What lies beneath...

Posting an email chain, however brief, may be a bit unorthodox, but the issue is something we should all be aware of, and certainly concerned about.

 

Be sure to check out the links…

 

Chad,

 

Your thoughts are right on. In fact, this approach has been underway nationwide for a few years now. Homosexual activists have been organizing political campaign funds on a national scale and funneling it into state AND LOCAL elections for the express purpose of knocking pro-family politicians out of positions of office and grooming political leaders who support the homosexual agenda for the state and national stage.

 

What we saw in Maine is just the “tip” of an “iceberg” that is already partially formed beneath the national radar.

 

Check this out: http://americansfortruth.com/issues/corporate-promotion/foundations/gill-foundation

 

We sheep certainly do need to wake up…though the issue is so much more than just political. The fact that morality in this country has digressed so far speaks volumes about other issues…

 

-Cliff

 

 

Hello Everyone,

 

I normally don't send out mass e-mails like this but I found this particular section of a news story interesting.  Below is the website if you want to check out the entire article but I just want to focus on one section.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091104/us_time/08599193443200

 

The article talks about yesterday's vote in Maine to ban gay marriage.  People voting to ban it won but what it says below I found very interesting.

 

"That decision has been cited in numerous cases that have followed, as the number of states whose courts have demanded equal marriage rights for gays has grown. But those same cases have also helped fuel opponents, who argue gay marriage is being foisted upon America by out-of-touch judges. In order to counter that argument, Bonauto and other gay-marriage activists in Maine who began organizing to press for gay marriage in Maine decided to avoid taking the issue to court. Instead, they set about electing lawmakers friendly to their cause two years ago, and this year successfully convinced the legislature to become the nation's first to establish gay marriage by statute, rather than decree. "Frankly, we had heard the criticisms about going the court route, and so we said, 'Fine, we'll go to the legislature,'" says Bonauto. "And it has been an incredible campaign." (Watch a video about gay marriage ban in Florida.)".  (Emphasis added)

 

The article talks about how the popular vote has won out every single time that it has been put to the people and activists who are campaigning for gay marriage rites can see that they are not going to win by popularity...at least not now.  They also know, as it states in the article, that it is difficult for them to win when "out-of-touch judges" enforce gay marriage onto the public.  Realizing this, they are taking a more long term route but it looks like it may be a more effective one.

 

They are focusing their efforts on ELECTING representatives who are "friendly to their cause" in hopes of ushering in gay marriage as a "statute rather than a decree".  They know that they cannot win with a popular vote because this is an issue that has gotten people like us off of the couch and out to vote.  However, they are counting on us to not put in the effort to find and elect candidates who will represent us.  Who cares if the majority of the people in our voting districts oppose gay marriage...or any other social, economic or political topic.  If they can get a representative who supports them on their issues then it looks as though that is what the people want.  This is why our representatives vote on most things because it is supposed to be a good indicator of what the people want.

 

Sorry if I am getting all political and long winded.  If you find yourself reading this message and disagreeing with me then that is fine and I am sorry that I have wasted your time.  I respect your opinion and stance on such touchy issues but this is just something that I feel strongly about and thought that I would share.

 

Bottom line is that it is easy to show up and vote for one topic in one election but let’s be the kind of politically active people who begin working two years in advance to ensure that we get people in office who will represent us.  We often complain that our country is being taken over yet we have the power to seek out and elect people that we feel represent us in the best way possible.  If you are already doing this then thank you and keep it up.  If not, hopefully I have given you something to think about.

 

Again, thank you for your time.

 

Chad

 

It's no wonder Christians have a hard time being accepted as sincere...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/11/04/miss.california.usa.settlement/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

 

Regardless of whether the allegations regarding the video are true, which would be heinous, all I can say is: breast implants? Really? Really?? Sheesh…

Clean Smells are Next to Godliness...

Cute little article about some recent research at BYU. Apparently clean smelling environments tend to lead people to be more fair and charitable. Makes me wonder if one could find a connection between people who are jerks and body odor? Just thinkin...

You can read the article here: http://byunews.byu.edu/archive09-Oct-smellofvirtue.aspx

Obamacare = Social Engineering

Just thought I'd say it.

How long until we can vote a sane administration onto capital hill?

Is it possible?

First: Protect Yourself From Liability

We all know that the physician’s creed begins with: First, Do No Harm.

 

Sadly, however, more and more hospitals are attempting to force women into potentially dangerous surgery to avoid the greater risk of liability they might face if a VBAC goes wrong on their watch.

 

The problem with that is that it isn’t about the patient’s best interests at all. It’s about the hospital’s best interest, plain and simple.

 

Check out this article for a terrific example of the nonsense that some hospitals are putting families through:

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/10/15/hospitals.ban.vbacs/index.html?eref=igoogle_cnn

 

For more information, google the International Cesarean Awareness Network.

FW: Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

Well worth reading…

 

---

From: Public Affairs - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [mailto:publicaffairs-slc@ldschurch.org]
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 4:44 PM
To: sircrazyhorse@gmail.com
Subject: Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened

 

Newsroom.lds.org Updates in Your Inbox! Apostle Says Religious Freedom Is Being Threatened SALT LAKE CITY   |   13 October 2009   |   An apostle for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said religious freedom is being threatened by societal forces intimidating those with religious points of view from having a voice in the public square. Elder Dallin H. Oaks made the comments today in a major address to Brigham Young University-Idaho students on the importance of preserving the religious freedoms guaranteed by the United States Constitution. Full Story Find us on: Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Widgets, Text Alerts and RSS

 

Forward email This email was sent to sircrazyhorse@gmail.com by publicaffairs-slc@ldschurch.org. Update Profile/Email Address | Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ | Privacy Policy.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | 15 East South Temple | Salt Lake City | UT | 84150

 

Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Obamacare...

...back in 1961.

Should this really be a government decision?

Federal Defense, er...Hate Crimes Bill?

In an interesting (read, disengenuine) political maneuver, democratic leaders have attached the Federal Hate Crimes Bill (the ridiculously unconstitutional Federal Hate Crimes Bill) to a Federal Defense Bill, and then scheduled the vote for it at 1AM in the morning. Senator De Mint's argument against ALL of this nonsense is well spoken, and I highly recommend it. Methinks that even if this nonsensical bill does pass, it will simply invoke a spate of lawsuits challenging its constitutionality. Let's hope it never gets to that point.

Obamacare, ie: Lincoln Logs

Below are just a few of the myriad pieces of the proposed “overhaul” of America’s health care system – and all of this before a dime of our taxpayer money is ever spent on actual medical care, and many of these new agencies and positions duplicate existing government agencies and positions. If you haven’t guessed, I’m opposed to this, as well. You can read more here: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=607996

 

"Health Choices Commissioner"

"Health Choices Administration"

"Public Health Investment Fund"

"Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund"

"Bureau of Health Information"

"Assistant Secretary for Health Information"

"National Coordinator for Health Information Technology"

"Office of Civil Rights"

"Office of Minority Health"

"language demonstration program"

"cultural and linguistics competence training"

"a youth public health program to expose and recruit high-school students into public health careers"

"Senior Advisor for Health Care Fraud"

"Senior Counsel for Health Care Fraud Enforcement"

"Health Care Program Integrity Coordinating Council"

"Coordinated Environmental Public Health Network"

"National Health Care Workforce Commission"

"public plan ombudsman"

"special health insurance exchange inspector general"

 

the "Raise the Cost of Living and Ship Jobs Overseas Act of 2009"

Read this:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Perspectives/Default.aspx?id=607988

 

Then call your senator and ask him to vote NO on this nonsense, or at least to fight for a full, open, fair debate of the bill on the senate floor. There are far better ways to promote shifts to alternative forms of energy than by shoving a cap and trade tax down our collective throats, and there are far better ways to promote policy change than by forcing and buying votes that otherwise would never be attainable. The politics on capital hill is frankly scary these days.

ICAN Webinar - Preventing Unnecessary C-Sections Through Education

The following is an email I recently received from the President of ICAN (International Cesarean Awareness Network), Desirre Andrews:

 

Dear friend of ICAN,

In our continued effort to prevent unnecessary cesareans through education, ICAN launched a new online webinar last month featuring our very own ICAN Birth Class: Cesarean Prevention.  A webinar (short for "web seminar") allows many participants in multiple locations to see and hear a presentation from their own desks, and is a great format for spreading ICAN's message.  Our first webinar was such a huge success that we are planning future webinars to come, with the first on Monday, July 27 at 9:00 pm EDT.

First-timers and experienced moms both can benefit from this webinar to find out ways to increase the chances of having an easier and safe birth. 

Presenting the ICAN webinar is Claudia Villeneueve, President  of ICAN Canada, ICAN’s former Education Director, and a birth doula and childbirth educator.

This 2-hour online session will cover:

* Different kinds of care providers, and the pros and cons of each
* How to empower yourself to make educated choices during pregnancy and during labor
* What factors contribute to the chances of having an unnecessary or preventable cesarean
* What is the "downward spiral of intervention"
* Why avoiding an unnecessary cesarean is safest for mom and baby
* When cesareans are truly necessary

$20 donation goes directly to support ICAN's mission.

For more information, please visit http://ican-online.org/none/ican-birth-class-cesarean-prevention

To register, go to https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/982351571

We look forward to seeing you there!

Warmly,

Desirre Andrews
ICAN President
www.ican-online.org

Be the change!  Ask me how.

A National Health Service leaflet is advising school pupils that they have a "right" to an enjoyable sex life

A British National Health Service leaflet, that is.

 

The full article is available here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article6689953.ece

 

I’m wondering, what’s the over under on when we’ll start seeing rubbish like this show up in U.S. schools, under the garb of state endorsement?

Reply to the President, How about that "political back and forth"

Perhaps this is a bit more terse than I ought to be, but I get a bit peeved when I hear people make certain arguments that disenginuinely contradict their own actions (read: hypocrisy cheeses me off).

I was therefore a bit bothered when I received a mass email today from President Barack Obama, supporting his recent nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge Sotomayor. Not that I disagree with such marketing tactics in politics (though such is often carried too far, IMO). After all, Mr. Axelrod (sp?) is a P.R. guy.

What bothers me is that Obama touts, not only her strong record, intellect, and experience (all without offereing any substantive proof of such, I might add - and he conventiently omitted the dismal record of her rulings that have been appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but I digress again), but that he also touts her personal history as a qualification for the bench. He then made the following statement, which quite "set me off."

"It's important for these hearings to be about Judge Sotomayor's own record and her capacity for the job — not any political back and forth that some in Washington may use to distract you."

I include my reply below, as well as the actual letter from the President. I suppose I should have addressed the reply cordially, and I feel bad for not doing so. He is the President, after all, even if hypocritically...

My reply:

You mean, like choosing a Latin female as a nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court, largely because that candidate is Latin and female, and then arguing that because you are the President, the Senate should consent to that nomination without further inquiry into her judicial record, temperament, and philosophy; like arguing that somehow “empathy” is an important qualification for a Justice charged with impartially interpreting and upholding a Federal Constitution; like citing a laudable personal history of overcoming adversity as a reason to give someone the power to apply that Constitution, with a binding effect, to issues that will affect all Americans in varying degrees?



Yep, no “political back and forth” there, Mr. President.



And what about the “political back and forth” you engaged in when you were a Senator and President Bush nominated a certain Latin man, Mr. Estrada, to the federal bench? I suppose you are above that now that you are a President actually making the appointment…



Sincerely,

Clifford A. Arthur, esq.


The President's letter:



Good Morning,

Yesterday, Judge Sonia Sotomayor made her opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee and moved another step closer to taking a seat on the United States Supreme Court. In case you missed it, watch the video of her opening statement here:



As President, there are few responsibilities more serious or consequential than the naming of a Supreme Court Justice, so I want to take this opportunity to tell you about the qualifications and character that informed my decision to nominate Judge Sotomayor.

Judge Sotomayor's brilliant legal mind is complemented by the practical lessons that can only be learned by applying the law to real world situations.

In the coming days, the hearings will cover an incredible body of work from a judge who has more experience on the federal bench than any incoming Supreme Court Justice in the last 100 years. Judge Sotomayor's professional background spans our judicial system — from her time as a big-city prosecutor and a corporate litigator, to her work as a federal trial judge on the U.S. District Court, and an appellate judge on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

And then there is Judge Sotomayor's incredible personal story. She grew up in a housing project in the South Bronx — her parents coming to New York from Puerto Rico during the Second World War. At the age of nine, she lost her father, and her mother worked six days a week just to put food on the table. It takes a certain resilience and determination to rise up out of such circumstances, focus, work hard and achieve the American dream.

This character shined through in yesterday's opening statement: Watch the video.

In Judge Sotomayor, our nation will have a Justice who will never forget her humble beginnings, will always apply the rule of law, and will be a protector of the Constitution that made her American dream and the dreams of millions of others possible. As she said so clearly yesterday, Judge Sotomayor's decisions on the bench "have been made not to serve the interests of any one litigant, but always to serve the larger interest of impartial justice."

In anticipation of today's first round of questioning, I hope you'll share this email widely, because Judge Sotomayor's confirmation is something that affects every American. It's important for these hearings to be about Judge Sotomayor's own record and her capacity for the job — not any political back and forth that some in Washington may use to distract you. What members of the Judiciary Committee, and the American people, will see today is a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into breaking from the rule of law.

Thank you,
Barack Obama

To Heck with Freedom from Religion!

Great radio clip. Peter Heck makes some great points here. I don't agree with how he made his final point, but I very much agree with the substance of his arguments. The establishment clause is written the way it is because the founding fathers wanted to foster an environment in which religion could thrive based on individual conscience, and without dictation from the federal government (I will omit any potentially lengthy discussion of the operation of the 14th amendment on state government and the subsequent incorporation of, inter alia, the 1st amendment as against the states - suffice it to say that the first amendment was initially intended to operate solely against the federal, and not the state governments).

In any case, the establishment clause of the first amendment was a brilliant, although relatively recently twisted attempt to protect religion and federal government from eachother, with the intent of fostering the healthy coexistence of them both. Sad to see so many these days using the establishment clause as a club to pound religion from our societal conscience, but I digress.

Enjoy the clip:

Sweat is my sanity

This from Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in a recent interview. I think it’s hilarious because my sweet wife HATES sweat, but I can relate to this statement. I love a good sweat!

 

Palin also stated that she would beat President Obama in a long race. An event like that just might bring pay per view back into national prominence. I think it should be followed by a boxing match with Biden…

 

More available here: http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/us_palin_runners_world/2009/06/30/230608.html?s=al&promo_code=829B-1

 

Counter Surge?

In a surge movement that runs almost exactly counter to the strategy which the Obama-Biden ticket ardently argued they would employ in Afghanistan, because they argued that a surge similar to that employed in Iraq would not work, U.S. troops in Afghanistan are set to reach the same levels as that in the Iraqi surge, while operating under similar principles. (I don’t have time to dig up the old footage, but in addition to Obama continuing to put down the Iraqi surge and arguing that a different strategy was needed in Afghanistan, I distinctly remember one Joe Biden chiding Palin in their VP debate for supporting the use of “surge principles” in Afghanistan because certain “experts” said it would not work.)

 

Well, get a load of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/world/asia/02afghan.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

 

Like many of his policy measures, Obama is of course refusing to admit that he is doing exactly what he said he would not do – in other words, Obama refuses to refer to the current administration’s Afghan strategy as a “surge,” but the facts of the operations on the ground reveal otherwise.

 

As an aside, I would note that our beloved Marine Corps is once again leading the charge in this current operation. Semper Fi.

We are starting to read "The First Four Years"

Some of their homesteads are still standing! We checked out their website!

A LETTER FROM LAURA... Dear Children,I was born in the "Little House in the Big Woods" of Wisconsin on February 7 in the year 1867. I lived everything that happened in my books. It was a long story, filled with sunshine and shadow, that we have lived since "These Happy Golden Years." After our marriage Almanzo and I lived for a little while in the little gray house on the tree claim. In the year 1894 we and our little daughter Rose left Dakota in a covered wagon and moved to a farm in the Ozarks. We cleared the land and built our own farmhouse. Eventually we had 200 acres of improved land, and a herd of cows, good hogs, and the best laying flock of hens in the country. For many years we did all our own work, but now almost all of the land has been rented or sold. For recreation we used to ride horseback or in our buggy - later on, our Chrysler. We read and played music and attended church socials. In 1949 Almanzo died at the age of 92. We had been married 63 years. Our daughter, Rose Wilder Lane, the novelist, now lives in Connecticut. You may be interested to know what happened to some of the other people you met in my books. Ma and Pa lived for a while on their homestead then moved into town where Pa did carpentry. After Mary graduated from the College for the Blind she lived at home. She was always cheerful and busy with her work, her books and music. Carrie worked for THE DE SMET NEWS for a while after finishing high school, and then she married a mine owner and moved to the Black Hills. Grace married a farmer and lived a few miles outside DeSmet. All of them have been dead for some years now. Several years before Almanzo's death he and I took a trip back to DeSmet for a reunion with our old friends. Many of the old buildings had been replaced. Everywhere we went we recognized faces, but we were always surprised to find them old and gray like ourselves, instead of being young as in our memories. There is one thing that will always remain the same to remind people of little Laura's days on the prairie, and that is Pa's fiddle. Every year at a public concert, someone plays on it the songs Pa used to play. The "Little House" books are stories of long ago. Today our way of living and our schools are much different; so many things have made living and learning easier. But the real things haven't changed. It is still best to be honest and truthful; to make the most of what we have; to be happy with the simple pleasures and to be cheerful and have courage when things go wrong. Great improvements in living have been made because every American has always been free to pursue his happiness, and so long as Americans are free they will continue to make our country ever more wonderful.
With love to you all and best wishes for your happiness, I am Sincerely your friend,
Laura Ingalls Wilder

PS Our children said when they die, they want to meet Laura and Almanzo. Me too! : )

Palin biggest threat to Obama?

I’m not a big Palin fan, but this article does provide an interesting viewpoint…

 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_the_21st_century_i.html

 

 

Letter to my Senators: Please Vote NO on S.909, the federal "Hate Crimes" bill

Perhaps you have heard about this bill. Already passed by the House of Representatives, this bill would make members of the LGBT community a federally protected class. It is an unconstitutional attempt to stifle open opposition to the gay lifestyle, and is ultimately another step in this administration’s goal to enshrine a perverse lifestyle in federal garb, and to force acceptance of such by all citizens.

 

I am a little behind time with my letter, as the Senate is likely to vote on this soon. Here is the letter I sent to my Senators. Perhaps you may want to write to your as well.

 

Dear Senator,

 

I am writing to ask that you please VOTE NO on S.909, the so called "hate crimes" legislation.

 

This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to federalize unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination across the United States, and is another step designed to force acceptance of a perverse lifestyle upon all U.S. Citizens, all under the banner of federal law.

 

Violent crimes are already severely punishable in all 50 states. Legislators or special interest groups who attempt to circumvent the 10th Amendment BAR to such vicious legislation do so without any real proof that such crimes are not already prosecuted to the full extent of the law, or that such extents of the law fail to reach far enough.

 

To claim that sexual "orientation" requires special protection or ought to be a congressionally mandated suspect class is a travesty of justice and logic, and is an affront to the intelligence of the average American.

 

That the House of Representatives has already succumbed to this socially engineered nonsense frankly scares the heck out of me, and I hope and pray that I can count on my U.S. Senators to act with some intelligence and maturity in refusing to pass this nonsensical, unconstitutional drivel that is designed, not for protection, but instead is designed to attack and undermine the moral values upon which this country was built.

 

The moral foundations of this society are eroded enough. Enshrining the consistent dribbling of such acid upon our moral footings in federal law is dangerous and irresponsible. Please VOTE NO on S.909.

 

Sincerely,

 

Clifford A. Arthur

Good books! & Good insight!

As our family reading book we have been reading "the little house on the prarie" series. I have really enjoyed them! and my children have really enjoyed them also! : )

We have been reading "Farmer Boy". Which is the third book in the series. It gives such good insight of how it was back in the 1870's and 1880's. I would like to share one of my favorite quotes... "Haste makes waste, but a lazy man'd rather get his work done fast than do it himself. ... All it saves is time, son. And what good is time, with nothing to do?"

I have been thinking about that quote and our daily tasks, ie: loading and unloading the dishwasher, etc. If I would just wash the dishes I could use them right away versus if i put them in the dishwasher I have to wait for three hours before they are done.

The other thing I have thought about in this book is that the cobbler (shoe maker) would come to your house and stay with you and make you shoes to fit your foot perfectly or the school teacher would live with each of the students families for two weeks and rotate through the whole class. Then the term would be over. It was a different lifestyle. But I like it more than our disconnected society now. I don't even see my neighbors and they are just a hop skip and a jump away.

How to use unwanted fabric : )

I have been wrestling with what to do with immodest clothing that is given to us. Which is normally girls clothes. : (

Sometimes, if there is enough fabric, I am able to alter them and make them into something modest. But if I couldn't alter them. I didn't feel right passing it on to someone else. Nor did I feel right in donating them or destroying them.

But finally I was given insight to make a quilt with them! I will post pictures when I complete it.

A Russian Perspective on World Events

I don’t agree with everything this cat says, but he is thought provoking…

 

http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/

 

 

California Supreme Court Upholds State Constitutional Same Sex Marriage Ban

Sort of…

 

Apparently the amendment was legally sufficient, but the 18,000 same sex “marriages” that occurred between the time California courts struck down the previous statutory same sex marriage ban and the time the State Constitutional Marriage Amendment was passed remain valid. Huh?

 

While many may see this as a sign that the California courts finally got something right, what has really happened here is the planting of the seeds for the eventual popular overturning of prop eight. No way would the California Supreme Court ever have the guts to strike down the State Amendment, even though its substance would purportedly violate the “reasoning” (and I use the term loosely) upon which the earlier statutory ban was struck down (the court at that time relied primarily on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Texas v. Lawrence, which heinously struck down Texas’ sodomy laws). What the California court did have the guts to do was uphold those 18,000 marriages that occurred in the interim.

 

Unless Californians find a way to invalidate those purported “marriages” as well, I give the state no more than 5 years before prop 8 is overturned by popular vote. The reason is simple. Homosexuals in California, although temporarily stupefied by their own hatred and intolerance, are not stupid. They’re simply passionate about wanting to force their lifestyle on the rest of society. Here is what will happen now, they will lie low for a few months, and then they will slowly and quietly begin a subtle marketing campaign that can be explained in one simple statement: “See, our marriage does not affect you.” They will patiently and quietly run this campaign until the polls reflect a societal acceptance great enough to overturn prop 8. Then, and only then, will they seek to exert their influence to force acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle on the rest of California. That is when things will finally get “ugly,” for those who understand the essential nature of and support true marriage, but by then it will be too late because the majority of Californians will have already become blind to the danger.

 

Sounds a bit apocalyptic, I know. Probably sounded a bit that way to the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah as well. 5 years. Unless Californians are vigilant, I give it five years.

Race and Gender and the U.S. Supreme Court Bench

Just a quick thought on Obama’s recent nomination of a Hispanic female to the U.S. Supreme Court. Every article I see and every string of comments I see about this on the web includes some comment about the historic nature of appointing the first Latino and the third ever woman to the U.S. Supreme Court. I even noticed one article titled “Latinos Rejoice in Sotomayor Nomination.” available at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.

 

Excitement over the race and gender of a Supreme Court nominee is all well and good, but how about a balanced dialogue about her qualifications and her approach to the role of a judge in the American Common Law system – particularly about her understanding of the role of the judiciary in interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution?

 

Contrary to President Obama’s misguided rhetoric, those qualifications do not and should not have anything to do with the current nominee’s “compassion” and “feelings” – two words with dangerously variable interpretations and applications that have nothing to do with interpreting and applying the U.S. Constitution, and everything to do with individual perspective and preference. Of course, Judge Sotomayor already understands that. As she explained in a 2001 speech, “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." Bill Mears & Robert Yoon, CNN, Sotomayor: Gender, ethnicity should influence judges, available at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/. Wow. Frankly, I prefer Chief Justice Roberts’ explanation of his role in the judiciary. When visiting the B.Y.U. School of Law about a year and a half ago, a student asked how Justice Roberts’ judicial philosophy affects his role on the bench. The reply? “When a case involves a statute, I begin by reading the statute and discovering what it says.”

 

And how about the strength of her opinions that have been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court? Of the at least eight opinions authored by Judge Sotomayor that have been reviewed by the U.S. Supreme court, 6 have been overturned, one is currently on review (in that case Judge Sotomayor held that a firefighter promotion test was invalid because not enough minorities passed it), and in the one that was upheld, “Sotomayor’s legal reasoning was panned in the opinion signed by the entire court.” Robert Yoon, CNN Research Director, Past Sotomayor rulings faced tough crown on high court, available at http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/.

 

Feelings? Yeah, I’ve got a feeling, and it’s not a good one, but what do I know about the judicial role in upholding the rule of law in these United States? I’m just a white male. I’ve never “lived that life.”