Becareful What You Wish For...

By a 5 to 4 decision The Supreme Court of the United States overturned a lower court ruling stating that an erected cross at a national park violated the separation of Church and State. The majority, opinion written by Justice Kennedy, noted that the cross was non-sectarian in meaning and not reflecting back on a certain religion:

"Although certainly a Christian symbol, the cross was not emplaced on Sunrise Rock to promote a Christian message," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote of the cross that was put up in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to commemorate U.S. soldiers who died in World War I. "Rather, those who erected the cross intended simply to honor our nation's fallen soldiers."

So here is the irony that will kill you. The liberals in this country have tried upon decades to dilute every possible Christian symbol from its true religious meaning, taking Christ out of Christmas, calling Christmas trees holiday trees and the like.

Now the conservative Justices are throwing it back at them stating that a cross is not a defacto Christian symbol promoting a Christian message, the death and resurrection of Christ. Basically saying, “Congratulations, you Libs win, a cross has no Christian message tied to it.”

Does anyone actually believe Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia think a cross has no Christian significance or message behind it when displayed? Especially when used to honor the dead? Did the VFW, when they put it up in 1934, thought it had no religious significance? Too funny.

Also noteworthy is the Kennedy has been voting almost lockstep with the Conservative wing of this court for a while now. Sotomayor must have pushed him over the edge,

Sonia Sotomayor: Operation Rescue Defender?

Here is another interesting tidbit. The news story hitting multiple web sites today is that Judge Sonya Sotomayor ruled in favor of pro-life protesters, from Operation Rescue, saying that the West Hartford, CT, Police used excessive force with the protesters. 261 protesters were injured at the event at the hands of the police.

Sotomayor wrote in her opinion:
"It is undisputed that the police were forced to employ some degree of physical coercion in order to arrest the protesters and remove them from the premises. Plaintiffs allege, however, that the police responded with far more force than was necessary, and inflicted severe pain on the demonstrators by dragging them out of the building by their elbows, using choke holds, and lifting them off the floor by their wrists. Moreover, one officer allegedly shoved and pinned a sitting protester's head to the floor with his foot, and some threatened those who were praying aloud that they would "get more" if they "kept crying out in praise of the Lord." The protesters who were subjected to this treatment "screamed" in pain, and the demonstrators assert that they could hear the continuous screams and protestations of their fellow arrestees."

Now this can be viewed as just an excessive force ruling, but boy are the militant Libs stricken with fear. They are in total meltdown mode. Our Supreme Court nominee allows people to cry out, "Praise the Lord!" in public? She is not throwing the book at these people trying to rob us of our rights?

Sleaze portal the Daily Kos is writing multi-volume dissertations on how Sotomayor is really a closet Conservative. They are self imploding with paranoia. The Daily Kos was the newspaper that reported the horrendous lie that Trig Palin was actually Sarah Palin's daughter's baby. It seems the first to unleash the dogs on a helpless teenager without any proof, is also the first to unleash the dogs on one of their own without any proof. Speaks volumes of their character and tolerance. Gestapo-like, isn't it?

God and Country reports:
"Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, urged supporters to press senators to demand that Judge Sotomayor reveal her views on privacy rights before any confirmation vote.
"Discussion about Roe v. Wade will—and must—be part of this nomination process," Ms. Keenan wrote. "As you know, choice hangs in the balance on the Supreme Court as the last two major choice-related cases were decided by a 5-to-4 margin."

The President of NARAL is now thinking NARAL may have gotten the shaft from Obama? Really, you can't trust this guy?

Wouldn't it be an unforeseen and unplanned course of events if the Liberals were the ones to torpedo this nomination?

Sonia Sotomayor: Maybe Not the Worst Appointment

Well, I could not have been more wrong with my Supreme Court prediction. And believe me, it kills an Irishman to admit that. That being said, am I somewhat crazy to think this may not be the worse outcome?

Granted, Sonia Sotomayor is a make-it-up-as-you-go liberal judge, more decisions on whims than case histories. She may be one of the worst ever in this regard. She has been overturned more times than an undercooked pancake. CNN.com had a thorough listing of her rulings today and how many were overturned by the US Supreme Court. Here is the abridged version:

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted
• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0
• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)
• Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the "best technology" rule was too narrow. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)
• Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach "flies in the face of the statutory language." Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)
• Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision. Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)

There are many more cases listed, but you get the picture. Not exactly artisan of air-tight legal opinions, which brings me to my first point.

Her nomination is not that bad because she will be no match for Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas thus having limited influence on the Court.

Jeffrey Rosen came out with a extremely critical look at Sotomayor, which is currently being denounced by some as politically motivated:

"Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.

The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was "not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench," as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. "She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue." (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, "Will you please stop talking and let them talk?")

Now, I do not know personally how bright she is. The confirmation process will be an interesting window into that answer. John Roberts set the bench mark in history how to respond in a confirmation hearing. This bench mark is out there and she will be judged by it, as Alito was.

I do know, however, that her mentioning that judges "make policies" when you know you are being tape recorded tells me you are not are not the sharpest nail in, or on, the bench. Honest? Yes. Intelligent? Very questionable.

She is going to be in for a very rude awakening if she thinks that her ideas will have free range and not be intensely challenged every step of the way behind the jurist doors.

There was a case a year or so back where the Court was ruling on whether lethal injection was cruel and unusual punishment. A lawyer arguing before the Court tried to make the case that it was painful and therefore cruel. Antonin Scalia caught the lawyer completely off-guard asking where in the law does it mention that the death penalty has to be painless. The point to be made here does not have anything to do with the validity of capital punishment, or whether or not it should be painless. The point being made here is that Scialia did not accept the first premise of a presented argument without making the lawyer prove it. He went down to the component level when most anyone else would have considered the statement reasonable.

Tonight could have been much worse if another judge with superior intellectual horsepower and powers to persuade the Court and America was named today.

Finally, my second point:

She was apparently the only judge named in the list of possibilities to give the Pro-Life cause any sliver of hope.

Life News wrote this about her:

"The only potential Supreme Court justice who may provide hope for pro-life advocates is Sonia Sotomayor, a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit...

Sotomayor participated in a decision concerning the Mexico City Policy, which President Obama recently overturned and which prohibits sending taxpayer dollars to groups that promote and perform abortions in other nations.

Writing for the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor upheld the Mexico City Policy, but [Americans United for Life] says the significance of the decision "may be minimal because the issue was largely controlled by the Second Circuit’s earlier opinion in a similar challenge to the policy."

AUL notes that Judge Sotomayor also upheld the pro-life policy by rejecting claims from a pro-abortion legal group that it violated the Equal Protection Clause."

There must be a recognition that Obama was the one who was nominating and a moderate liberal appointment is a victory. As mentioned previously, Diane Wood supported partial-birth abortion and could have easily gotten the nod. Obama was never in a better position, with the House and Senate, to nominate an militant judge and get her through. He will not be in this good of position even a year from now. Yes, it could have been a lot worse.

The President of Planned Parenthood checked in on the nomination:

"What our nation needs from our Supreme Court justices is a deep understanding of the law, an appreciation of the impact of the court's decisions on everyday Americans, and a commitment to the protection of our individual liberties. Judge Sotomayor will bring this dedication and commitment with her to the bench."

They seem to be happy, but there is also a cautious tone to the statement. PP is telling what the court needs first and foremost, and not praising the pick. If it was Diane Wood, the praise would have come first. They probably don't know any more than anyone else about how Sotomayor would rule. There is a growing need for a larger filing system for all the Liberals who have been burnt by Obama recently. I am hoping PP joins this catalog with this appointment.

As we all know, lifetime appointments have a way of dropping pretenses and ideologies that were necessary to reach the appointment. Ask David Souter or Sandra Day O’Connor if allegiances change. Hopefully, Sotomayor's Catholic upbringing has left an impression on her heart. Time will tell.

Supreme Court's Short List and Long Odds

Here is an online casino's odds for the next Supreme Court Justice nomination:

Sonia Sotomayor 13/8 (Favorite, less than 2 to 1)
Diane Pamela Wood 9/4
Elena Kagan 4/1
Kim McLane Wardlaw 9/2
Kathleen Sullivan 8/1

Another comment to add on Wood, other than my comments below, is that she is an elitist from Chicago and probably runs in the same circles that Obama did/does.

Interestingly, Wardlaw has been getting a few mentions. She is the best possibility from the list, meaning the most moderate. She ruled in favor of displaying the 10 Commandments on public property, ruled against habeus corpus for detainees, and gave the EPA a broader scope in one ruling. She is hispanic on her mother's side and was the first female hispanic named to the court of appeals. She worked in the Bill Clinton presidential campaign which might hurt her even more than her moderate rulings.

Post Note 5/10: Here is a site that claims Obama and Wood have a personal relationship when they both taught at the University of Chicago law school.

Obama's Supreme Court Appointment: Diane Wood?

On June 5, 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled by a 5 to 4 margin that the city government of New London, CT, could legally take their private citizen’s homes away and deliver the land to real estate developers for the sole purpose of building a shopping mall.

The ruling interpreted, er…. legislated, that the 5th Amendment’s Eminent Domain Clause could mean that our government could take private property away from one private citizen and award it to another. It is worth emphasizing that this was not an eminent domain case of the government acquiring land because a much-needed highway could not be established by any other route through a city. This was a case of the government confiscating land from evicted citizens and delivering it to developers so that the developers could get rich and the state could increase their kitty benefiting from an increase in sales’ taxes.

This ruling was so absurd, that consistently liberal judge Sandra Day O’Connor broke with her left-wing cohorts on the court and actually wrote the dissenting opinion:

"Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party…"

Thankfully, three months later, Chief Justice John Roberts would be appointed to lead the bench, followed by Samuel Alito a few months later making ridiculous rulings such as this less probably.

So why am I reviewing this case’s history? To show you how much our Supreme Court has run-a-muck in the last fifty years. This case easily illustrates this belief to almost anyone because it is not dealing with a polarizing, emotional issue that is super-charged. Everyone can relate to the government knocking on their door and serving them with an eviction notice for a shopping mall.

This is why Supreme Court appointments are so essential to all of our rights. It is the most significant and lasting imprint that a Presidency can leave on history.

I am extremely thankful to President Bush for keeping us safe from terrorist attacks for the 7 years that followed 9-11. But I am equally thankful, if not more, for his appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito whom will keep our liberties safe for the next 30 years. As Uncle Billy said in It’s a Wonderful Life, "Not every heel is [overseas…]"

President Obama now has the luxury of leaving his mark on history.

Some specific thoughts I have on this appointment:

I don't think it will come before his Notre Dame commencement speech. (It still hurts me to say that sentence.) Obama is not going to stoke the fires and create photo-op's of protesters for this event by nominating a militant pro-abortion judge just prior to the event.

Secondly, with many of his recent cabinet appointments going up in flames, I think he will be looking for someone with absolutely no baggage. His administration can't afford to have another public embarrassment and the pick will be completely vetted on everything from personal taxes to wild college nights.

I think the name that everyone is floating, Sonia Sotomayor, will not be the pick. She has a very controversial caught-on-tape statement that judges actually "make policy from the bench" that would cause Obama great grief during a confirmation hearing. She prefaces this damning statement with, "I know I shouldn’t say this on tape…"

A final thought is that there is very little chance that the judge will not be a liberal activist. A pro-abortion, gay rights; a make-up-the-Constitution-as-you-go type.

So with my rationale, I am basically expecting that Obama will nominate the most militant liberal judge with the most squeaking clean life.

My guess is that it will be Diane Wood.

Justice Diane Wood is the Armageddon scenario for this appointment. She has been a disaster for the pro-life cause with rulings for partial birth abortion and using RICO laws to prevent peaceful abortion protests. My prediction is that she will get the nod. I hope I am wrong.