The American Spectator : Sonia the Player Umpire

Text Size

Sonia the Player Umpire

By Peter Ferrara on 6.3.09 @ 6:09AM

A legal philosophy of judicial lawlessness -- just the way Obama likes it.

(Page 2 of 2)

Sotomayor's philosophical ruminations are sophistry designed to excuse judicial lawlessness. With the law uncertain, impermanent and experimental, the judge is free to indulge in making up whatever new legal impositions he or she desires, without legislative or democratic authorization. The judge is free as well to cast aside impartiality and rule for whichever party is politically correct, or deserving of judicial "empathy," based on the judge's personal morality, and the "richness" of his or her unique "life experiences." It is just yet another power grab, maximizing the power of self-indulgent judges like Sotomayor. The public doesn't like it not because it doesn't understand the realities of "what happens in the courtroom," but because even the unwashed yahoos can figure out that this is contrary to the whole notion of the rule of law, and the fundamental concept of democracy.

In response to "ever-changing social, industrial and political conditions," our society holds regular elections, where a self-governing people debate and then vote for the changes in law and social policy they think are appropriate. The people then rightly expect judges to enforce these laws, not make up different ones, based on their "personal life experiences", as well as what they read in the New York Times yesterday, or saw on 60 Minutes last week.

Sotomayor's notion that uncertainty, change, and even experimentation in the law, to the point of unpredictability, is somehow good for society is oblivious to reality. Investors around the world look precisely for stable legal regimes where the rule of law prevails, and they can know precisely what they are getting into. Working people, the little guy, benefit precisely from capital investment, which translates into increased wages. Sotomayor's "make it up based on how you feel that day" judicial philosophy is an investor's nightmare, still another contribution to Obama's apparent devotion to inducing outright capital flight from America, as in poorly governed banana republics.

Sotomayor's arbitrary legal philosophy also undermines respect for and voluntary compliance with the law. People expect and want the courts to follow the model of the traditional Roman statue representing justice, a seated, robed tribune wearing a blindfold and holding a balanced scale. As Bopp says above, if people see justice as casting off the blindfold and engaging in favoritism for the politically correct and influential parties, they will lose respect for the law and comply with it only when they are forced to do so. Sotomayor's legal philosophy brings me back to the question: If the courts don't have to follow the law, why should I have to?

We can test Sotomayor's judicial philosophy by applying it to some established precedents revered by liberals. Brown v. Board of Education, decided in 1954, held that separate but equal public schools are inherently unequal and discriminatory and, thus, unconstitutional. Is that an established doctrine in our law now, or is that impermanent, experimental, fluid, and pliant? Suppose changing social and political conditions include development of a heavy Muslim majority in some areas around Detroit that wants its own, separate, Islamic public schools, excluding everyone else? Suppose that case comes before a Muslim District Court judge? Can he be expected to make a wiser ruling establishing new directions and vistas for the law based on his own life experience?

And what about Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973? Is the constitutional right to an abortion found in that case an established doctrine in our law now? Or is that right an impermanent legal experiment that can be washed away by new, modern technology, now allowing us to view the unborn child all but waving to us from her mother's womb?

No Empathy for White Firefighters or Gun Owners

We can see how the Sotomayor/Obama judicial philosophy works in practice by examining how Sotomayor has applied it in some recent cases. In accordance with its civil service laws, the City of New Haven in Connecticut developed a written examination for the promotion of firefighters to senior command levels in the city's Fire Department. The city hired expert outside consultants to advise it on how to ensure that the test was not racially biased. Dozens of firefighters showed up and took the test on the appointed day. But based on the test results, only white firefighters, along with maybe one or two Hispanics, would be eligible for promotions, at least for the available openings at the time. This spawned a local racial and political controversy, and the city government decided as a result not to hire anyone. The city admitted that the white firefighters lost the promotions they had earned through their hard work in achieving the top scores on the test solely because of their race in the heavily black city.

But these white firefighters earned no empathy from Sonia Sotomayor, who joined in a one paragraph ruling affirming the dismissal of their discrimination lawsuit against the city in Ricci v. DeStefano. Her empathy went to the politically correct local black political power structure in the city. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, which has overruled Sotomayor rulings 80% of the time.

The same liberal political bias was revealed again in Riverkeeper v. EPA. Riverkeeper, another extreme environmentalist group, led by Robert Kennedy, Jr., sued the Bush EPA claiming it wasn't doing enough to enforce the Clean Water Act. The group demanded that EPA require additional expensive technologies to reduce the number of live river creatures sucked into the cooling water intake valves of power plants. The statute instructs EPA to weigh the cost of the additional technologies, which would be paid by working people in their utility bills, against the number of fish, frogs and toads the technologies would save. Longstanding Supreme Court doctrine also provides that the federal courts are to defer to decisions of federal administrative agencies involving a reasonable interpretation of the governing law.

But the politically correct frogs won Sotomayor's empathy over the working people, as she cast aside this applicable law in ruling for Riverkeeper. The Supreme Court again reversed her on appeal, re-establishing the law.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, conservatives won a historic constitutional victory in 2008 with the Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment does, indeed, protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. But because the case arose out of D.C., it did not involve the issue of whether the Second Amendment applies to state restrictions on gun ownership, in addition to federal restrictions. That should not be much of an issue, though, since by now the Supreme Court has ruled that virtually every other provision of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, through the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

But when the issue came before Sotomayor, she displayed no empathy for lawful gun owners, ruling that alone among the Bill of Rights the Second Amendment somehow does not apply to the states. Even the ultraliberal Ninth Circuit has ruled the other way.

Obama's Problem, Our Problem

The real problem here is not Sotomayor's legal philosophy. She is well to the left of the liberal Justice David Souter she is replacing, especially on business issues, where Souter was often reasonable. She will be an utterly predictable, reliable, liberal/left vote on every issue to come before the court, including abortion. But she is just one vote out of 9, and won't be persuasive to others.

The real problem is that Sotomayor reflects Obama's legal philosophy. And she is the first indication that Obama, indeed, as I predicted last fall, is going to flood the federal courts with the most left-liberal, radical appointees ever, with no respect for the law, holding regard only for their personal moral views, which they are certain are superior to everyone else's. By the end of his term, he will have appointed a bloc of three such radicals to the Supreme Court.

Obama talks a lot about the glories of the rule of law when he is lambasting the Bush Administration, which has never been shown to have violated any law, despite the drumbeat from the fever swamps of the far left. But his own judicial philosophy and that of his appointees is going to replace the rule of law, fundamental to the basic success of America, with the assumed personal moral superiority of the liberal/left. That is going to contribute mightily to America's descent into a Third World banana republic, which is where Barack Obama is taking us, unless we burrow deep into the political grassroots, and stop him.

Page: < 12

topics:
Supreme Court Nominations, Judicial Activism

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Senior Fellow at the Carleson Center for Public Policy, Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy for the Heartland Institute, and General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under the first President Bush. He is the author of America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, now available from HarperCollins.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (50) | Leave a comment

Marc Jeric| 6.3.09 @ 6:38AM

La Sotomayor is a typical product of affirmative action (just like Obama), nurtured by tenured marxists at Princeton and Yale (just like Obama). Both of them intend to impose a marxist state on us by finding more of those emanations from the penumbras of the Constitution.
For example, if a tenant does not pay his rent, punish the apartment owner. If a worker is fired for laziness and lateness and frequent errors, punish the business owner. If states do not have enough money to pay government unions, impose sufficient taxes to do so. Find any excuse to nationalize every business in the name of fairness. Outlaw all radio and TV that do not follow the government direction, and subsidize those that follow the directives of our socialist government. Rule all voter frauds aimed at disenfrachising the conservatives as legal, and throw out all complaints about voter fraud committed by the ACORN brownshirts. Etc., etc.

NoToObama| 6.3.09 @ 6:46AM

the republicans need to grow some and keep this harpe out of the supreme court of the united states. but they won't and we will continue on our downhill slide into marxism. they are a bunch of pasty soft pansies too afraid to stand up to this woman and she and her man barry know it.

Paul torsiello| 6.3.09 @ 7:20AM

Hang them all!

Doorgunner| 6.3.09 @ 7:21AM

BAN DAVID MATHEWS

El Rey| 6.3.09 @ 7:29AM

It is self-annointed elitists like B. Hussein Obama and this Sotomayor who will destroy the Republic.

And the ironic part is that they are both from minorities which, in the history of the world, have never been treated so preferentially as they have been in America since the 1970's.

For example, both Obama and Sotomayor have Ivy League educations thanks to affirmative action and racial quotas. (If you doubt it, try to get either one's SAT scores. You can't; they're locked away like national secrets least they prove the point.)

But destroying the rule of law -- which is what Sotomayor's judicial philosophy would do -- and it will be Hispanic and black minorities who will eventually suffer the most.

Big J| 6.3.09 @ 7:38AM

Excellent article, Mr. Ferrara.

Let's see if I have this somewhat covered:

He was indoctrinated in a Muslim school in Indonesia, his father was Muslim, and his name is Barrack Hussein Obama.

Still haven't seen a birth certificate yet.

Raises more money during the campaign than anyone in history, with questionable ties to ACORN (who is under investigation for voter registration fraud in 14 states).

Sat in an anti-American church for 20 years with "no knowledge" of his pastor's hate for this country.

After the G20 summit, does the "trash talk tango" across Europe, calling America arrogant, derisive and dismissive, and not a Christian nation.

Sends the FBI to negotiate with Somali terrorists for 5 days before the Navy took over and saved an American hostage.

Buddies up with South American dictators, listening to a 45 minute tirade against America, an accepting an anti-American book from Hugo Chavez.

Has proposed astronomical government spending that will cripple our economy for years to come, while taking over the banking and auto industries.

Has all but shunned Israel in favor of radicals like Hammas and Hezbolah.

I left A BUNCH out, but I think you get the message.

Yep, he's right on track with this radical SCOTUS nomination.

God help this country and her soldiers.

drudge ette obama| 6.3.09 @ 7:50AM

From the nonLatina female lawyer (my race hasn't been established yet), it is apparent that Little Sonia doesn't appreciate that we are supposed to be a nation of laws, not men. This means that laws are static and dependable until changed by the legislature, not the judiciary. Then checks and balances comes into play. A nation of men results in the Little Sonias making up the rules as we go along. A nation of laws provides an expectation of what is expected. First year law school concept.

Little Sonia also doesn't know how to dress for the most important honor of her life. No collar, loud tube-topped Sonia looked ordinary. She didn't even get her hair done unless matted crop is a new style in Newyorican. The men around her dressed appropriately for the occasion. She was outclassed, even by Biden. Dear god, why do some women lose points on the easy parts? If she had worn a classic suit with collared shirt, as well as decent-looking pumps, she could have given the impression of a serious professional.

Dave, you voted? Was it one of those hanging chad ballots? Where's your address and telephone number? Someone is trying to call you but doesn't have your contact information.

stu.b.con| 6.3.09 @ 7:55AM

BAN DAVID MATHEWS

Normally I would not feel this way, spririted debate can be fun, edifying, and healthy. The ad hominem rants of this pre-adolescent jackass, however don't fall into this category. They are tiresome and frankly pathetic. Enough.

True Conservative| 6.3.09 @ 8:07AM

It seems that all is lost!

How Dave Mathews can be allowed to vote and not be out of diapers yet is troubling.

drudge ette obama| 6.3.09 @ 8:26AM

Be careful, Dave, what you blog. It's not a good idea (for you and your own afterlife) to speak for Jesus or to assume that you are on the "good side".

In all seriousness, you seem to like nature and its beauty as I can see from your photos. Lighting and scale are a little off, but I notice from your choices of subjects that the world's creatures are important to you. This mitigates some of the bad things you write about others. Unless you eat them after you take their picture?

Darin| 6.3.09 @ 8:33AM

Ignore David Mathews. Treat his remarks as you would treat those of a 2-year-old, for the validity level is about the same. He's good at saying a lot yet actually saying nothing. When/if he has something valid to say and can back it up, no problem. Otherwise, ignore him.

Jack| 6.3.09 @ 8:34AM

Please ban David Mathews.

Encouraging personal attacks raging on every commenter surely isn't the purpose of this comments section. If discourse is lost among disagreeing users, what's the point.

I agree that the best way to feature Obama's intention and viewpoint is to paint Sotomayer as being his legal clone.

John W.| 6.3.09 @ 8:44AM

David! Little buddy! How ya doin?

See what you've done? Look, it's nice your mommy let's you get on the interweb thingy. It's a good thing, I suppose, that you're spending time on the kind of "adult" site where grownups discuss grown up business, instead of spending all your time on the pother kind of adult sites. (Do you come to these sites when mommy's watching?)

BUT...

Kid, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you've gotten to be a boring pest. Not just here, but every place you visit on the Internet (that's the real name for it). "Republicans are stupid," "Republicans are racist," "Republicans are losers," blah, blah, blah. Yeah, we all get it, you hate Republicans. David, you never say anything else.

If you want to hang out with the grownups, and have them pay attention to you need to learn a couple of things:

1. Follow the thread of the discussion.
2. Take a course in logic, or ask mommy to buy you a copy of Copi's "Introduction to Logic." Mommy will have to find you a tutor to explain the big words, but at least try to read it.
3. After you learn a little bit about how to think, you'll understand that insults aren't arguments.

Nothing personal, David, but children should be seen and not heard. At least not until they can at least try to act like grown ups.

Joe the Plumber| 6.3.09 @ 8:51AM

Notice how the moron, DM, refuses to debate the issues raised in the article. This terminally stupid prick is incapable of analytical thought. Every response consists of regergitating the same 3 or 4 things ("I hate Conservatives", "Republicans are stupid", "Mean Republicans", "Did I say I hate Republicans"). My guess is the child, DM, is just another out of work leftist Neanderthal nose picker, obsessive masturbator, about 5' 8" 350 lbs living in mommy's basement. That about right Davey boy?

2Anglico| 6.3.09 @ 9:00AM

Hey Sonia, so you like ever evolving, living and changing rules, eh? Let's me and you play some poker, MY rules will be "living" in your honor. Cash only.

ncatty| 6.3.09 @ 9:28AM

My clients do not expect the local courthouse, or any court, to be a casino, but rather a place where the law is impartially and predictably administered. If this is not the standard, then let's stop wasting our time, and let the law of the jungle prevail.

Bob Miller| 6.3.09 @ 9:36AM

If the Obamans don't seat one tool of the regime on the Supreme Court to improvise the law, they'll find another. The Court is the one remaining institution that can thwart their lawless, statist designs, if it so chooses. If Republicans take these hearings seriously, they will use them to highlight the perversion-in-progress of Constitutional law.

Bill| 6.3.09 @ 9:44AM

If Ms. Sotomayor's legal philosophy as outlined in "Returning Majesty to the Law and Politics: A Modern Approach" does not disqualify her from the Supreme Court then I am not sure what does disqualify her.

I am glad that the woman has been nominated for at least it bring out into the broad daylight the philosophy of so many legal philosophers who are reluctant to be so transparent.

What Ms. Sotomayor's legal priniple's amount to is a legal tyranny. This is not an exaggeration. If people do not know how to behave so as to avoid breaking the law (because of law uncertainty) then what prevents any of us fom going to jail if some judge decides arbitrarily that we have broken the law?

Who in a senior business role has not spent hundreds of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees attmpting to determine how the courts MIGHT rule if they take a certian course of action. We live not under the Rule of Law but under the Tyranny of Judges. Sotomayor will only continue (and probably make worde) this sad state of affairs.

Michele San Pietro| 6.3.09 @ 9:48AM

Sonia Sotomayor may be a good judge, but she sure didn't deserve to be nominated for the Supreme Court to my way of thinking.

Gill O’Teen ✝✡| 6.3.09 @ 10:10AM

I recall, and my memory may not be too reliable here, that the 2000 Florida Presidential election was settled by the courts. I was bothered that it was thought necessary to even take the matter to court. But I was even more bothered that it seemed to me that every judge decided his or her vote primarily on political affiliation. Florida had a set of playing rules which had been agreed to in advance by both political parties, but in particular, the dumbocrats were concerned that the rules were so unfair because just maybe they might lose those precious electoral college votes. obumassiah, being every bit as expert in U.S. history as he is in The Constitution of the United States, surely knows that saint sonia gives him a fifth ace up his sleeve if the 2012 election gets decided by a poker game in a backroom of the Supreme Court Building. But we need not be troubled. The RINOs in con-gress have our backs. I think that when obumassiah gets another supreme court nomination opportunity, he’ll select an Islamic cleric who has great empathy for Sharia Law.

Blaine Fallis| 6.3.09 @ 10:48AM

Great article by Peter Ferrara. Sadly the comments have descended to the level of David Mathews, whose words reveal the type of self-interested motives that are helping Obama drive his followers (and our country with him) into the ground. DM and the like could be eating from food stamps getting rationed health care, but it would still be worth it in their minds to say "the Republicans lost." Check your bank account. Note that you're unemployed. Then realize we've all lost. Even if you work for the government (and who doesn't these days?), you're sucking money from a dwindling vine.

Deidra| 6.3.09 @ 10:49AM

Why doesn't the Contentions blog at Commentary trade their trolls, lester and fuster, with Dave Mathews? I think Dave would like it there because he would find many similar-minded trolls and wouldn't be lonely. They rarely ban trolls on the left.

Doorgunner| 6.3.09 @ 11:41AM

David Mathews @ 9:13am

"I may be a coon but at least I'm not a poor conservative loser. "

hmm,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dmathew1/3578860185/

That doesn't look like a small, furry, nocturnal mammal to me. That looks like a pasty, never-worked-day-in-his-life little white boy.

A. Men| 6.3.09 @ 12:09PM

We are doomed unless we impeach Obama.

Oldefarte| 6.3.09 @ 12:12PM

Outstanding article, Peter Ferrara----simply brilliant. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!

Peter Moon| 6.3.09 @ 12:29PM

Maxim Gorky denounced the Russian peasants as having 'animal-like individualism' and wished they would all die out and be replaced by a race of 'literate, rational, energetic people.'
Lenin's view of the peasant he supposedly cared so much for was that they were 'far from being an instinctive or traditional collectivist, but in fact fiercely and meanly individualistic.'
Now Sotomayor similarly chides us that the public
is misbehaving by wanting judges to simply read what is written.

NED| 6.3.09 @ 12:34PM

I concur - BAN DAVE MATHEWS - soon

Kathryn | 6.3.09 @ 12:37PM

Liberals have little use for the Constitution. Would that Republicans would not be fearful about saying so.

Join me in urging RINOs and Doormat Republicans to DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION, not cower at the feet of liberals:

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-demand-true-conservative-leadership.html

Stan Redmond| 6.3.09 @ 12:48PM

It is frightening Sotamayor is a reflection of Obama and the likes of DM. Constitutional law is evolving by Obamas blatant unconstitutional violation of contract law as displayed with the GM debaucle. Free speech limitations by "hate" thought crimes. And, Obama is a flat out liar and blames whitey for many of the world's problems as does Sotamayor.

"DM the Coon." Too damned funny that picture with your lilly white hands. Talk about race baiting. Have some bait if you're going to try to rile up us poor conservatives. No one cares what color you are and you failed that little test.

1Freeman| 6.3.09 @ 1:04PM

BAN DAVID MATHEWS

Quotas Now While We Can| 6.3.09 @ 1:31PM

I wonder how many so called "Obama Supporters" will come running to Republicans for help when they realize what it use to mean to be free. The analogy that Mr. Ferrara draws regarding the Muslim Judge in Michigan is perfect. Will these so called liberals be willing to live by Sharia Law in the name of politcal correctness?

Tony in Central PA| 6.3.09 @ 1:47PM

A country with as many ethnicities as ours needs a clear and consistent law that is equally applied all the more. The law should be bigger than the judges intepreting it. Its apparent that the Administration doesn't believe these things and that it favors increasing the power of judges and creating different levels of protection under the law based around group identity.
Clinton at least had the sense to recognize Lani Guinier's similar judicial philosophy as being at odds with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We'll have no such luck with Obama.

DAM| 6.3.09 @ 2:04PM

So Sotomayor and Obama want to return us to the 1930's, to the era of "Progressive" fascination with Fascism. Only now the fascination has become an obsession, but the "F" word will never be used.

Maybe that predicted Yellowstone super volcano eruption will occur and prevent the ACORN Brownshirts from completing the re-education camps...

ds80| 6.3.09 @ 2:31PM

IHMO the most cogent point made by the author and others here is that Sotomayor = Obama in terms of legal philosophy. What is most evident is that Sotobamayor does NOT care for Constitutional law and equal justice.

Central Coast| 6.3.09 @ 4:21PM

Dave Mathews is like Nancy Peoisi: Conservatives urgently need you both to destroy Liberalism!!! Never leave us as you give us comfort why ignorance isn't taught, but learned. You are the reason why "we" unite rather than implode on your rants. That's why you rode the short bus to school in your helmet!

Joe B| 6.3.09 @ 4:23PM

Wanna bet term limits for POTUS get challenged during Blunderboy's reign? He is exacting revenge on white America: reparations can only mean destroying wealth and property rights, then driving Europeans into tax slavery to support the coming minority majority of third world losers.

Thom| 6.3.09 @ 6:35PM

If words in the law don't mean something non ambiguous and have to be “judged” on a case by case basis, which is what those that favor a living Constitution want, then who benefits with no clear understanding of the law by non lawyers? A hint, those that write the laws and use the law to make a living from it. By what ever name you call anarchy, this is what you will get. You see this on a micro scale in most inner city areas because the population there has little or no respect for the Rule of Law and seeks to create laws tailored just for their special circumstance. Who does anarchy benefit? A would be dictator who sees every crisis real or imagined as something to not go to waste. The law either applies to all or it does not; words in the law either mean what they say or they don’t. The course we are on has some pretty ugly side effects that clear thinking Americans should get a real clear grasp of pretty soon or such events tend to run their course with what consequences may come. We are seeing the beginning of fringe lawlessness and a selective government response to it for political purposes. You can’t reason with a MOB and that is exactly what we are inviting with this relative law crap.

Mary| 6.3.09 @ 6:46PM

It strikes me that the image of justice blindfolded, by necessity, creates an image of thoroughness which taxes both reason and time.

Her take on the meaning of the ugency of the Law is rather easy, and quite close to an outlook based on the path of least resistance. It's Law on the cheap, requiring neither much time nor effort.

Her style of questioning reflects this too.

I think this is really a hill the Republicans need to take.

The malign quality of the Ricci decision presents a great opportunity that won't come again any time too soon.

Taking this hill doesn't necessarily mean she won't be confirmed. This is about dealing a debilitating blow to affirmative action as it's practiced in the Ricci case. Moreover, it provides the likelihood of spectacle produced by the incoherence of competing interests of race and disability (Ricci's dyslexia). Without a doubt, disability will win.

It's also about asserting a right long past due: we will no longer be cowed by the democrats and their "prescriptive," and by default autocratic, use of language.

From what I've read about Jeff Sessions, he's a man who was burned by their "prescriptive" privilege. I think he's honor bound to give Sotomayor a fair hearing because it's exactly what he was denied. And I think that if the Republicans understand the purpose of the fight here, even if she's confirmed, they win.

I would also like to see no deference paid to Obama regarding the pick. This isn't a cabinet appointment who'll take her leave of us when the president does. This is a lifetime appointment. If any Republican believes what she's written should disqualify her, they should vote to deny her a seat on the Court.

Maybe if this deference wasn't some sort of entitlement, presidents would actually have to look beyond ideology.

Thom| 6.3.09 @ 7:11PM

I was taught two fictions in my 1970 Government class. One that we have three branches of co-equal government that provide “check and balance” on each other and the other that the Bill of Rights was incorporated into all State Constitutions to provide “equal protection under the law”. The latter is blatantly false and never been practiced in my life time. Try traveling around this country from state to state, county to county, and City to City and see if the first ten Amendments to the Constitution apply everywhere equally or even at all in some places. The former has not revealed itself regarding unelected and unaccountable Judges acting as legislatures. The prescribed method to amend the Constitution has been avoided like the plague by Democrats because it requires a virtual super majority and a considerable deliberation by the elected representatives of the “several States”. No such hurdle exists for an unelected unaccountable simple majority rule legislature like the Supreme Court and no Executive Branch has shown the courage to tell the Supreme Court when it legislates from the bench to take a hike….thus both purported foundations of our Constitutional Republic don’t actually exist in practice and given the time this has been allowed to go on it has become the defacto truth regardless of what the enumerated law actually say. We are ripping what has been sewed…..

Old Texican| 6.3.09 @ 7:42PM

Thanks Guys
Ya'll just tickled a thought in my mind. Let's see if I can articulate it.
"I went to The Soviet Union to help them build the trans-Siberian pipeline.
When I got off the plane and went through customs, I got a lecture from the customs, (KGB), guy.
"We already gotcha'." What he was telling me is that they could change the rules any tme they wanted to. Thje "laws" were written so that if you obeyed one...you already broke another one, and off to jail in Siberia.

This is what Obama is all about.
Sadly, when you truly think about it...the second amendment protects all the rest of the "rights" we all talk about.
The problem is that standing up for the second amendment will pit YOU and I against all of the millions of technologies and powers of a really powerful country...that used to be ours.
Frightening.

Joe B| 6.3.09 @ 8:16PM

If she is as stupid as she looks, we're in big trouble.

Thom| 6.3.09 @ 8:34PM

Old Texican, from a purely statistics point of view you can’t have a full time legislature for a couple hundred years and not have essentially made everything unlawful under some circumstance(s). Hence, the best and brightest the Democrats have to offer can’t figure out or get someone else to figure out their own tax laws. To pile on a bit, if the President of the United States doesn’t know when life begins (or ends by extension) or what the definition of “sex” is then what does that say for the people that voted for them? All collectives seek to control the production of goods and services (wealth), the distribution of information (the Media), the production and care of children (future slaves) and disarm the population. Which one of these have they not acquired for the most part?

DaveS| 6.3.09 @ 9:32PM

Getting back to the article at hand: though the entity of interest (Indian Point nuclear power plant) is not mentioned by name, I recommend all read the Scalia majority opinion in Riverkeeper v. EPA. He makes mincemeat of JP Stevens's dissent. And if any reader wants to know something about the most important nuclear power plant in the world, please message me: I have worked there for 25 years as a radiation safety expert and quality assurance auditor.

l4k| 6.11.09 @ 8:16AM

Here is a link to a children's story about Sonia the Umpire: http://liberty4kids.blogspot.com/2009/05/lemonade-chronicles-sonia-umpire.html

Here is an excerpt:

One day as Barry and Little Timmy were "working" at the Lemonade Stand a couple of the neighborhood boys came by to see if Barry and Little Timmy would like to play some baseball. While Barry was quite good at basketball (just ask him), he wasn't particularly good at baseball. Little Timmy was even worse as he was very clumsy and, therefore, couldn't hit or catch. But Barry was very persuasive and talked Little Timmy into playing.
The neighborhood boys said they would get Ole Mr. Madison to be the umpire but Barry didn’t like that idea. He told them he would ask his friend Sonia.

Chukka Boots| 9.21.09 @ 12:31PM

Chukka Boots
Waterproof Boots

ghd straighteners| 11.9.09 @ 3:32AM

we saleghd hairto JAPAN

ghd straighteners| 11.10.09 @ 3:07AM

we saleghd hairto JAPAN
we saleghd straightenersto America

stolen| 11.18.09 @ 2:27AM

GHD hair led the fashion, their straight hair, Ms. loved by the world. There is no doubt that the new GHD is one of many hair care products in the most popular. 2009 GHD is the most advanced hair tools, hair tools on behalf of 21 remarkable evolution of the world's iconic brands. GHD compared with the earlier, this generation of straight hair with an extra sleek design, stylish appearance, and some ingenious new features, in the straight hair, hair care and styling aspects greatly improved.

www.mybesthair.com

huew| 11.18.09 @ 2:28AM

http://www.mybesthair.com/

The main features of GHD 2009

More rapid heating ceramic plates.

Heating is completed there will be beep to remind you ready to use.

Durable protection of unique design, does not work for 15 minutes after closing on their own, special cables designed to maintain a ceramic piece from the damp heat damage to the environment.

Self-closing design

The new generation GHD you inadvertently forgot? * Torr cover tight corner ⑵? 5 minutes will be issued a "toot" sound into the "cool" status, in full within 15 minutes of cooling down will always have this voice prompted turn itself off until . Please note: If the straight hair into the "cool" status after you need to continue to use, can turn off and then re-set the timer.

yun| 11.18.09 @ 2:29AM

The main features of GHD 2009

More rapid heating ceramic plates.

Heating is completed there will be beep to remind you ready to use.

Durable protection of unique design, does not work for 15 minutes after closing on their own, special cables designed to maintain a ceramic piece from the damp heat damage to the environment.

The main features of GHD 2009

http://www.mybesthair.com/

More rapid heating ceramic plates.

Heating is completed there will be beep to remind you ready to use.

Durable protection of unique design, does not work for 15 minutes after closing on their own, special cables designed to maintain a ceramic piece from the damp heat damage to the environment.

Self-closing design