWR is only 75 miles away. To top it off, currently there is no production in the National Petroleum Reserve because of ongoing litigation. By focusing on a patch of Arctic tundra more spread out than ANWR, a greater distance from current pipelines, and subject to lawsuits not addressed by the legislation, the Democrats chose to respond to American cries for expedited drilling in such a way that would have made it harder to produce energy. There's more. The Drill Act included "use it or lose it" restrictions that prohibit the federal government from issuing new exploration or production leases anywhere, unless the applicant can certify that every lease currently held is being "diligently developed" (again, to be defined later by lawyers) to produce oil or natural gas. Any lease not meeting the yet-to-be-determined standards would have to be relinquished.

Clearly, the Dems are scambling to at least present an illusion that they are doing something about soaring energy prices. But they are insulting our collective intelligence by using these idiotic tricks and thinking that we won't see right through them.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

The Democrats' Energy Charade
Michele Bachmann
Wall Street Journal
July 29, 2008

Statement By John McCain On Today's Supreme Court Ruling On Second Amendment Rights

For anyone who still thinks that Sen. Obama equals Sen. McCain:

Today's decision is a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom in the United States. For this first time in the history of our Republic, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was and is an individual right as intended by our Founding Fathers. I applaud this decision as well as the overturning of the District of Columbia's ban on handguns and limitations on the ability to use firearms for self-defense. Unlike Senator Obama, who refused to join me in signing a bipartisan amicus brief, I was pleased to express my support and call for the ruling issued today. Today's ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller makes clear that other municipalities like Chicago that have banned handguns have infringed on the constitutional rights of Americans. Unlike the elitist view that believes Americans cling to guns out of bitterness, today's ruling recognizes that gun ownership is a fundamental right- sacred, just as the right to free speech and assembly. This ruling does not mark the end of our struggle against those who seek to limit the rights of law-abiding citizens. We must always remain vigilant in defense of our freedoms. But today, the Supreme Court ended forever the specious argument that the Second Amendment did not confer an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Time to start drawing these very sharp distinctions between the two candidates.

You can access the Press Release on-line here:

Statement By John McCain On Today's Supreme Court Ruling On Second Amendment Rights
JohnMcCain.com
June 26, 2008

McCain And Obama Differ On Supreme Court Appointees, Global Warming Innocent Of Hurricanes And Doctors Head To Texas

Three really good stories today. Let's start with McCain vs. Obama on Supreme Court Justices. McCain has promised to appoint strict Constitutionalists in the mold of Justices Alito and Roberts. Obama is promising activist Justices who are more emotional rather than rational.

From the L.A. Times:

Sen. McCain (R-Ariz.), in a speech two weeks ago, echoed the views of conservatives who say "judicial activism" is the central problem facing the judiciary. He called it the "common and systematic abuse . . . by an elite group . . . we entrust with judicial power." On Thursday, he criticized the California Supreme Court for giving gays and lesbians the right to marry, saying he doesn't "believe judges should be making these decisions." Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) said he was most concerned about a conservative court that tilted to the side of "the powerful against the powerless," and to corporations and the government against individuals. "What's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves," he said in response to McCain. ... Obama has also praised current Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. "I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through," Obama said.

Remember, it was "empathy" and "feeling" that brought about the socialist policies that have universally been disasters wherever they have been adopted.

It is not just a theoretical policy debate. Whoever is elected in November will probably have the chance to appoint at least one justice in the next presidential term. The court's two most liberal justices are its oldest: John Paul Stevens turned 88 last month, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75. McCain promised that, if elected, he would follow President Bush's model in choosing Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

Right now, they way things are going for us Conservatives, John McCain represents our last, best hope for keeping the Judiciary in the hands of Justices who truly respect the Constitution and all of the principles our Founding Fathers wisely wrote into it.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

John McCain And Barack Obama: Two Visions Of The Supreme Court
David Savage
Los Angeles Times
May 19, 2008

---

A new study coming out the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is showing evidence of what many of us already knew: Global Warming is not responsible for hurricanes, despite Al Gore's screeching claim that the hurricane season of 2006 was going to be twice as bad as 2005. (The truth is that 2006 was notable for it lack of storms.)

According to Fox News:

Ever since Hurricane Katrina in 2005, hurricanes have often been seen as a symbol of global warming's wrath. Many climate change experts have tied the rise of hurricanes in recent years to global warming and hotter waters that fuel them. Another group of experts, those who study hurricanes and who are more often skeptical about global warming, say there is no link. They attribute the recent increase to a natural multi-decade cycle. What makes this study different is [Tom] Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming. He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues "against the notion that we've already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming." The study, published online Sunday in the journal Nature Geoscience, predicts that by the end of the century the number of hurricanes in the Atlantic will fall by 18 percent. The number of hurricanes making landfall in the United States and its neighbors — anywhere west of Puerto Rico — will drop by 30 percent because of wind factors. The biggest storms — those with winds of more than 110 mph — would only decrease in frequency by 8 percent. Tropical storms, those with winds between 39 and 73 mph, would decrease by 27 percent.

I know the libs just hate it when they are confronted with real facts and data rather than the emotionalistic rhetoric of a man who is making millions of dollars off of his eco-pandering. (BTW, someone should ask Al Gore how much profit he makes every time he sells a carbon credit. If it is higher than the 6% margin that the oil companies make, someone should investigate Al for price gouging.)

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Study: Hurricane Spike Not Caused By Global Warming
Associated Press via Fox News
May 19, 2008

---

And finally, we note that doctors are headed for Texas. Why? Tort reform. It is once again economical in Texas to open new practices withour having to worry about ambulance chasers like John Edwards using you and your insurance company to make themselves rich while at the same time driving health care prices so high that the lower class can no longer afford it.

From the Wall Street Journal:

In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down. The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.

And this is a really good idea, one that might have stopped John Edwards from doing so much damage in North Carolina:

One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.

I know, I know. The libs will still blame the "greedy" insurance companies in the rest of the U.S. But it is clear that liberal trial lawyers who seek their fortunes at the expense of insurance companies are the true culprits.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Why Doctors Are Heading For Texas
Joseph Nixon
The Wall Street Journal
May 17, 2008

McCain Castigates Obama For Voting Against Chief Justice

Seems like Sen. Obama is everyone's favorite target these days. But this article by Libby Quaid from the Asssociated Press shows a track record that seems all but unspoken about the presumptive GOP nominee:

McCain promised to appoint judges who, in the mold of Roberts and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, are likely to limit the reach of the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion. "They would serve as the model for my own nominees if that responsibility falls to me," McCain said . ... McCain often is viewed as an independent because he antagonizes fellow Republicans and likes to work with Democrats. Some conservatives dislike his decision to join the "Gang of 14," ... who averted a Senate showdown over whether filibusters could be used against Bush judicial nominees. On Monday, McCain told reporters he didn't know whether conservatives would forgive him for that decision. "You'll have to ask them, but I think I was right to do it; we got all but two of the president's nominees through the Senate," McCain said. ... McCain has repeatedly voted against federal funding for abortion ... He also has cast conservative votes on judges. In fact, McCain has never voted against a Republican nominee for the Supreme Court or federal courts, the Democratic National Committee pointed out.

I guarantee that neither Sen. Clinton nor Sen. Obama has a track record or a Presidential platform like this one.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

McCain Castigates Obama For Voting Against Chief Justice
Libby Quaid
Associated Press via GOPUSA.com
May 6, 2008

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Voter IDs

Now, really. Everyone must have known exactly how this one was going to turn out, even before the arguments were written in draft. Not requiring a photo ID before voting is tantamount to inviting massive voter fraud. Without such a check on the process, who is to say that one voter couldn't go and vote at five or more polling places?

Clearly, the only people that wanted to strike down voter ID laws were those who had designs on using such a legal loophole to allow a single voter to vote multiple times. "Vote early and vote often" was becoming the new leftist battle-cry.

But the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively put an end to the multiple-vote-casting-single-voter scheme. From MSNBC:

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws. In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud. It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case. The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000. Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

The three votes against? Well, as Gomer Pyle would say, "Suprise! Suprise! Suprise!" Those three votes came from the three most liberals justices on the Court. Care to guess what they were thinking when they tried unsuccessfully to strike down a law aimed at curbing voter fraud?

More:

Stevens said the partisan divide in Indiana, as well as elsewhere, was noteworthy. But he said that preventing fraud and inspiring voter confidence were legitimate goals of the law, regardless of who backed or opposed it. Indiana provides IDs free of charge to the poor and allows voters who lack photo ID to cast a provisional ballot and then show up within 10 days at their county courthouse to produce identification or otherwise attest to their identity.

You get all that? "Indiana provides IDs free of charge." Clearly, there is no conspiracy to keep the poor from voting. But without a voter ID law, it is clear what kind of conspiracy could crop up.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Supreme Court Upholds Voter ID Law
Associated Press via MSNBC.com
April 28, 2008

If Principles Matter, So Does McCain

Are you one of those "Principled Conservatives" who is till seething over Senator McCain's clinching of the GOP nomination for President? If so, you really need to read the latest column by Mark Hillman, former Majority Leader of the Colorado Senate. He was the type of Republican who supported the "anybody but McCain" mantra but has since come out in support of Senator McCain's candidacy.

Here's why:

Recently, some conservatives behave as if they have nothing to lose if McCain loses. But a McCain loss equals a Barack Obama win, and we have plenty lose from that. Conservatives remain unified on three key policy objectives: pro-growth tax policy and no-nonsense budgeting, judges who respect the constitution, and a resolve to defeat Islamic terrorists. On these key issues the choice between McCain and Obama cannot be dismissed as the lesser of two evils. The choice is clear and the stakes are enormous. McCain is one of just five Senators who flatly reject pork-barrel budget earmarks. He has vowed to veto any spending bill containing earmarks and has already incurred the wrath of several pork-loving Republicans. That's a welcome change from the you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours spending of the last eight years. By contrast, Obama has promised programs calculated to grow the already bloated budget by $900 billion. Despite his vote against the Bush tax cuts, McCain has vowed to fight to preserve them. Obama conveniently forgets that middle class families benefited most from the Bush tax cuts and instead demagogues against "tax cuts for the rich." However, he can't pay for his big government utopia without squeezing the working class hard. As a Vietnam veteran, McCain understands the lasting consequences of an ignominious defeat. America's stature was badly damaged for years after Vietnam. We now see that McCain's prescription for Iraq after Saddam was right, and the Bush-Rumsfeld strategy was wrong.

But it is the question of Supreme Court Justices that should weigh the heaviest on the minds of "Principled Conservatives." What differences will we be looking at there? What are the potential losses on that front?

However, two things are indisputable: the constructionist justices on today's court were all appointed by Republicans, and the Democrat appointments are all undeniably liberal activists. John Paul Stephens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the two justices most likely to retire soon, are both activists who re-write the constitution in contravention of the plain text. Replacing either or both with another John Roberts, Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas — each of whom McCain supported — could at last restore the court's historic role as a defender of broad individual liberty and a restraint against over-reaching government. If Obama makes the next appointment, we can be certain he will fortify the court's activist wing. Should a constructionist justice retire or die, Obama could swiftly reverse the gains of the last 28 years.

And finally, Mr. Hillman addresses the idea that allowing a liberal to win the White House would somehow be a good thing.

Some conservatives argue that a Democrat victory would galvanize Republicans for 2010 and produce a public backlash, a la 1994. That's a tremendous gamble. Democrats controlled Congress for 40 years from 1955 to 1995. In the Senate, Democrats ruled for 34 of those years. Here in Colorado, perhaps more than anywhere else, Republicans should realize how quickly political fortunes can change and how hard it is to reverse that tide. Conservatives generally recognize short-sighted self-indulgence when practiced by others. Now many conservatives are in danger of practicing a suicidal self-indulgence of their own. We must put aside self-pity and frustration and do what we always have done: choose the right and responsible course for our country. If instead we purposefully withhold our votes to gratify our personal pride and prejudice, the surrendered freedoms, suffocating tax burdens, and national insecurity that result will be as much our responsibility as that of those we "helped" to elect.

That last paragraph says it all. It should be emblazoned on banners all over the Republican Convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

If Principles Matter, So Does McCain
Mark Hillman
TownHall.com
March 26, 2008

Obama's Class-War Court

Looks like Sen. Obama is pinning a good deal of his campaign on class-warfare. In addition to his Texas ads that severely over-inflate what an executive makes compared to minimum wage earners, here is what we will have to look forward to if Sen. Obama gets to make appointments to the Supreme Court.

Terence Jeffrey writing for TownHall.com notes that Sen. Obama made the case that 95 percent of Supreme Court cases were not controversial and thus Justices Scalia and Ginsburg would arrive at the same vote most of the time.

But:

In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. "In those difficult cases," Obama said, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren't in the right place. "The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005. "When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless."

Do we really want this man (or the woman he is currently running against) to make appointments to the Supreme Court?

BTW, Sen. McCain voted to confirm both Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Obama's Class-War Court
Terence Jeffrey
TownHall.com
February 27, 2008

Yes, McCain! And The Real Obama

I know it is still early in the race and many in the GOP are still smarting from John McCain's win on Super Tuesday. But if you really want to rehash that argument, go to the following blog entry and re-read it:

Conservatives Only Have Themselves To Blame For The McCain Mutiny
84rules
February 12, 2008

Since it is clear that John McCain will be the GOP nominee, we need to look forward to November and why we will support our candidate.

Writing for TownHall, Larry Elder asks if the same Republicans who voted for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush are the same ones refusing to vote for John McCain. After all, both Reagan and George W. expanded the role of the Federal Government all the while claiming that government was too big.

But Larry gives the main reasons for supporting McCain:

McCain consistently supports the war in Iraq, and enthusiastically backed "the surge," a new approach that caused a dramatic decline in violence along with some signs of political reconciliation. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama want an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, damn the consequences. As for the economy, don't conservatives believe that the Bush tax cuts helped to jump-start the economy, expand family income, and create jobs? Sen. McCain voted for the extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2006, and supports the repeal of the death tax. His Democratic opponents promise to repeal the cuts and increase taxes on the so-called rich. Campaign promises made separately by Clinton and Obama would grow the budget by between $200 billion and $300 billion annually. As to the Supreme Court, think of the many 5-4 decisions, including but not limited to, Bush v. Gore, the decision that put President Bush in the White House. McCain supported nominees like Justices Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. Why, he even voted for the "reactionary" Judge Robert Bork. Justice John Paul Stevens is 87 years old, with four more justices near or over 70. One more conservative appointee, and Roe v. Wade could be history. Are principled conservatives truly willing to allow that decision to remain for at least another generation? To quote another John, this time McEnroe, "You cannot be serious!"

And gives reason why sitting back and letting a liberal Dem take the White House would be a disaster:

The I'd-rather-sit-on-my-hands-than-vote-for-McCain crowd argues that sitting out paves the road for the Party's re-emergence in the mold of Ronald Reagan. But name a federal government program that, once begun, gets undone. New Deal social programs are now fixtures. The federal government created the Tennessee Valley Authority to provide Southern states with electricity. The electricity is there -- but so is the TVA. Imagine a filibuster-proof Democratic-controlled Congress -- one that passes HillaryCare on to an eagerly waiting President with a pen in her hand. Once that program's out of the bottle, good luck on trying to stuff it back in. McCain opposes a government takeover of health care. The irritating Arizona senator, for all his flaws and warts, understands the big issues -- the war, taxes, and the Supreme Court. Our nation remains at war. The stakes are high.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

Yes, McCain
Larry Elder
TownHall.com
February 14, 2008

---

And since we now have a good idea of who Senator McCain will be running against, it's time to start doing some comparisons. Ken Blackwell has the following to say about B. Hussein Obama:

The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him. Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He’s not. He’s the next George McGovern. And it’s time people learned the facts. Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost. Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Obama has stated some very lofty goals, but what does he propose to reach those goals?

Ken goes on:

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk. Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck. Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

And given that Mr. Blackwell is African-American, let's not overlook his parting shot:

But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and — yes — they’re talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama’s radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton. It’s time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let’s first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

The Real Obama
Ken Blackwell
TownHall.com
February 14, 2008