So after months of conjecture, analysis, debate and speculation, our new Justice of the Supreme Court will be, drum roll please…
Judge Sonia Sotomayor?
Really? Her?
I know that some people on both sides of the political aisle are outraged over this nomination, while many are extremely happy and even “inspired”.
Me? Well, I’m just confused. Forgive me for sounding perhaps a bit harsh here, but I just do not see the appeal to this woman.
The thing that strikes me most about Sotomayor is her utter lack of any meaningful decisions. I keep hearing that she brings more experience to the bench than any other justice in the past 100 years, but when have we ever valued quantity over quality when picking a Supreme Court Justice? Personally, I would rather have a judge that has a somewhat limited judicial experience, but has made multiple, key decisions. Additionally, 60% of her rulings have been overturned by the Supreme Court, not a good sign.
I mean, she just does not appear to be that impressive to me. All of her supporters gush about her Latina heritage, her life experiences, her overcoming poverty, her gender and her tough personality on the bench, yet they offer the quality of her decisions as mere footnotes to her overall qualifications. This fact only solidifies the fact that President Obama wanted a nominee that values empathy over the law and, unfortunately for us, that is what he got.
This entire empathy debate is a critical one as it could potentially mean that the letter of the law will not be followed.
There is a famous story about Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that illustrates this point. According to the story, a woman was passing Justice Holmes on the street and she said, “Do justice, Mr. Holmes”, whereby Holmes is said to have replied, “I don’t do justice, I apply the law”.
Why would he say something like that? Well, “justice” is abstract. It is difficult to define, as its meaning varies from person to person and from situation to situation. That is precisely why it should not be brought into the legal equation as seeking to achieve “justice”, rather than following the law, guarantees that certain groups will be viewed and ruled upon differently than everyone else. If a law applies one way to one group of people and another way to a different group, what is the point of having the law anyway? After all, Lady Justice is blindfolded for a reason.
Look, I think it is great that a person like Sotomayor can overcome so much in life and she is a worthy example to not just young Latinos, but to all Americans of hard work and determination. However, that does not make her a suitable choice to become a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.
I do suspect that she will face very little opposition to her confirmation, as she is not liberal enough to be considered a judicial activist, in my opinion. The only things that could possibly stand in her way are any tax skeletons in her closet, not that that has stopped certain Obama appointees, just ask Treasury Secretary Geithner.
That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.
As anyone that frequently, or even infrequently for that matter, reads this blog, you know where I stand regarding North Korea’s and Iran’s nuclear weaponry, so I am going to try to be brief (For any of you that do not know where I stand, please feel free to read here, here, here, here and here).
Benjamin Franklin described “insanity” as doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting different results. Now, I do not wish to put words into the mouth of my favorite Founding Father, but I cannot help believe that if Mr. Franklin were alive today he would have no choice but to call President Obama’s attempts at getting North Korea and Iran to abandon their nuclear weapon aims as insane.
Why wouldn’t he? After all, we are long past seeing a pattern developing here. I am sure all of you have noticed it goes something like this…
An event like a nuclear bomb detonation, a ballistic missile test or the rejection of diplomatic overtures by the U.S. happens and President Obama talks.
He talks about how bad the event was and how the world cannot tolerate such conduct. Then he talks about his nuanced approach to diplomacy and how he plans to talk to the leaders of the offending nations and that he hopes these talks will lead to more talks and how enough talking will take place for all parties involved to finally see eye to eye.
He talks and talks and talks and talks.
Guess what Mr. President, they are not listening as the problems, clearly, still remain.
Yet, in the wake of the latest and incredibly brazen actions by both despotic regimes, we got, you guessed it, more talking from the President.
He said that the world must "stand up to" Pyongyang and demand that it honor a promise to abandon its nuclear ambitions, yet he refused to offer to take the lead to do so.
He stated that North Korea’s test firings of short-range ground to air missiles "pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action," although he failed to announce a plan to do anything about it.
If he is so insistent on talking, I wish he had said something like this:
“This weekend, North Korea, a country that has a long history of defying international law and endangering the safety of not only Asia, but also the safety of the entire world, once again repeated its shameful track record by detonating a nuclear weapon and testing additional short range missiles.As a result, Pyongyang has left me with no choice but to demand that the Republic of North Korea begin a legitimate dismantling of their nuclear weapons program, effective immediately. The have one week to show legitimate progress in this endeavor and if they do not, they will face the full might of the United States Military and I can guarantee that we will do a faster and more comprehensive job than that of our North Korean counterparts.”
If this happened, I can assure you that Tehran would start getting exceptionally cold feet about any further development of nuclear weapons.
I know that there is no chance that President Obama would take this type of stance and that is really a shame as it is probably the only thing that can stop both of these abominable governments from obtaining weapons that can kill, literally, millions of people.
That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.
I cannot believe that I am actually agree with Hillary Clinton, but she is spot on when she said, that a nuclear-armed Iran is "going to spark an arms race" in the Middle East.
I only hope that her boss understands the seriousness of this situation as clearly as she does.
“So, yes, I am saying that they are misleading, that the CIA was misleading the Congress.”
-Nancy Pelosi May 14, 2009
With this comment, Speaker Pelosi went all-in in her war of words with the CIA. For her sake, she had better be telling the truth.
Now I do not claim to know whether she is being honest or not, but my gut and the evidence that has been presented, tell me that that is not the case.
During the press conference, where she uttered the above statement, she looked like a person that was clutching at any excuse that would shroud the truth. From the finger waving, stammering, wavering voice, nervous smile, meek attempts to escape the room and theatrical hand gestures, she seemed scared, cornered and desperate.
In addition, comments made by current CIA director Leon Panetta and Representative Porter Goss and the CIA briefings regarding the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques that were recently made public certainly indicate that Pelosi was well aware of what the CIA was doing.
So for the sake of argument, let’s say she is lying, as I do think she is. Is this really the big deal that Congressional Republicans and Conservative commentators are making this out to be? After all, half-truths, fabrications and deceptions are as part of the American political system as baseball, apple pie and jazz are to the American culture.
I do think this is different though.
This is not some politician trying to spin their voting record on a politically sensitive topic. This is not an exaggerated claim by a politician that is trying to score cheap political points during an election cycle. What this is, is a member of Congress, the Speaker of the House to be specific, making fabricated statements regarding our intelligence community and how they have kept and are keeping us safe from a rogue enemy that specializes in terrorism. All of this, in a time of war.
So if this is really the case and Speaker Pelosi is lying, what should be done?
While I do not believe this is grounds for impeachment, I do think that Speaker Pelosi should be censured and have her position of Speaker of the House taken away from her if she is indeed lying.
While being censured is merely an administrative punishment, it would at least be in the Congressional records forever. I think this would act as, both, a just punishment and an effective deterrent to future elected officials that wish to lie regarding such intelligence issues.
Stripping her of her role as Speaker of the House is certainly a strict punishment, but if she is lying about the conduct of the CIA, I do not believe she should continue to serve as Speaker of the House… someone that is two heartbeats away from the presidency.
I know that this is harsh, but lying about sensitive intelligence information, denigrating the brave and effective intelligence professionals within our government, potentially alienating us from our allies and giving strategic and public relations ammo to our enemies are all incredibly egregious consequences of her reckless behavior.
Now, neither of these actions have any chance of actually happening. I realize that.
This current mini, and potentially epic-sized, scandal, does, however, present the Republican Party with the ability to show voters in 2010 yet another stark contrast between them and the Obama/Pelosi/Reid cabal that is currently running things in Washington, this time on an issue where the Democrats are clearly on the wrong side of public opinion.
That could be the worst punishment Speaker Pelosi could possibly receive.
That’s all for now folks. Until next time, take care and be well.
I hope you all enjoy this backdoor tax that President Obama just enacted. This extra $1,300 per car will make it more and more likely that these cars will never be purchased.
I do love the rationale given by the administration…
Quoting the AP article, “Administration officials said consumers were going to pay an extra $700, anyway, for mileage standards that had already been approved”.
Ah yes, so what’s an extra $600 to the average, struggling American?
Do any of you still need reasons to keep the government out of business affairs?
With the American auto industry already having one foot securely in the grave, this move by the Obama administration may very well ensure that the second one will follow right behind.
I know the headlines are touting the new fuel efficiency standards that this plan will usher in, however, the real story is the CAFÉ standards being strengthened, ensuring more and more unpopular cars will be made in UAW controlled factories.
Would someone please explain to me how forcing auto companies to make more cars that nobody wants to buy will somehow turn around the fortunes of said companies?
WASHINGTON (AP) — In his first quarterly report on the nation's stimulus package, Vice President Joe Biden uses anecdotes to paint a glowing picture of an economy on the rebound. In reality, the picture is incomplete and the colors far more muted.
It is not disputed that Washington is spending historic amounts of money at a rate far faster than normal. Workers are getting tax breaks, Washington is picking up a greater share of state Medicaid costs and road construction projects are beginning.
Even Recovery.gov, the Web site that has yet to live up to its billing as a one-stop way to track every penny, offers more information than typical government programs, and faster.
But the effect of that spending is less clear. Many of the claims the White House is making are based on anecdotes selected to fit the Obama administration's message. For instance, the report cites a newspaper article about workers being rehired at a factory in Chicago. That account is true, but is no more an accurate snapshot of the nation's economy than a story, not cited in the report, about a Roanoke, Va., railcar factory closing.
Capturing the full effect of the stimulus at this early stage is difficult, but the administration has set high bars for success. In championing those successes, however, the White House plays a little loose with the facts.
___
BIDEN SAID: First-time homebuyers are "driving increased activity in the home sales market," while mortgage and title companies are hiring more workers because of the first-time homebuyer tax credit included in the stimulus bill.
THE FACTS: The report cites anecdotes from a New Orleans business journal to back up the claim. It's true, buyers are taking advantage of the $8,000 first-time homebuyer tax credits. The IRS said more than 567,000 tax returns claimed the credit in just the first weeks of the program. But that hasn't provided an immediate turnaround in the market.
Since February, sales of existing homes have fallen 3 percent and new home sales are down .6 percent.
And the number of jobs in the real estate industry has declined by about 20,500, according to the Department of Labor.
There are signs that the housing market is improving. But the numbers suggest that if the market bottomed out, it did so in January, before the stimulus was passed.
___
BIDEN SAID: Employment agencies are placing more workers in jobs, and demand is up since February.
THE FACTS: The report cites an interview with an employment service manager quoted in the same New Orleans business article. The anecdote may be true, but it's impossible to extrapolate that any further, even just to New Orleans. The city has lost more than 200 jobs since February. Overall, Louisiana lost 16,085 jobs over the same span, according to the Department of Labor.
___
THE WHITE HOUSE SAID: The stimulus has created or saved 150,000 jobs.
THE FACTS: Since February, the nation has lost more than 1.3 million jobs, according to the Department of Labor. To make the case that the country created jobs over that same stretch, the White House has put forward a benchmark of jobs created "or saved." The argument is that the job numbers would have been even worse had it not been for the stimulus, and the difference between those numbers is a net positive.
To visualize that disconnect, consider this: The administration has promised to create or save 600,000 more jobs in the next 100 days. Even if the nation loses another 5 million jobs during that span (a highly unlikely prospect) the White House could still claim success.
There are few hard numbers when it comes to tracking stimulus jobs. The Obama administration numbers are based on estimates by the White House Council of Economic Advisers, based largely on a formula Obama's transition team put forward. It estimates the effect of tax breaks, government spending and social programs on job growth.
Spending money will put people to work. But spending has a cost. At some point, Washington will have to pay for this program, either by raising taxes or interest rates, and those policies typically hurt job growth. The Obama administration's job data do not take into consideration this back-end cost, an omission some economists, particularly conservative economists, say is a flaw in the analysis.
Can you imagine the uproar if Dick Cheney had put out a report like this?
As you all probably know, Pakistan is a mess right now and honestly, that’s putting it rather mildly.
After capitulating to the Taliban a couple of months back, Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari and the Pakistani military are finally fighting back.
This battle represents more than just a battle to control the Swat Valley of Pakistan; it represents the battle for the country itself.
This problem started back in February when Zardari acquiesced to the Taliban’s desire to control Danegeld, a city located within Swat. The Taliban assured all parties involved that this agreement would stop further violence.
And what do you know; the Taliban reneged on the deal. Boy, I don’t know who could have seen that coming…
Oh yeah that’s right, anyone with two eyes, that’s who!!!
So now, thanks to this foolish and shameful act, Pakistan is embroiled in a desperate fight to take back control of the Swat. This fight, incidentally, is taking place a mere 60 miles from Islamabad and, more importantly, Pakistan’s arsenal of nuclear weapons, some 100 nuclear bombs and warheads. Additionally, this fighting has led to the displacement of nearly a million Pakistanis and the slaughter of many innocent lives.
While it looks like the Pakistani army will win this battle (early, but admittedly unreliable, death counts puts the loss of life at 751 for the Taliban and 29 for the Pakistani army), the war may still rage.
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, just like in Afghanistan, there are parts of Pakistan where the Taliban is very popular. This is due in large part to the anti-American attitude that is widespread throughout much of the Mid East and Asia and to the power vacuum that the Taliban filled in the inhospitable parts of Pakistan and Afghanistan that Islamabad and Kabul cannot control.
So what needs to be done?
Well, the answer to that question is uncertain, as this is such a difficult situation for all of those involved.
From President Zardari’s point of view, while he does not want to completely give in to the rouge thugs that are the Taliban, he does not want to appear to be a puppet of Washington and risk alienating him from the roughly 50% of the Pakistani population that does not care for the U.S. Conversely, he knows that he needs the U.S.’s help to defeat the Taliban.
From the U.S.’s perspective, Pakistan has to be controlled; otherwise, all of the progress in Afghanistan will continue to be whittled away. On the other hand, they are forced to deal with this clown Zardari and his complete ineptitude when dealing with the Taliban. They cannot depose him as that would send the country into further chaos. Plus, whoever would be placed into power would be viewed as a puppet of Washington and that would further foster ill will towards us in the country.
As you can see, this is a real dicey situation, but this is what I would do…
Get tough with Islamabad and Zardari. Show them that it is in their best interests to not only drive the Taliban back, but also to soundly defeat them once and for all. Convince Zardari of the reality that he cannot possibly hope to coexist with the Taliban as eventually they will either overthrow him and/or kill him.
We also have to convince Pakistan that their main threat does not come from India, but rather it comes from the Taliban. Right now, Pakistan is so paranoid that India will attack them that they have the bulk of their weaponry and all of their best soldiers on the border they share with India. We need to convince them to invest these troops and weapons in the West where the fighting with the Taliban is taking place.
I know that this is easier said than done, but we can help.
Our military can help train Pakistani soldiers in the art of fighting a counterinsurgency war, lessons that our soldiers learned fighting in the streets of Iraq.
We can also continue the drone attacks that have killed dozens of Taliban fighters.
That’s what we can do from a military perspective, but there are economic and political actions we can take to help Pakistan as well.
First, we can begin constructing trade agreements with Pakistan. This will help their poor economy and begin to improve the quality of life of all Pakistanis.
Secondly, we can continue giving them aid. Right now, we have an agreement to give Pakistan $1.5 billion per year for the next five years. Continue that policy, but place conditions on that aid, such as real progress in defeating the Taliban.
Thirdly, we can use our friendly political and economic relationship with India to lower the tensions between them and Pakistan.
This American political, military and economic investment into Pakistan will show the Taliban fighters and the Pakistani citizens that we will not accept defeat. Hopefully, this will produce a ripple effect throughout the country that will shift support from the Taliban to us, as it did in Iraq.
I know this sounds like a lot of time, money, resources and personnel, but we have no other choice. What happens in Pakistan, literally, could determine our success in Afghanistan and the overall War on Terror. We have invested too many lives, too much money and time to fail now.
I have some confidence that President Obama will do the right thing in Pakistan. He has seemed to grasp the monumental problem there better than President Bush ever did and I hope that he follows through with some of the ideas that I outlined above.
If he does not, if he fails to properly follow through in Pakistan, I am afraid that we very well may lose the War on Terror.
Posts
