White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs commented Wednesday on some of the controversy surrounding President Obama’s pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. “I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation.”
Thus I urge you, if you wish to discuss the following with anyone, please take precautions. Close the blinds. Go into the bathroom. Shut the door. Turn on the shower. Speak in hushed tones. In fact, read no further until you are sure that you were not followed, you have swept the room for bugs, and are certain you are alone.
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right. Let me repeat that. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor ruled that ownership of a gun is not a constitutional right.
I think even a second grader in our public school system understands the Second Amendment. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Sonia Sotomayor is hailed as being empathetic by the Left. Empathy is the last quality you want in a judge. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason. Justice does not know whether you are rich or poor, white or black, tall or short, male or female. Justice demands that all are held accountable to the law and all are equal under the law. This is not Sonia Sotomayor’s position.
Her position is that her experience as a female Latino leads her to better decisions than say a white guy. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” Can you imagine Justice Roberts stating that his experience as a white male leads him to make better conclusions that a Latino woman? He would immediately be targeted as a racist, and rightly so.
We should not be surprised that such an outright racist, anti-constitutionalist was Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court. After all, he sees the Constitution as a constraint and the “fundamental flaw” of our nation.
Obama: “As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that… I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and -- and that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”
Thomas Jefferson did not see restraints on government as negative. To him and the rest of the Founders this was essential in order to protect individual liberty! “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”
Obama: “This woman is brilliant. She is qualified. I want her confirmed. I want her walking up those marble steps and starting to provide some justice” For President Obama, the Supreme Court has yet to provide justice because justice would be “redistributive change.” Justice would be taking wealth from those who have worked for and acquired it and giving it to the poor. For President Obama, justice is siding with one side because of race, gender, or social status regardless of the law or the Constitution. For President Obama, justice is whatever he and Jeremiah Wright determine it to be.
The Founding Fathers would be saddened today, but not shocked. They predicted the era we now live in. Thomas Jefferson in a letter he wrote to Charles Hammond August 18th, 1821. “It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression... that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary;... working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”
No comments:
Post a Comment