Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama-Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012

Thursday, June 28th, 2012

 

Dr Obama 217x300 Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012

How conservatives & independents can defeat Obama-Care TAX in November, 2012

Supreme Court Justice Roberts caved.  He  may go down in history as the Swinging Roberts –    which way does the wind blow?  And there went Roberts … Yes, ideology does matter.

Obama-Care  is a valid  TAX says the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.    Congress   legally passed   the Obama-Care TAX.   So, remember the power of the purse.  Congress can repeal the Obama-Care TAX.

So, now it’s up to conservatives, independents and free thinkers to organize and defeat the Obama-Care TAX  at the ballot box in November, 2012.

What all of us can do:

Say a  daily prayer for the Nation to survive as the kind of nation it was when a group of patriots first founded the United STATES of America.

This July 4th, take time to read the Declaration of Independence with your family  and friends.

Think about what it means to you to be an American:  what are the freedoms you most cherish and why?

The rule of law is the basis of our freedoms.  Obama’s administration uses REGULATIONS to overturn valid laws.  As Nancy Pelosi say, you have to pass it to

Think about Obama’s response to the Supreme Court ruling concerning immigration.  Arizona can do valid Stops and inquire concerning immigration status. Obama has said that the Justice Department will not  answer phone calls from Arizona concerning immigration status. And further, Obama has set up a hot line so that those who are stopped can get through to Obama concerning their civil rights.

Consider joining  or starting a Tea Party organization which supports limited government, fiscal restraint and free markets.

Some links to California Tea Parties are listed below:

www.californiateapartygroups.org/

www.teapartypatriots.org/groups/los-banos-tea-party-patriots/

teapartypatriotsofmontereycounty.com/

The Heritage Foundation discusses the Obama-Care TAX: 

 http://www.heritage.org/

written by Cameron Jackson   DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

sharebookmarx Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012

tt twitter Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012 Tweet This Post

email Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012aol Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012backflip Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012google Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012digg Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012amazon Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012blogmarks Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012facebook Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012gmail Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012read it later Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012blogger Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012reader Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012live Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012yahoo Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012vodpod Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012technorati Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012share save 171 16 Aptos Psychologist: How Tea Parties, conservatives & independents can defeat the Obama Care TAX at the ballot box November, 2012

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economy, Freedom, Government, Health, Law, Obama Admin., Uncategorized | No Comments »

Aptos Psychologist: Obama’s ‘spin’ that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a ‘leak’ from his appointee to the Court?

Wednesday, April 4th, 2012

KAGAN Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?

Kagan leak?


So did someone on the Supreme Court leak to Obama that the Supreme Court might find ObamaCare illegal? If so, was it someone — Kagan — who used to work for Obama?

Federal judges can find Obama-Care illegal says Texas federal Judge Smith in response to Obama’s recent remarks about judicial review. It’s impossible to find ObamaCare’s individual mandate illegal said Obama. Oh?

But federal courts routinely strike down laws as illegal and unconstitutional. Today, Texas federal judge Smith bristles at Obama’s recent remarks on judicial review and that unelected men and women cannot — or should not — decide the fate of Obama-Care.

Texas federal Judge Smith rebuked U.S. Attorney General Holder concerning Obama’s remarks and requested within 48 hours a 3 page single space response concerning Obama’s position on judicial review.

The Supreme Court has always practised deference responded Eric Holder. Sounds like Holder thinks that the Supreme Court is supposed to rubber stamp whatever the Executive branch does.

Some of Texas Judge Smith’s prior rulings: Affirmative Action illegal and unconstitutional at Texas Law School. Obama’s 6 month moratorium on deep water oil drilling was found illegal.

Obama’s remarks — that the Supreme Court cannot decide the legality of Obmaa-Care — show a profound dis-respect for our federal courts and the independence of our three branches of government. written by DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

sharebookmarx Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?

tt twitter Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court? Tweet This Post

email Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?aol Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?backflip Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?google Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?digg Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?amazon Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?blogmarks Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?facebook Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?gmail Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?read it later Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?blogger Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?reader Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?live Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?yahoo Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?vodpod Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?technorati Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?share save 171 16 Aptos Psychologist: Obamas spin that ObamaCare cannot be found illegal due to a leak from his appointee to the Court?

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in Education, Freedom, Government, Health, Law | No Comments »

Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is “terse & old” says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg

Monday, March 26th, 2012

WE THE PEOPLE Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg

U.S. Justice Ginsberg prefers other constitutions


Tell Ginsberg NO!

“Old & terse!” says Ginsberg recently about the U.S. Constitution.

What about Ginsberg’s oath made many years ago to uphold the U.S. Constitution? If Ginsberg cannot uphold that oath then perhaps it’s time that she resign?

For sure, it’s time that conservatives ask U.S. Justice Ginsberg whether she can uphold the U.S. Constitution when she prefers newer, foreign ‘models’.

So, pick up your pen and paper and ask her. U.S. Supreme Court Justices do not have an email address.

written by DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

More information below:
_______________

From the American Spectator:

Did you know that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg thinks the South African Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are preferable to the United States Constitution? You think I’m kidding? It’s right there on the front page of yesterday’s New York Times.

In a profoundly stupid and uninformed story entitled, “Around the World, ‘We the People’ Loses Followers,” Times analyst Adam Liptak informs us that the United States Constitution is “terse and old” and “guarantees relatively few rights.” Recent founding documents from other countries, on the other hand, are “newer [and] sexier” and offer “a more powerful operating system in the constitutional marketplace.” “Nobody wants to copy Windows 3.1,” quips Professor David S. Law of Washington University, author of a study documenting the Constitution’s obsolescence and the source of many of these quotes.

So as you might expect, Judge Ginsburg is right there in the vanguard of a worldwide movement to dump the old U.S. document and go for the newer, sexier varieties:

In a television interview during a visit to Egypt last week, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to agree. “I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” She recommended, instead, the South African Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the European Convention on Human Rights.

You probably already understand the problem here. Justice Ginsburg, despite her high rank, does not understand that the Constitution is a charter of limited government. She’s of the old school (or is it the new authoritarian vanguard?) that believes government is inherently autocratic and doles out rights and privileges to its subjects only piecemeal, in the manner of royal decrees.

Somehow she has missed the whole era of Social Contract theory that occupied the 17th and 18th centuries — Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and all that stuff — which posited that human beings are “created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” and that they surrendered these rights only partially and in limited fashion when they contract for the organized protections of the state. To Ginsburg — and to so many others — the Constitution is a Bill of Rights and nothing more. And of course only certain portions of the Bill of Rights. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments? I don’t remember them. Did they teach that at Harvard Law School?

Rather than viewing the Constitution as a whole, the entire impulse of liberal law is focused on the enumerations of the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, Freedom against Search and Seizure. Thank goodness the Founders granted us these dispensations! Where would we be without them? But they didn’t go far enough! What about the right to a clean environment? What about the right to co-ed bathrooms? Those poor guys from the 18th century had no idea what we’d be facing today. As Liptak explains:

[T]he Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, a right to travel, the presumption of innocence and entitlement to food, education and health care.… The Canadian Charter is both more expansive and less absolute. It guarantees equal right for women and disabled people, allows affirmative action and requires that those arrested be informed of their rights.

Alright, now for a little background. When the delegates assembled in Philadelphia in 1787 to attend the Constitutional Convention, there was no question in their minds that they were writing a charter for limited government. The states already had their governments and did not necessarily want another one. The Constitution was a means of bringing these units together on a federal basis. It was a document of enumerated powers. The government could only do those things outlined in the Preamble and the Articles and no more. That’s how the Constitution was understood both by its advocates and its opponents

There were men at the Convention and in the country at large, however, who were long accustomed to tyrannical governments — like the British regime just overthrown. They suspected that any central government would soon begin grasping for more powers and interfering with people’s lives. And so they believed certain “inalienable rights” should be guaranteed in a special Bill of Rights.

James Madison opposed such a Bill of Rights on the grounds that because the Constitution stated in limited fashion what the government could do, there wasn’t any need to start trying to list what it couldn’t do. If it wasn’t specified in the document, then the government couldn’t do it. It was as simple as that.

But there was a problem. The Framers had already begun making a stab at enumerating a few special rights in the clauses that guaranteed the writ of habeas corpus and outlawed bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and titles of nobility. Critics of the Constitution immediately seized on this, pointing out that if it was necessary to prohibit these actions — which weren’t otherwise mentioned in the Constitution — then there must be other “implied powers.” And if it was necessary to prohibit these actions, then why not others as well? “Brutus” (probably Robert Yates) wrote in one broadside supporting a Bill of Rights:

If every thing which is not given is reserved, what propriety is there in these exceptions? Does this Constitution any where grant the power of suspending the habeas corpus, to make ex post facto laws, pass bills of attainder, or grant titles of nobility? It certainly does not in express terms. The only answer that can be given is, that these are implied in the general powers granted. With equal truth it may be said, that all the powers which the bills of rights guard against the abuse of, are contained or implied in the general ones granted by this Constitution.

With the problem of implied powers laid bare, Madison decided the best thing would be to change his mind and support a Bill of Rights in the First Congress. Ironically, he is now honored as the Father of the Bill of Rights, even though he opposed it at first. (He would be better remembered as the Father of the Constitution.)

But the problem of enumerated rights and implied powers didn’t go away. If certain rights had to be specified, what did that say about all the ones that weren’t specified? Did that mean they weren’t guaranteed? As one skeptical Congressman said, they’d better include a right for men to “wear hats, go to bed and get up when they please,” because if they didn’t, someone was sure to come along and say it “isn’t guaranteed in the Constitution.”
Page: 1 2 >

About the Author

William Tucker is the author of Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America’s Energy Odyssey.

sharebookmarx Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg

tt twitter Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg Tweet This Post

email Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg aol Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg backflip Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg google Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg digg Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg amazon Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg blogmarks Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg facebook Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg gmail Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg read it later Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg blogger Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg reader Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg live Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg yahoo Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg vodpod Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg technorati Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg share save 171 16 Aptos Psychologist: Tell Ginsberg NO! U.S. Constitution is terse & old says Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg

Tags: , ,
Posted in Freedom, Government | No Comments »

Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers …

Saturday, March 10th, 2012

State law requires caregiver for a totally disabled relative to pay SEIU union dues which are automatically deducted from pay check. Supreme Court will weigh in on the legality. What say you?

UNION DUES 297x300 Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...

SEIU union dues


Theresa Riffey provides help around the home for her brother, a quadriplegic, and receives a small stipend from Illinois’s Medicaid program for her efforts, saving the state the cost of providing full-time care. Illinois law requires her to pay a portion of her check every month to an affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The Supreme Court will soon decide whether to hear her case that asks on what basis, besides raw political power, a state may compel independent home-care workers and other similarly situated self-employed persons to support and associate with a labor union against their will.
_______________

The new Robin Hood motto: Take from the caregivers and give to the fat cats.
JAJ48@aol.com

sharebookmarx Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...

tt twitter Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ... Tweet This Post

email Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...aol Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...backflip Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...google Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...digg Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...amazon Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...blogmarks Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...facebook Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...gmail Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...read it later Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...blogger Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...reader Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...live Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...yahoo Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...vodpod Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...technorati Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...share save 171 16 Firenze Sage: SEIU is a thuggish band of robbers ...

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Freedom, Government, Health, Law, Politics | 1 Comment »

Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit …

Wednesday, April 6th, 2011
JUDGE Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...

Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit

Firenze Sage

Two of three African American jurors were excused by the DA. This is a no no if done for reasons of race. The DA said he did it because one disliked cops and the other was a social worker.

Three (3) other courts said it was OK, and then came this opinion from the 9th circuit which is not exactly chock full of information about why.

“The prosecutor’s proffered race-neutral bases for peremptorily striking the two African-American jurors were not sufficient to counter the evidence of purposeful discrimination in light of the fact that two out of three prospective African-American jurors were stricken, and the record reflected different treatment of comparably situated jurors.”

The US Supreme court unanimously had this to say,”That decision is as inexplicable as it is unexplained. It is reversed.”

sharebookmarx Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...

tt twitter Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ... Tweet This Post

email Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...aol Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...backflip Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...google Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...digg Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...amazon Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...blogmarks Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...facebook Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...gmail Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...read it later Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...blogger Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...reader Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...live Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...yahoo Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...vodpod Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...technorati Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...share save 171 16 Sublime reasoning from our 9th circuit ...

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Government, Law | 1 Comment »

Aptos psychologist: “Hillary: the Movie” now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution

Saturday, January 30th, 2010

87943041 e14db47e95 Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution

Hillary: The Movie is now legal political speech by a corporation

Hillary: The Movie is a harshly critical 90-minute documentary. It was deemed a criminal act to show it on cable tv during the 2008 presidential primaries. Why? Because there was a federal law.

During the 2008 presidential primaries, the FCC denied permission to view Hillary: The Movie on demand cable. Back in 2008, to distribute in movie form an extremely vituperative expression of disdain for Hilary as a candidate was a criminal act. Cearly this was control of political content by the government.

That has now changed. The Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission by a 5-4 decision that corporations have free speech the same as individual citizens.

It is no longer a criminal act for a non-profit (or for profit) corporation to express political free speech. The right for a group of people — such as a corporation — to express political speech is the same as for an individual.

This decision that corporations have freedom of speech makes sense. Freedom of assembly obviously means groups of people gathering together. Surely, groups of people gathering together as a group have freedom of speech. That goes for the ACLU as well as for Coke. What say you? written by Cameron Jackson DrCameronJackson@gmail.com

sharebookmarx Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution

tt twitter Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution Tweet This Post

email Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionaol Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionbackflip Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutiongoogle Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutiondigg Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionamazon Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionblogmarks Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionfacebook Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutiongmail Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionread it later Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionblogger Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionreader Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionlive Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionyahoo Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionvodpod Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutiontechnorati Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitutionshare save 171 16 Aptos psychologist: Hillary: the Movie now deemed political speech protected by the U.S. Constitution

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government | No Comments »

A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpress

Thursday, July 16th, 2009

3721432279 c2ea3104f3 m A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpress

Judge Soyomayor


written by Cameron Jackson cameronjacks@gmail.com

Wise people do not go around saying that they are wise. Judge Sotomayor has known for 10+ years that she might be considered for nomination to the Supreme Court. In her remarks she refers to herself as the “wise Latina” who she believes will make a better decision than a white male.

For Sotomayor to hold herself out as wise is not a wise decision. And to do so by connecting her wisdom to her racial background is dumb. That she made the “wise Latina” remarks in a number of speeches over a 4-5 year period is idiotic. It might even be viewed as a moronic decision considering that she knew she was on the list for possible nomination.

People we now call mentally retarded used to be called dumb, idiot or a moron. Those were commonly employed educational terms to describe students with low levels of functional intelligence.

For Judge Sotomayor to repeatedly say she is a “wise Latina” who will make better decisions because of her race/gender/rich experience shows a questionable level of functional intelligence. She may test smart on an IQ test – we have no information on that issue — but per her “wise Latina” remarks she can act in a dumb manner.

Getting a possibly dumb Latina on the bench may be exactly what President Obama wants. For Obama, it is all about leveling the playing field so everyone gets equality — except for Obama and close supporters.

After all, functionally dumb people should have an equal chance as a smart person to be on the Supreme Court. That is Obama’s thinking it appears. President Obama can just have Sotomayor over for social gatherings so that she learns how he wants her to vote on certain issues.

So how “dumb” is Obama? Not that dumb.


Asked questions during the nomination process about her “wise Latina” remarks, Sotomayor has tried to spin it differently. Do you think she succeeded? Or is her nose growing longer and longer?

“Pat Leahy opened the questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor by asking her some softball questions about her controversial speeches and decisions. In response, Sotomayor’s characterization of her “wise Latina” speech was strikingly disingenuous:

I want to state up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic, racial 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.

What — the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey. I understood that sentiment to be what I just spoke about, which is that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.

That has to be what she meant, because judges disagree about legal outcomes all of the time — or I shouldn’t say all of the time, at least in close cases they do. Justices on the Supreme Court come to different conclusions. It can’t mean that one of them is unwise, despite the fact that some people think that.

So her literal words couldn’t have meant what they said. She had to have meant that she was talking about the equal value of the capacity to be fair and impartial.

Sotomayor employs a rhetorical dodge by focusing on how she interpreted Justice O’Connor’s famous statement that “a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” She says that O’Connor couldn’t have meant that the the wise man and the wise woman will reach the same decision in every case, since judges often disagree. Rather, she interpreted O’Connor’s statement to mean that men and women have an equal capacity to reach wise judgments.

Of course that’s correct: O’Connor was saying that men and women shouldn’t reach different decisions because of their genders. But here is where Sotomayor hides the ball. Having created a diversion by talking about what O’Connor meant, she slipped in this key statement: “the words that I use, I used agreeing with the sentiment that Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was attempting to convey.”

That statement is a falsehood. Sotomayor’s whole point in quoting Justice O’Connor was to disagree with, or at least express reservations about, O’Connor’s view that the judge’s gender shouldn’t affect the outcome of a case. Here is the passage from Sotomayor’s speech:

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.
Thus, Sotomayor’s characterization of the context of her “wise Latina” remark is the opposite of the truth. She wasn’t “agreeing with the sentiment that Justice O’Connor was attempting to convey,” as she told Senator Leahy. Rather, she staked out a position in opposition to O’Connor’s. In her speech she expressly disagreed with O’Connor’s view, as Sotomayor put it, “that both men and women were equally capable of being wise and fair judges.”

I’ve been on the fence as to whether Senators should vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor, but this rather breathtaking dishonesty provides strong grounds to vote against her confirmation.

UPDATE: Later in the proceedings, Sotomayor couldn’t resist fudging the facts once again:

SOTOMAYOR: …I was talking about the value that life experiences have, in the words I used, to the process of judging. And that is the context in which I understood the speech to be doing.
The words I chose, taking the rhetorical flourish [i.e., "wise Latina"], it was a bad idea. I do understand that there are some who have read this differently, and I understand why they might have concern.

But I have repeated — more than once — and I will repeat throughout, if you look at my history on the bench, you will know that I do not believe that any ethnic, gender or race group has an advantage in sound judging. You noted that my speech actually said that.
And I also believe that every person, regardless of their background and life experiences, can be good and wise judges.

LEAHY: In fact, if I might…

KYL: Excuse me. Just for the record, I don’t think it was your speech that said that, but that’s what you said in response to Senator Sessions’ question this morning.

Indeed, Sotomayor said no such thing in her speech; she said the exact opposite

sharebookmarx A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpress

tt twitter A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpress Tweet This Post

email A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressaol A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressbackflip A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressgoogle A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressdigg A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressamazon A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressblogmarks A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressfacebook A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressgmail A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressread it later A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressblogger A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressreader A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpresslive A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressyahoo A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressvodpod A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpresstechnorati A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpressshare save 171 16 A wise Latina (Sotomayor) will make a better decision??? www.freedomOK.net/wordpress

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Government, Law | No Comments »