What Will She Do For An Encore?
by Paul Mirengoff - June 29, 2009 - Powerline
Short of writing "get whitey," It's difficult to imagine how Judge Sotomayor could have fouled up the Ricci case any more than she did. Let's count the ways.That seems to have been lost in most of the reporting on this issue. Sotomayor got it so wrong that all NINE justices disagree with how she decided this case. ALL NINE. It is not at all the way that it is being portrayed, that 4 agreed with her. ALL NINE agreed that Sotomayor got it wrong. The 5 to 4 ruling was on how to fix her mistakes, not whether she got it wrong.
Fourth, even the dissenting Justices blew off the reasoning of Sotomayor's panel in a footnote, and fashioned their own, different standard for deciding the case.
Of course this is just one more example of how little justice there is in America today. Because it will not matter one iota how incompetent Sotomayor is. That by 7 to 1 Sotomayor has been overruled in cases of hers sent to the Supreme Court is lost in all the non sense being touted by her supporters. Sotomayor does not believe in "the rule of law". Sotomayor is one more advocate for the "rule of judges" philosophy that essentially says, court is all about politics and the liberal view can be implemented by unelected judges. That is the frightening fact of her selection by the Magic Marxist Messiah.
From Equality To Payback
by Thomas Sowell - June 15th, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily
The warm and genial image of Sotomayor presented on television, during President Obama's introduction and afterwards, is in sharp contrast with what attorneys who have appeared before her in court have said.Sotomayor should frighten anyone who believes in equality and fair play. She is clearly a racist who feels comfortable with "payback" and has little respect for the Constitution and the concept of equality . If she is approved, it will take us even closer to the day when our nation will be beyond salvation as a nation that assures freedom. As it has for sixty years, the rule of law moves ever closer to the rule of judges.
A poll of such attorneys showed them rating her worse than other judges in her treatment of those who appeared before her. A tape of Judge Sotomayor's abusive behavior in court backed up the attorneys' picture.
A Little More Judicial Activism, Please
by George Will - June 12th, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily
It is hard to tell if George Will is writing this article to criticize Obama or defend him in a backhanded manner. Certainly it makes anyone who loves America furious at George W. Bush's handling of last year's bailouts.
So President Bush's Treasury Department gave an "interpretation" of the law that ignored the unambiguous terms of the pertinent legislation, the history of its enactment and Treasury's own prior interpretations of it.Once again conservatives have had their ability to protest government overreach gutted by an action of the 'compassionate communist' that is absolutely NOT conservative. Of course if you point that out you are denounced for BDS.
A bemused Paulson, who was present at the creation of Bailout Nation with TARP funds, said while still in office: "Even if you don't have the authorities — and frankly I didn't have the authorities for anything — if you take charge, people will follow."Obama is simply following the precedent of George W. Bush in abusing executive power. Why are there so many conservatives who still defend this man whose only claims to conservatism were family values and national defense. On all other issues Bush was liberal, even tyrannical. Who cares if in personal relationships he was a "nice man", the complement which we are reminded of repeatedly by those who can find no stronger defense.
That said, Obama was delighted to use Bush's precedents to gut the balance of power in America. One sentence in the Court's failure to act is pertinent.
... as the court said in its order permitting completion of Chrysler's bankruptcy, its refusal to review what lower courts have authorized "is not a decision on the underlying legal issues" and pertains to "this case alone."By the time these incompetent judges get around to doing anything, America will be a tyrannical dictatorship and they will be useless. Their one chance to stop this abuse of law has passed.
Justice delayed is justice denied. The point this ruling proves is the Supreme Court does not care a whit about justice. It cares about power. They just haven't figured out how to deal with Obama so that it empowers the courts. He has figured out how to defeat the courts though. Move fast. By the time the Supreme Tyrants figure out how to act, they will not be Supreme anything any more.
Judicial 'Activism' Isn't The Issue
by Jeff Rowes - June 6th, 2009 - Wall Street Journal
Many conservatives who think of themselves as proponents of limited government would be surprised to discover that conservative judges begin their constitutional analyses in almost every context by placing a thumb firmly on the government side of the scale. It's called "judicial deference." Many liberals, who take pride in being "empathetic," would be surprised to learn that liberal judges also subscribe to judicial deference.It is comforting to see others who are as afraid of judicial conservatives as I. It has long been my contention, starting even before the creation of this blog, that liberals were not the only threat to freedom. It is our entire court system that is corrupt, not just one side of the political spectrum. One of the first steps to fixing a problem is to find a term to refer to the problem. I have seen 'judicial deference' used in other contexts, so I am a little leery of using it to refer just to 'judicial deference' to the legislature, but that specific threat is certainly a huge threat to liberty. How could Kelo have become the standard of our nation? How frightening is it that where the America people see clearly a threat to freedom, the arrogant judges on both left and right see only a 'technical issue' about the degree of government domination of our lives, leaning towards greater domination as the right answer?
The practical result is that judges of both persuasions almost never enforce any constitutional limit on the power of government to regulate property and the economy. Given that the vast majority of law concerns these two areas, the real crisis in constitutional law is not judicial "activism" but judicial passivism.
'Judicial deference' to the legislature is the major reason I do not trust the horrible consequences of the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies to our Supreme Court. I will be astonished if we see a ruling that protects our liberties.
Supreme Court Asked
To Block Chrysler Sale To Fiat
by Staff - June 7th, 2009 - Associated Press
The emergency request goes first to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who handles such matters from New York. She can act on her own or refer it to the entire court.Not much chance of the judiciary staying out of the politics and stopping an abusive executive branch. Especially with communist enthusiast Ruth Bader Ginsburg calling the shots. There is no justice in America. The courts are politicized and corrupt. By his use of the simple strategy of rushing the courts, Obama has effectively emasculated them. Bader Ginsburg is a leader in politicizing the courts for the purpose of advancing liberal causes. Of course it does not help that 'compassionate communist' George W. Bush led the way in violating the Constitution and 'the rule of law' by corrupting the TARP process before Obama even became President. That gives Obama and his Obamanista followers carte blanche to do anything they want.
The Indiana State Police Pension Fund, the Indiana Teacher's Retirement Fund and the state's Major Moves Construction Fund claim the deal unfairly favors the interests of the company's unsecured stakeholders ahead of those of secured debtholders such as themselves.
The funds also challenged the constitutionality of the Treasury Department's use of Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, funds to supply Chrysler's bankruptcy protection financing. They say the Treasury did so without congressional authority.
The government-sponsored reorganization of the U.S. auto industry, including the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings, "is a matter of incredibly high profile and importance," the funds said in their request to the high court. "The public is watching and needs to see that, particularly when the system is under stress, the rule of law will be honored and an independent judiciary will properly scrutinize the actions of the massively powerful executive branch."
A Matter Of Law
Editorial - June 2nd, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily
GM's bankruptcy pushes bondholders aside in favor of the U.S. government and the UAW. Though bondholders hold $27 billion in debt, they'll get just 10% of stock.It is theft. Blatant corruption on a scale never before attempted in America. It is amazing how the worst tyrants are always smiling mild mannered people. Obama smiles, and then destroys his enemies with deceit and lies. How can you tell if Obama is planning to do something? Why all you have to do is list things he has said he will not do. He is an outrageous liar and nothing he says can be believed.
How's that compare with the other "stakeholders?" For spending $50 billion to bail out GM, the government will get 60% of the equity in the new GM; the UAW, which along with other unions gave millions to Democrats, will be repaid for its loyalty with 17.5% of the stock for $10 billion of unsecured debts [plus they get $6.5 billion in preferred stock and $2.5 billion in bonds, for a total of $9 billion PLUS the 17.5% in common stock].
So the government, with roughly two times what private bondholders have on the table, gets a stake five times bigger. And the union, with about a third as much "invested," gets a 70% bigger stake [not counting an additional 90% of their stake in preferential assets]. Even the Canadian government, with its $9.5 billion "invested," ends up with 12%.
They call it "restructuring." We call it theft.
The only question is whether our politicized courts can do anything fast enough to stop him. The sense of urgency he keeps pushing is intended to keep moving things so quickly that before anyone with the power can stop him it is too late. Now, now, now. That is all you hear from him.
This article talks about someone filing a federal court case to stop this stealing. It "hopes" the Supreme Court will do something. Long before either comes to fruition, America will be a fascist state ruled by a dictator. We are storming down that path every day Obama is in power.
The courts have abandoned "the rule of law" and Obama is showing them what that really means.