Recessing with the Times

Today the Supreme Court unanimously rebuked the president for doing something unconstitutional.   Here's CNN:

The Supreme Court sided with Congress on Thursday in the high-stakes power struggle over presidential recess appointments, in which officials are placed in top government jobs temporarily without Senate approval.

But what about America's paper of record, the New York Times?  Well, their report leaves the impression that the ruling was about recess appointments in general, leaving that little thing about Obama's non-recess appointments as an afterthought.  Even the headline tries to frame the decision as limiting recess appointments, when in fact the screaming headline should have been about the high court smacking the executive branch for overstepping their powers.  Even imperial president Bushitler wouldn't go there.  And there was nothing in the story about the impact of this "unlikely ruling", such as the invalidation of past decisions.

Actually Liptak should be given an award for that piece, presented by George Lucas.  One can almost imagine the editorial meeting about how they were going to frame such an in-your-face decision--especially just as Boehner has announced the desire to file a lawsuit over presidential powers--resulting in his column. Perhaps one day media historians will look back on the coverage given the 44th president of the United States and gasp.  Unless such a thing is outlawed by then. 

Not the Onion

Good grief, is there any rule of law left? We have the president saying it's 'unprecedented' for the Supreme Court to overturn a Congressionally-passed law, which seems pretty darn close to their exact mission statement. As punishment the 5th Court of Appeals is giving the admin a homework assignment, which itself seems pretty unprecedented. Sorta like the notion of one political party forcing Americans to purchase insurance.

Now the president's illegal alien half-Uncle Omar, who just lost his driver's license for 45 days as a result of a plea in his drunk-driving case (ramming a police car) gets a 'hardship' license so he can illegally stay in America and drive back and forth to his job at a liquor store. Remember the old days when losing your drivers license was supposed to be a hardship?

It's simply impossible to make up this stuff.

Kagan

From Elena Kagan's Columbia Princeton thesis:

In addition to her bemoaning the fact that the Socialist Party could not get off the ground in the early 20th century, Kagan further identifies one of the 'common enemies' of Socialists--the Christian Church.

No surprise there, both represent a god figure--one the god of government and other, God. But we'll leave it to her to explain her religious beliefs if she so desires. Of more import is her disappointment that sectarianism scuttled the 20th century socialism movement. Wonder what she thinks of things in 2010?

For instance, does Obama's penchant for throwing radical friends under the bus count as stick-togetherness today? After all, those thrown under the bus have yet to write vindictive tell-all like Paul O'Neill did with Bush. Taking one for the team is another way to put it.

She's probably a shoe-in, but GOP Senators need to keep a stiff backbone in their advice and consent session and ask some real questions. There's nothing wrong with a left of center president nominating a left of center justice--it's expected--but a socialist nominating another socialist under the cloak of something less radical is another matter. At 50 she could potentially serve for another 40 years.

As to other things Kagan, they say she has a short paper trail and like Obama spent time with Leroy Brown on the south side of Chicago. Hillary is from that area, too. So is Rahm. How ironic. And she's supposedly a "rabid" White Sox fan, at least when she was in Chicago. More karma. Maybe they can sneak Bob Costas onto the panel, or better yet, Ken Harrelson.

As to the sexual stuff, that's her private business. She appears to be against gay marriage, again, just like Obama.

This Needs to be Clarified..

My opinion on Judge Sotomayor has been fairly neutral so far but if the Repubs roll over and confirm her without asking how she'd interpret the Second Amendment maybe the party itself should roll over. To wit:

Just six months after Heller, however, Sotomayor issued an opinion in Maloney v. Cuomo that the protections of the Second Amendment do not apply to the states, and that if your city or state wants to ban all guns, then they have the right to disarm you. Such an opinion seems to fly directly in the face of Heller, exposing Sotomayor as an anti-gun radical who will affirm full-on gun prohibitions and believes that you have no right to own a firearm, even for the most basic right of defending your family in your own home.

But one might say, 'Heller still protects individuals from having their entire right to own a firearm stripped away', which sounds correct, as long as the Heller ruling still stands. Obama has tip-toed around this issue in the past, giving the impression he's not coming after firearms...

“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’

But would he need votes in Congress if the SCOTUS rules that local and state governments right to control guns trumps the Bill of Rights? Most major cities are run by Democrat mayors/city councils I'd gather, but is that even possible? This may be overblown right wing paranoia but let's see her grilled on the gun issue just a bit, to see how and where she comes down.

A Sotomayor Strategy

Obama has issued a challenge to the right--oppose my SCOTUS candidate or else. Another shocking veiled threat from the scrawny but tough kid from Chicago. Anyone who doesn't take a man seriously who's backed by a media apparatus consisting of Comedy Central, the late night shows, the mainstream media, liberal bloggers, HBO and Hollywood, several major newspapers, several periodicals, college professors and all but one of the View ladies are utter fools.

It appears he's trying to position the judge as the entire Latin vote, setting up a scenario where if the right bashes her they bash all Latinos, losing the chance to ever gain power again. It's a pick your battles moment with Obama poised to win either way.

Ms. Sotomayor may not be a token but she represents a thank you card to the nearly 70 percent of Latinos who swallowed Obama's hopenchange despite his horrible stance on abortion, unsupportive comments about the church and his wink-wink disapproval of gay marriage. An unspoken part of that dynamic are the undocumented illegals, who probably hope they'll one day be able to vote for the One.

Here's a video from 2007 suggesting amnesty might be on the way. We also know the Judge is purportedly a member of the National Council on La Raza, a group who supports a liberal immigration policy. Obama has ties--he used a waiver on his lobbying rules to hire Cecilia Munoz, a former VP of the NCLR. As most bloggers and internet geeks know the La Raza movement has been rumored to have shadowy ties to groups like MECHa, brought to us by some very, shall we say, interesting web sites:

Believers in the Aztlan legend insist upon the indivisibility of "La Raza" and their common goals, one of them being the need to abolish the border between the U.S. and Mexico. There is a myriad of Raza college newspaper. Some are El Popo, Aztlan News, Chispas, Gente de Aztlan (UCLA), Voz Fronteriza (U.C. San Diego), La Voz Mestiza (U.C. Irvine) and La Voz Berkeley. It is not uncommon for the writers of these publications to refer to the U.S., as "AmeriKKKa."

Rhetoric by some Chicano educators strongly suggest Communist or Socialist leanings.

Not sure when this was written but the KKK America thing certainly jumps out. Dismiss it as rantings of a xenophobic crank--the NCLR web site denies they are affiliated with MECHa or any other open borders movement--instead heralding the financial backing of several large corporations. But wouldn't backings by the government and corporations be an even shadier endorsment? The National Chamber of Commerce is a mouthpiece for cheap labor.

Last night in Los Angeles Obama barked,

I want her confirmed, I want her walking up those noble steps and starting to provide some justice!

'Justice', 'empathy', code words. Obama is currently bathing in the warm light of the new diversity and part of that is reveling in some 200+ year payback. Part is tearing down the opposition--which he learned in Chicago--and part is grabbing new voting blocks like Hispanics. He's been so successful at change it's producing a new cockiness that includes outright dares as he proceeds to kneecap the GOP. So, what are they to do?

Well, they can cower in fear and allow him define their racist guilt. Or they can speak out and have it crammed down their old white throats, every comment dressed as if it came from Rush Cheney himself. And it will succeed.

Or, the GOP can try to salvage something by pushing for Colin Powell to be their point man on this. He says he's still in the party and he can't be called a racist. And the left just got through elevating him, meaning he's got capital. Even if he were to side with Sotomayor it might be a winner just by allowing him to further define himself. If he refuses to speak that's another data point for down the road, and if he comes out against her it'll hold a lot more weight than something from the titular head of the party.

The Sotomayor Pick

Well, this might make a few lefty heads explode:

Obama had some truly outstanding legal intellectuals and judges to choose from—Cass Sunstein, Elena Kagan, and Diane Wood come immediately to mind. The White House chose a judge distinguished from the other members of that list only by her race. Obama may say he wants to put someone on the Court with a rags-to-riches background, but locking in the political support of Hispanics must sit higher in his priorities.

So said the left's modern version of Goebbels, John Yoo. The crux of his dissent (which must be coming from an unspecified location outside Berkeley where he is on the faculty) is that she'll let feelings triumph over the law. Her public speeches seem to suggest it. But that's exactly what Obama said he wanted!

It is experience that can give a person a common touch and a sense of compassion, an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of justice we need on the Supreme Court.

Before he said he didn't:

Second is a recognition of the limits of the judicial role, an understanding that a judge's job is to interpret, not make law, to approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.

So it's hard to say.

We know Hannity will be going nuts but as to her formal confirmation, conservatives should be respectful when expressing their dissenting views. The last thing anyone needs is Ms. Mayor's spouse being driven to tears like Mrs. Alito or made the butt of late-night comedians like Tina Fey.

A victory for free speech

Has come from the Supreme Court. Their ruling regards the Wisconsin Right to Life group's campaign ad being rejected within two months of an election (which McCain called "regrettable") was a good thing.

As to McCain/Feingold, the money angle is important and the law was designed to remove unfair advantages but a better approach might be to simply educate the public about it--use some public service announcements to explain what's going on then let the chips fall. We can handle it.

But that's not the case. Politicians seem to be developing an ever-growing sense that the electorate has no sense and therefore must be protected from itself. It's the same mindset that spurs talk of reviving the 'fairness doctrine' because Limbaugh dominates AM radio or of ramming an immigration bill down our throats before anyone can possibly understand or debate it. "Danger, Will Robinson" is all that comes to mind.

Besides, if everyone was as dumb as they assume wouldn't we just tune out the issue ads anyway, like we do with most of the others before an election?

Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia voted in the majority, with the money quote coming from Roberts:

"Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues also may be pertinent in an election. Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor."

There are limits to free speech but when it comes to elections we can't let the politicians become the arbiters. Bravo SCOTUS.