One aspect of the upcoming Presidential election that has received little attention is the subject of the Supreme Court.
And why shouldn't this topic be getting short shrift? After all, we'd apparently rather argue over who has released more tax returns, or at least that's what your Obamaniac American Press would have you believe really counts, notwithstanding the debate over whether this or that act of Muslim fundaMENTAList murder is terrorism or not, our government deciding to harass and censor a citizen to appease the Arab Street, or celebrating yet another successful Obamatard appearance on Letterman. We're kinda busy, you know, debating the important stuff, and the Supreme Court is about 10,546th on our list.
Or at least it's that low on the media's list.
Showing posts with label Sotomayor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sotomayor. Show all posts
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Reasons To Vote Against Elena Kagan...
1. Law professors seem to love her. Anything the legal profession likes, is probably bad for the rest of us. And besides; those who can, do, those that can't, teach, and those that can't even do that, work for the government.
Academics do NOT live int he real world, often. Barack Obama was a law professor (Constitutional law, wasn't it?) and he couldn't find the Constitution with both hands and a flashlight. And if he has, he obviously hasn't read it. After all, here's the man who boldly implied over the weekend that we Americans have too many options, and have too much information for him to govern in the same way that Stalin did, and to cry about it. Goddamn that First Amendment!
I rest my case.
2. Kagan has no record, to speak of. And what there is, is extremely thin gruel. Barack Obama has succeeded in finding someone even less-qualified than he is for one of the most powerful positions in the United States Government, and worse, a position where she will be ensconced -- even becoming an institution, perhaps -- before her career is over. Obama will be gone, eventually, but his "legacy" of Sotomayor, and now potentially, Kagan, will continue to haunt and torture us for a very long time.
3. Obama really had to sell her at the Presser yesterday. He was pulling out all the stops, and his Teleprompter almost overloaded on adjectives of praise. If you have to try that hard, then she's probably not all that good to begin with. You're trying to shine a turd, As soon as Obama had to mention that Kagan represented a certain "diversity" on the court, I gagged. If anything, Kagan seems to represent more of the Ginsburg/Sotomayor school of using the court to advance liberal and identity politics that cannot be carried by electoral processes, although I have to admit this is more about a feeling than actual fact. I can't actually prove that she would be just another pro-Libtard/Anti-America vote.
Going back to the praise thing, Obama alluded to the fact that Kagan was friendly with Thurgood Marshall, burnishing her Extra-Legal-Rights-And-Reparations-For-Blacks...ooops...I mean, Civil Rights cred. He gave us the usual Americana story of the child of immigrants -- wasn't Sotomayor the child of immigrants, too? -- making good against apparently insurmountable odds(we love that shit). Because, you know, in today's America where immigrants are in danger of being put into Concentration Camps, it's amazing that the chld of an immigrant achieves anything at all. And then he praised her for making the "commitment" to choose "service above money" in her legal career.
Like "Dean of Harvard Law School" pays minimum wage? And besides; considering what the Best and Brightest that The Ivy can produce have done to us in the last 12-20 years, that's perhaps not the vaunted position it probably once was. The inference that Kagan was "superior" for having chosen government over profit, is almost a fetish with Obama. He's deeply delusional in this way, and it's always used to take another swipe at Wall Street and Evil Capitalism; she could have been a corporate attorney and made a shitload of money, but she chose government "service" and teaching, instead. She's better then Them, and by Association, so am I, Obama. Actually, it's probably more like government service and teaching chose her; the reason she didn't make all that Wall Street money is that she probably wasn't a very talented lawyer. Again, those who can, do...
Oh, and then Obama mentioned Campaign Finance Reform and Corporate contributions, the very thing he lost out on in the Court a few months ago. The hint was that Kagan would probably reverse the decision that would have cost Obama millions in contributions (and probably the presidency) had the Court made the same decision earlier. Of course, Obama got the most money from Goldman-Sachs and British Petroleum, so people in glass houses and all that. When Obama is getting their money -- and can keep it a secret -- then Capitalists are mighty fine people, indeed.
When you have to slather it on that thickly, hoping, praying that some of it sticks, you're probably trying to sell lemons.
That press conference yesterday was enough to make me vomit. That alone would cause me to vote "No!" on Elena Kagan if I were in a position to do so.
Academics do NOT live int he real world, often. Barack Obama was a law professor (Constitutional law, wasn't it?) and he couldn't find the Constitution with both hands and a flashlight. And if he has, he obviously hasn't read it. After all, here's the man who boldly implied over the weekend that we Americans have too many options, and have too much information for him to govern in the same way that Stalin did, and to cry about it. Goddamn that First Amendment!
I rest my case.
2. Kagan has no record, to speak of. And what there is, is extremely thin gruel. Barack Obama has succeeded in finding someone even less-qualified than he is for one of the most powerful positions in the United States Government, and worse, a position where she will be ensconced -- even becoming an institution, perhaps -- before her career is over. Obama will be gone, eventually, but his "legacy" of Sotomayor, and now potentially, Kagan, will continue to haunt and torture us for a very long time.
3. Obama really had to sell her at the Presser yesterday. He was pulling out all the stops, and his Teleprompter almost overloaded on adjectives of praise. If you have to try that hard, then she's probably not all that good to begin with. You're trying to shine a turd, As soon as Obama had to mention that Kagan represented a certain "diversity" on the court, I gagged. If anything, Kagan seems to represent more of the Ginsburg/Sotomayor school of using the court to advance liberal and identity politics that cannot be carried by electoral processes, although I have to admit this is more about a feeling than actual fact. I can't actually prove that she would be just another pro-Libtard/Anti-America vote.
Going back to the praise thing, Obama alluded to the fact that Kagan was friendly with Thurgood Marshall, burnishing her Extra-Legal-Rights-And-Reparations-For-Blacks...ooops...I mean, Civil Rights cred. He gave us the usual Americana story of the child of immigrants -- wasn't Sotomayor the child of immigrants, too? -- making good against apparently insurmountable odds(we love that shit). Because, you know, in today's America where immigrants are in danger of being put into Concentration Camps, it's amazing that the chld of an immigrant achieves anything at all. And then he praised her for making the "commitment" to choose "service above money" in her legal career.
Like "Dean of Harvard Law School" pays minimum wage? And besides; considering what the Best and Brightest that The Ivy can produce have done to us in the last 12-20 years, that's perhaps not the vaunted position it probably once was. The inference that Kagan was "superior" for having chosen government over profit, is almost a fetish with Obama. He's deeply delusional in this way, and it's always used to take another swipe at Wall Street and Evil Capitalism; she could have been a corporate attorney and made a shitload of money, but she chose government "service" and teaching, instead. She's better then Them, and by Association, so am I, Obama. Actually, it's probably more like government service and teaching chose her; the reason she didn't make all that Wall Street money is that she probably wasn't a very talented lawyer. Again, those who can, do...
Oh, and then Obama mentioned Campaign Finance Reform and Corporate contributions, the very thing he lost out on in the Court a few months ago. The hint was that Kagan would probably reverse the decision that would have cost Obama millions in contributions (and probably the presidency) had the Court made the same decision earlier. Of course, Obama got the most money from Goldman-Sachs and British Petroleum, so people in glass houses and all that. When Obama is getting their money -- and can keep it a secret -- then Capitalists are mighty fine people, indeed.
When you have to slather it on that thickly, hoping, praying that some of it sticks, you're probably trying to sell lemons.
That press conference yesterday was enough to make me vomit. That alone would cause me to vote "No!" on Elena Kagan if I were in a position to do so.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Some Thoughts on Sotomayor...
The dog and pony show which is a Senate Confirmation Hearing on Judge Sonia Sotomator began in earnest yesterday. They shouldn't bother, as her appointment is foregone conclusion in the sense that democrats (small 'd' intentional) have the votes to confirm her in any case. The only obstacle to confirmation now is if it was found that she had done something really heinous, like ruled that people have the right to BBQ puppies in public in full "Village People" get-up with fireworks shooting out of their asses, in front of a gas station.
The abortion questions 'conservatives' (small 'c' intentional) will probably ask are moot; the Supreme Court usurped the power of both Congress and the states when it ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since the results of that power grab have been a postive boon for both parties, don't expect the question to actually be resolved in these hearings (although the Senators will kick it about to buff up their own street cred to their constituencies). Besides, we all know that there is now too much invested in the decision for anyone to actually talk seriously about the Supreme Court reversing itself; it will never happen. The Court will not reverse it's decision and pop the bubble of infallibility and reverence with which the institution is held by the legal profession (itself a den of whores), and neither party will submit to the Federalist soultion --putting the abortion question to a straight up-and-down vote in state legislatures -- because both sides manipulate the question for political gain (and money, as well as organized voting blocs) as it suits their purposes. And they do it too damned well.
Instead, I would concentrate on scoring a rhetorical point which might have an effect on the voting public despite her confirmation. It's that "Wise Latina" comment.
Her apologists have pooh-poohed it as an off-the-cuff remark which may represent a personal belief, but which does not translate to a 'core judicial philosophy', but I say 'bullshit'. She's on reconrd as having said it something like five, seven or 3thirty-one times, depending on who you believe. Anyone who says such things repeatedly (especially in prepared speeches!) doesn't do so because it's a random thought; they say it because they either truly believe it, or it's the sort of 'apply anywhere bullshit' which all politicians (and judges, unfortunately, are politicians, too) carelessly fling around to sport their political bona-fides.
In which case, Sonia Sotomayor is either under the impression that it is a true statement, which makes it a racist statement. Or, she's a liar who will say whatever is required of her depending on her audience, possessed of a stockpile of well-turned-politically-correct pablum to throw at them when required.
I'm not certain which it is. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here, conditioning that benefit with the personal impression that she seems to be both an opportnist who has learned to use her gender and heritage for her personal advantage, and that's she's probably dumber than dogshit, but very well-rehearsed in the ways of political crapspeak. I'm certain that outside the political and legal realms, she probably makes a mean arroz con pollo and is probably a very pleasant woman (I do have to give her credit for having a wonderful smile, which conveys friendliness and warmth, like grandma used to).
That having been said, I'm not certain she's really a good choice, but perhaps merely the least-worse.
The abortion questions 'conservatives' (small 'c' intentional) will probably ask are moot; the Supreme Court usurped the power of both Congress and the states when it ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since the results of that power grab have been a postive boon for both parties, don't expect the question to actually be resolved in these hearings (although the Senators will kick it about to buff up their own street cred to their constituencies). Besides, we all know that there is now too much invested in the decision for anyone to actually talk seriously about the Supreme Court reversing itself; it will never happen. The Court will not reverse it's decision and pop the bubble of infallibility and reverence with which the institution is held by the legal profession (itself a den of whores), and neither party will submit to the Federalist soultion --putting the abortion question to a straight up-and-down vote in state legislatures -- because both sides manipulate the question for political gain (and money, as well as organized voting blocs) as it suits their purposes. And they do it too damned well.
Instead, I would concentrate on scoring a rhetorical point which might have an effect on the voting public despite her confirmation. It's that "Wise Latina" comment.
Her apologists have pooh-poohed it as an off-the-cuff remark which may represent a personal belief, but which does not translate to a 'core judicial philosophy', but I say 'bullshit'. She's on reconrd as having said it something like five, seven or 3thirty-one times, depending on who you believe. Anyone who says such things repeatedly (especially in prepared speeches!) doesn't do so because it's a random thought; they say it because they either truly believe it, or it's the sort of 'apply anywhere bullshit' which all politicians (and judges, unfortunately, are politicians, too) carelessly fling around to sport their political bona-fides.
In which case, Sonia Sotomayor is either under the impression that it is a true statement, which makes it a racist statement. Or, she's a liar who will say whatever is required of her depending on her audience, possessed of a stockpile of well-turned-politically-correct pablum to throw at them when required.
I'm not certain which it is. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here, conditioning that benefit with the personal impression that she seems to be both an opportnist who has learned to use her gender and heritage for her personal advantage, and that's she's probably dumber than dogshit, but very well-rehearsed in the ways of political crapspeak. I'm certain that outside the political and legal realms, she probably makes a mean arroz con pollo and is probably a very pleasant woman (I do have to give her credit for having a wonderful smile, which conveys friendliness and warmth, like grandma used to).
That having been said, I'm not certain she's really a good choice, but perhaps merely the least-worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)