Time for Thorns

Sonia Sotomayor will be on the Supreme Court.    Quirky Lindsey Graham will probably even vote for her.   Jeff Sessions was the only Republican one who had done all of his homework and prepared thoroughly.   They all had their moments and did some good,  but failed to educate to the extent I had hoped for.

I got so tired of watching them allow her to escape,  and of Democrats talking about important things  like the All-Star game,  that I went on a cooking binge —  Cape-Cod style chicken salad;   a no-crust quiche   with cheese,  sausage and jalapenos;  and Briam.    I won’t have to spend much time in the kitchen to eat well for several days.

This cartoon depicts her actions nicely.   I would prefer one  sufficiently un-politically correct to point out that the nominee either lied through her teeth,  or her mind is so muddled she literally can’t think straight.    Ed Whelan did such a masterful job reporting over at Bench Memos that you might want to skim it for future reference.    Jim Geraghty also did some nice work at the Campaign Spot blog –  scroll down past his delicious news on some of  totally  bizarre actions of the floundering Corzine campaign in New Jersey.

The best thing happened after Sotomayor had departed — the testimony from Frank Ricci and Ben Vargas, two of the New Haven firefighters who were denied promotion because they weren’t black.   I don’t know who helped them write their statements,  or even if anyone did,   but it was very powerful to hear regular citizens  say they expected more from an appeals court than a one-paragraph denial containing no explanation or rationale whatsoever as to why they should be judged on their skin color rather than merit.  Vargas even congratulated the nominee,  but also confirmed that he had been called disloyal for joining the suit.

Depressing,  ain’t it?

The Supremes ruled 5-4  against Judge Sotomayor, with the liberals predictably agreeing that discrimination against male whites can be justified.

SCOTUSBLOG says the decision shows that Sotomayor’s position was not outlandish,  which it isn’t by liberal standards,  but Peter Kirsanow at The Corner sees it as  ” a significant rebuke to how Sotomayor and her colleagues dispensed with the case.”

At a  mimimum it should certainly give rise to some very interesting questioning of the nominee,  provided Republicans have the guts to use it.

A lot of people were surprised yesterday when Justice Ginsberg issued a stay of the Chrysler bankruptcy,  but I am quite sure she would not have done so had not at least three of her colleagues expressed an interest in the matter.

Keep your fingers crossed that the Supreme Court,  having totally botched its job in the matter of eminent domain,   returns to sound jurisprudence and enforces contract law,  which will NOT permit His Oneness to stiff the Chrysler and GM bondholders,  who are by contract to be paid first.

This matters,  because if the High Court fails,  Obama will have wiped out two centuries of contract law.    If the government can ignore or remake contracts,   they aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.  Who of sound mind and minimum fiscal prudence will agree to invest in anything?

Since Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings are set to begin on July 13,  this may provide for an additional avenue of awkward questions for the nominee.

UPDATE:  You can straighten out your fingers -  the Supreme Court wimped out,  and the Chrysler sale to Fiat can proceed.

As I predicted, the California Supreme Court ruling upholding Proposition 8 settled nothing.    The American Foundation for Equal Rights has announced a lawsuit in federal court challenging Prop. 8.  However,  a coalition of gay rights  groups ,  including the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal, are saying the action is premature.

Unsurprisingly,  San Fran Nan has shoved her oar  in,  expressing her “deep” disappointment that her state’s Supreme Court had affirmed the voters’ decision.     No doubt the Speaker will contend that people really support gay marriage,  despite a Gallup poll showing 57% against it.

How long do you imagine these two young men could have talked with nominee Sotomayor  (assuming she had deigned to allow conversation) without her telling them she was a Supreme Court justice?   Maybe a New York minute?

And what do you think the odds are that she would accept the invitation to offer the commencement speech at Quince Orchard High School in Gaithersburg,  especially if it meant she’d miss a session of the High Court?    Somewhere between slim and none, perhaps?

Read some of the excellent advice he gave to the graduates.

Clarence Thomas — quite a Justice,  and quite a man.

Sonia Sotomayor   is Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court.    Was it only a few days ago that he claimed to be under no pressure to pick a woman for the Court?    She will not be the first Hispanic on the Court if confirmed,  but the second.    Of course,  if the Democrats hadn’t stalled and obstructed,  aided by the infamous Gang of 14,  she’d be the  third.

This New York Times piece gives a fair view of her history,  though it claims she isn’t seen as  an “extreme liberal or crusader”.    It doesn’t tell you is that she is disliked by her colleagues and nearly every attorney who appears before her.    She has a habit of marking up filings as if she were a school teacher.     This is the quote which may haunt her:

“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.”    Imagine if Alito or Roberts had said such a thing!

Of course,  that falls in with Obama’s desire for someone with empathy.    He certainly isn’t getting a  first-rate legal mind,  much less a consensus-builder,  since she seems to have the disposition of someone living with a lemon in her mouth.

Ed Whelan has another take on Sotomayor’s selective empathy.   Check out National Review’s Bench Memos section for much more information,  including Wendy Long’s view,  here .   The case which is likely to cause her the most trouble involves the New Haven white firefighters, which Whelan discussed last October.

Obama’s comments are a pack of lies:  recognition of limits of judicial role;  not to make law;  commitment  to impartial justice;   apply law to facts at hand.    Life experience gives common touch,  real world views.  Claims she has more judicial experience than any current Supreme did when appointed.    I think that’s a bit of a stretch,  but someone will vet it shortly.   Half of the nominee’s face is covered by one of the teleprompter screens   –  did no one on Obama’s staff  realize  that, or did they imagine that the cheering and  loud-clapping audience would overcome the bad staging?   Brilliant legal career?    I think not.    Lots of  emphasis  on her diabetes and struggles in life,  but says  she’ll dispense “equal justice”,  which is patently untrue.

Now Sotomayor speaks:  Most humbling honor of her life.   One person  who is  “my life aspiration”  is my mother.    This is a good clue to the disjointed nonsense which rambles through her opinions on a regular basis.   I am an ordinary person.

For two people who claim to believe in the rule of law and the Constitution,  they certainly manage to ignore both whenever it suits them.

Attorney General Eric Holder’s assertion that we’re cowards who need a conversation on race is about to be put to the test, through several cases now at the Supreme Court.    See Quin Hillyer’s informative  — and  comprehensible — column.

All 3 cases  “challenge the racial preferences that Holder consistently advocates.”      His Oneness holds those same views.    Since I have some acquaintance with the law,  I’ve done a bit of digging,  and if the Court reaches the correct conclusions,  we can look forward to Holder having to endure a lot of speech he will absolutely hate.    Of course,  one always hopes for a meltdown,  or at least a public temper tantrum…

Quinn Hillyer wrote a fine piece on Ohio voter fraud:

http://www.dcexaminer.com/opinion/columns/QuinHillyer/Quin-essential_cases_No_Righting_Voting_Wrongs_in_Ohio.html

and now he reports on Southern Appeal that the Department of Justice career employees may not be as neutral as everyone assures us they are.

http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/4996#comment-286150

I wish I were surprised. I wish I was surprised that the Supremes punted on this case, but a Court which will rule that the Constitution’s plain words on governmental takings have no plain meaning has long since lost both ts bearings and its moral authority.