Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Although this blog author could be characterized generally as a fan of Senator Jeff Sessions this is one instance where that favorable impression is tested. Parts of the Sessions’ press release presented below could be judged as an attempt to reassure the public there will be no partisan attack on the SCOTUS nominee Sotomayor as well as encourage Hispanic voters not to vote against POLS who vote against Sotomayor.

At the same time it could be a genuine appeal to remind the public and encourage support of a vigorous vetting of a candidate for such a critical office in our nation’s judicial system.

It is comforting to believe this is a genuine expression of how the process is supposed to work. However, with or without this press release and its sentiment past confirmation hearings demonstrate the difficulty accepting the process as apolitical.

The only amusing thing in this otherwise serious undertaking comes from the fact so many confirmed nominees, including the retiring Justice Souter, have not performed as expected. So how much of this fuss is a waste of time if Sotomayor is ultimately rejected, withdraws or performs not as expected if confirmed?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sessions: Supreme Court Hearings Will Focus On Proper Role of Judge
and Court In American Legal System

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

MOBILE — U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) made the following comments today regarding President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be Associate Justice of the Supreme Court:

“The president’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court today is an important step in a constitutional process that includes the advice and consent of the Senate. I congratulate Ms. Sotomayor on her nomination.

“The Senate Judiciary Committee’s role is to act on behalf of the American people to carefully scrutinize Ms. Sotomayor’s qualifications, experience, and record. We will engage in a fair and thorough examination of Ms. Sotomayor’s previous judicial opinions, speeches, and academic writings to determine if she has demonstrated the characteristics that great judges share: integrity, impartiality, legal expertise, and a deep and unwavering respect for the rule of law.

“Of primary importance, we must determine if Ms. Sotomayor understands that the proper role of a judge is to act as a neutral umpire of the law, calling balls and strikes fairly without regard to one’s own personal preferences or political views.

“President Obama has stated his desire to have a full court seated at the start of its next term, a reasonable goal toward which the Judiciary Committee should responsibly and diligently move. But we must remember that a Supreme Court justice sits for a lifetime appointment, and the Senate hearing is the only opportunity for the American people to engage in the nomination process. Adequate preparation will take time. I will insist that, consistent with recent confirmation processes, every senator be accorded the opportunity to prepare, ask questions, and receive full and complete answers.

“I look forward to the coming months as we move forward with this process. As I told the president this morning, I will do all I can to ensure that Ms. Sotomayor receives a fair hearing before the Committee. I firmly believe that the American people deserve a full and thoughtful debate about the proper role of a judge in the American legal system, an issue that will be central to our review of Ms. Sotomayor’s record.”

Although the report below can be characterized as disappointing is it really a surprise or shock? You don’t really believe most campaign promises do you? And when is the last time a politician told you there would be transparency, open government, oversight, accountability, disclosure or ethics in government that actually came to pass? (the next story while expected is of more consequence)

Obama ducks promise to delay bill signings

It seemed among the easiest of his transparency pledges and is entirely under his control, but President Obama is finagling his promise to post bills on the White House Web site for comment for five days before he signs them.

Given the most recent example of a SCOTUS nominee who did not perform as predicted as in David Souter does it really matter who is chosen? But it is certain that if a white male SCOTUS nominee were to say ‘ I would hope that a wise white American male with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn’t lived that life’ the screams of racist or biggot or xenophobe would be heard clear into the next century. You know what you can do with the race card or diversity appeal which is nothing more than a political tactic used against those worried about being labeled racist or xenophobic. That worry doesn’t live on this blog.

As for Sotomayor being nominated by Obama and once claiming she will more often than not reach a better conclusion than her white male counterpart….. in this case that is Latina-speak for the decisions I make will favor those I favor. How’s that for reverse discrimination?

Barack Obama nominates Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court

Even before news of her nomination emerged, conservatives had highlighted a statement by her that the Court of Appeal was “where policy is made” – an indication she would see her role as being much more than strict interpretation of the constitution, which conservatives insist on.

A racially-charged statement in which she argued that her minority status made her more effective than white male colleagues was also being highlighted by conservatives.

“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,” she said in a lecture at the University of California in 2001.

And as for the leaders of the US Senate who will take up the nomination of Sotomayor…..

Reid Statement On President Obama’s Nomination Of Sonia Sotomayor To Supreme Court

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after President Obama nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the United States Supreme Court seat soon to be vacated by Justice David Souter:

“As Majority Leader, I will do all I can to ensure Judge Sonia Sotomayor receives a fair and respectful hearing and the Senate’s quick confirmation.

“I commend the President for selecting such an accomplished, qualified and experienced nominee to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court. Judge Sotomayor has had wide-ranging experience not only in the legal world, but in the real world as well, which has helped to ensure that her understanding of the law is grounded not only in theory, but also in practice.

“Both Democratic and Republican Presidents have nominated Judge Sotomayor to the federal bench, and the Senate has confirmed her with strong bipartisan support in the past. I look forward to working with both Democrats and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee to confirm Judge Sotomayor as the first Hispanic and the third woman to sit on the Court.

“Justice Souter has been a friend of mine for a long time and powerful defender of our constitutional rights. Americans everywhere again thank him for his decades of service to the nation.”

McConnell Statement on Judge Sonia Sotomayor

WASHINGTON, D.C. - U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following statement Tuesday regarding the President’s announcement of his intent to nominate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court:

“Senate Republicans will treat Judge Sotomayor fairly. But we will thoroughly examine her record to ensure she understands that the role of a jurist in our democracy is to apply the law even-handedly, despite their own feelings or personal or political preferences.

“Our Democratic colleagues have often remarked that the Senate is not a ‘rubber stamp.’ Accordingly, we trust they will ensure there is adequate time to prepare for this nomination, and a full and fair opportunity to question the nominee and debate her qualifications.”

.
.

It is fair to say that Dems will vote for Obama’s pick and Republicans will not. But then it is never quite that predictable is it? So to defeat the Obama pick the GOP will need ‘no’ votes from across the aisle. One might expect that won’t happen. And what value is a filibuster worth?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A glance at the most popular news items on Google today may support the Ronald Reagan quote which notes politics as the second oldest profession having a striking resemblance to the first. Craigslist, taking heat over their ‘erotic services’ listings, will replace them with a section where employees will check individual ads before placement. With few exceptions the remainder of the most popular news entries feature political news.

The third place news item emphasizes the comparison between the two oldest professions. President Obama is claimed to be seeking a delay on the release of photos showing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan. Correct this if it is wrong. Obama announced the release of the photos and after coming under criticism for the action later stated the release was court ordered and now claims to be seeking a delay.

The next news item cites the GOP seeking a 60 day delay for hearings on the next nominee for SCOTUS due to the upcoming retirement of Justice David Souter. Related stories indicate the White House wants no leaks on the vetting process for their nominee. What a charade this is. Here’s some information on the topic prominently displayed on the White House website.

THE JUDICIAL BRANCH

Where the Executive and Legislative branches are elected by the people, members of the Judicial Branch are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Article III of the Constitution, which establishes the Judicial Branch, leaves Congress significant discretion to determine the shape and structure of the federal judiciary. Even the number of Supreme Court Justices is left to Congress — at times there have been as few as six, while the current number (nine, with one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices) has only been in place since 1869. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to establish courts inferior to the Supreme Court, and to that end Congress has established the United States district courts, which try most federal cases, and 13 United States courts of appeals, which review appealed district court cases.

Federal judges can only be removed through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction in the Senate. Judges and justices serve no fixed term — they serve until their death, retirement, or conviction by the Senate. By design, this insulates them from the temporary passions of the public, and allows them to apply the law with only justice in mind, and not electoral or political concerns.

If that is the case then why does the process have as its primary feature in practice the duel between liberal and conservative minded judges being selected by the party in power? Another distinct yet sad comparison of the oldest two professions. Certainly this is not a very subtle one.

The remainder of political news items includes more on interrogation techniques, GOP struggles, Dick Cheney, a spy at the DoD and several others including more exposure of Hillary’s past. A non-stop promotion of the second oldest profession taking all their plays from the oldest. That’s a depressing set of circumstances.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

SCOTUS delivered an opinion on Flores-Figueroa v United States in which they held the government was incorrect as to punishment for certain crimes in this case due to the law requiring the perp to know his false ID belonged to another. No need to discuss the insanity of the law as the time required to cover all those points would be impractical. It is sufficient to know the court acted wisely but again an example of the White House and Congress not doing so is painfully clear.

federal legislators in their less than divine wisdom produced the following as an amendment to 18 USC Section 1028

SEC. 2. AGGRAVATED IDENTITY THEFT.

(a) In General.–Chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1028, the following:

“Sec. 1028A. Aggravated identity theft

“(a) Offenses.–
“(1) In general.–Whoever, during and in relation to any
felony violation enumerated in subsection (c), knowingly
transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful authority, a means
of identification of another person shall, in addition to the
punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 2 years.
“(2) Terrorism offense.–Whoever, during and in relation to
any felony violation enumerated in section 2332b(g)(5)(B),
knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses, without lawful
authority, a means of identification of another person or a
false identification document shall, in addition to the
punishment provided for such felony, be sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 5 years.

When it comes to ‘terrorism offense’ using ID ‘knowingly’ belonging to another person OR a false ID document shall provide the additional punishment but not ‘in general’ for felony offenses.

It appears SCOTUS responded correctly to this case in the opinion delivered. The problem lies with the morons who produced the legislation. Screw ‘em they’re all guilty of political stupidity and here are those involved as sponsors, co-sponsors or ones who voted for or signed the bill into law.

Sponsor: Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31]

Co-sponsors:
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] - 10/15/2003
Rep Baird, Brian [WA-3] - 2/24/2004
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 9/23/2003
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] - 2/24/2004
Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] - 9/16/2003
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 7/25/2003
Rep Frost, Martin [TX-24] - 9/16/2003
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] - 5/4/2004
Rep Goode, Virgil H., Jr. [VA-5] - 7/25/2003
Rep Green, Gene [TX-29] - 2/4/2004
Rep Hensarling, Jeb [TX-5] - 2/24/2004
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 1/27/2004
Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 9/16/2003
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 2/4/2004
Rep Ney, Robert W. [OH-18] - 2/24/2004
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] - 2/4/2004
Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 2/4/2004
Rep Porter, Jon C. [NV-3] - 3/30/2004
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] - 9/25/2003
Rep Royce, Edward R. [CA-40] - 9/16/2003
Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 2/24/2004
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 4/10/2003
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 2/4/2004
Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] - 2/24/2004
Rep Spratt, John M., Jr. [SC-5] - 9/16/2003
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 1/27/2004

The bill was passed either by voice vote or unanimous consent, etc. So the entire Congress and President Bush are guilty as charged on political stupidity.

It is simply beyond any reasonable excuse that those charged with protecting this country can repeatedly error in such critical issues largely based not on ignorance or neglect but ‘knowingly’ allowing political considerations to determine public policy and law.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

At least one analysis of SCOTUS that could be found in a general search drew the conclusion that Justices Kennedy, O’Connor and Souter formed a ‘moderate conservative alliance’ on the court to avoid moving too far in one direction. In Kelo v City of New London at least one example of that not being the case is apparent.

On June 25, 2005, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote the principal dissent, joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Justice O’Connor objected to the fact that an unelected (therefore voter-unaccountable) private nonprofit corporation was the primary beneficiary of the government taking. As a result, the dissenting opinion suggested that the use of this takings power in a reverse Robin Hood fashion— take from the poor, give to the rich— would become the norm, not the exception:

‘Any property may now be taken for the benefit of another private party, but the fallout from this decision will not be random. The beneficiaries are likely to be those citizens with disproportionate influence and power in the political process, including large corporations and development firms.’

That case doubles as a reference that would find some not being disappointed by the announcement that Justice David Souter will be retiring this summer at the end of the court’s current term. Whether Souter is activist or not, conservative or not is of no real consequence. Left or right the nominee choices for his replacement will be selected by someone who has been called the most liberal Senator in the United States when he held a seat for the State of Illinois. And for those who may think it is possible Barack Obama will nominate a conservative because he kept Robert Gates as SecDef don’t be so sure. He may have only kept Gates so if things go wrong he can again blame George Bush or simply Robert Gates for sabotaging his administration.

At times like these the question of whether on or not it is possible to be an impartial judge on any court by any person stands unanswered in many ways. But the idea that every time a vacancy needs to be replaced the analysis limits the conversation. All the talk is about each nominee’s willingness to vote liberal or conservative and the Senate decides based on which party has the most members. How pathetic is that?

Perhaps more pathetic is the lack of sincere interest in filling judicial vacancies with objective minds able to minimize their own personal bias when producing opinions or decisions.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Just the two words ‘Hillary Movie’ in an article title or sentence are enough to grab one’s attention. It is less clear whether the same reaction would arise by adding another pair of words, ‘Supreme Court’. But all four words are included in an Associated Press tidbit at Newsmax that features quotes for the politically inclined in the aftermath of the long and troubling finale to the 2008 Presidential election. But the troubles never really end at the conclusion of an election. It just allows more time to focus on all the other issues that took a back seat to Presidential politics over the last two years.

This is a combo post. Incorporating an extension of the political coverage here in combination with recently expressed intentions to focus on the more important matters of this nation’s founding, its core principles and all that implies. This blog has published extensively on the topic of politics and HRC, the Queen of Cringe, aka, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Heavy attention was placed on her since her announced run for the White House. A blogroll from Blogs Against Hillary has been prominently featured in the sidebar for nearly the entire 2008 campaign. The sentiment on the former First Lady has been openly expressed and not favorable for the entire history of her Presidential run. So it figures there would be some joy at presenting quotes mentioned above from the AP report.

“Hillary is the closest thing we have in America to a European socialist,” Morris said in an ad that is part of the court record. The court record refers to the lower court and Supreme Court records by virtue of the lawsuit over presentation of a documentary that was to be aired as early as last January. In an ad on the Citizens United Web site for the Obama movie, he said, “He is representative of the ultimate left of the Democratic party.” Dick Morris, [is] the former pollster for President Bill Clinton,

The Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a conservative group that wanted to promote and air its anti-Hillary Clinton movie without complying with a landmark campaign finance law. The conservative group, Citizens United, has produced a collection of videos described as documentaries two of which feature Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama. It is reported that movies produced by this group have received or been nominated for some awards. SourceWatch reports they are a 501 organization and may have been a 527 or connected to 527 political action committees. Founded in 1988, the group appears to be focused on topics that are mentioned here as imporant. Our nation’s founding, its principles and the need to promote or foster conservative principles such as family values, fiscal responsibility, free enterprise or markets and other familiar concerns including adhering to the US Constitution. Remarkably that is what the court case and presentation of the group’s videos being barred by the FEC involves.

Links and resources are offered at the end of this post following a comment or two by this blog’s author.

At issue in the lawsuit is Citizens United’s right to air its video or ads at a time which the FEC contends was too close to an election and the whole promotion and airing of videos was deemed a political campaign or ad therefore being barred by law. The plaintiff suggests free speech rights versus the FEC overstepping its authority by denying those rights with its barring of the videos, etc. Ever since McCain/Feingold and the high court ruling supporting free speech rights within the context of political campaign ads and those used by groups not connected directly with political campaigns, this whole matter seems to be a little muddy. And while personally this blog may favor the efforts of Citizens United plus hold a troubled opinion of what exactly campaign finance reform or free speech or poltical ads should have to do wth each other, the bottom line at this point may be the entire argument and premise for getting here may be flawed and misguided while the SCOTUS response to such things seems reasoned under the circumstances.

Put another way, Citizens United may be promoting a good thing in terms of conservative values but using the videos as part of that effort may be a poor choice and the law or its application or interpretation no matter how correct may be making a bad situation worse. It will take more posts on this subject with the required research, review and study to come to some kind of conclusion if one is available.

You might like to start with the link below ‘Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Rights Union In Support of Jurisdictional Statement of Appellant Citizens United’ as it was, here at least, an attention getting title. At first it was viewed as a typo and the reaction OMG, the ACLU is butting in again. No, the ACRU is not the ACLU at all and the reading is quite enlightening although that is not a commentary on the substance of the brief or the argument presented.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Supreme Court to Review Hillary Movie

MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM (USDOJ)

Citizens United v. FEC

Supreme Court Documents (08-205):

• FEC’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm (October 2008) [PDF; 31 pages]
• Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Civil Rights Union In Support of Jurisdictional Statement of Appellant Citizens United (9/17/08) [PDF; 17 pages]

Supreme Court Documents (07-953)

• Supplemental Brief for the Appellee (FEC) (March 2008) [PDF; 10 pages]
• Citizens United’s Supplement to Motion to Expedite and Advance on Docket (2/14/08) [PDF; 3 pages]
• FEC’s Motion to Dismiss or Affirm (2/14/08) [PDF; 29 pages]

District Court Documents (07-2240) :

• Defendant FEC’s Motion for Summary Judgment (6/6/08) [PDF; 71 pages]
• Errata for Memo Opinion denying CU’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (1/16/08) [PDF; 1 page]
• Memorandum Opinion denying Citizens United’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (1/15/08) [PDF; 15 pages]
• Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (01/08/08) [PDF; 29 pages]
• Plaintiff Citizens United’s Second Motion for Preliminary Injunction (12/21/07) [PDF; 22 pages]
• Plaintiff Citizens United’s Amended Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (12/21/07) [PDF; 20 pages]
• Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (12/20/07) [PDF; 50 pages]
• Response to Plaintiff Citizens United’s Motion to Expedite (12/20/07) [PDF; 2 pages]
• Defendant FEC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Consolidation of the Trial on the Merits with the Hearing on the Preliminary Injunction (12/20/07) [PDF; 12 pages]
• Plaintiff Citizens United’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (December 2007) [PDF; 43 pages]
• Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (December 2007) [PDF; 15 pages]

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, , third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Pirate’s Cove, Rosemary’s News and Ideas, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

The crowd may have responded in a positive way and certainly a brief response may avoid gaffs but Senator John McCain does have some way to go to convince conservatives of his intentions. The remainder of this brief report from the AP suggests conservatives dislike McCain’s stand on ‘campaign finance, immigration and other issues.’ It would have been better to leave off ‘other issues’ or list them. It would have been better to say that most accounts state that McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform was flawed but not necessarily that conservatives disagree with the sentiment of campaign finance reform. The US Supreme Court ruled to err on the side of free speech rather than restrict issue ads. And there certainly is a rift between Senator John McCain and conservatives opposed to amnesty for illegal aliens.

But Senator McCain is not the only member of the GOP supporting amnesty. It would be fair to say that President Bush and some other Republicans favor that position. Support of amnesty by members of either major party seems to be more a function of vote getting than one of a social issue or moral question. The conservative approach to it would be following the rule of law.

So, Senator McCain, if you truly intend to oppose the ‘lure of socialistic programs promoted by Senator Barack Obama’ as stated in the woman’s question in the report below, you should start by declaring that as President you would not sign any legislation providing amnesty for illegal aliens. The sad state of affairs on immigration may be that all legislation put forth to correct the problem was done so knowing full well it would die in the Senate. That would give weak-kneed politicians political cover to support measures doomed to fail.

The view from this blog on the Presidential election is not one of optimism. It is merely a struggle to minimize the damage from a change in the White House. While Senator Obama is a sure bet for disaster, voting for Senator McCain is only an option if you can convince him you won’t unless he guarantees doing the right thing on immigration and some ‘other issues’. But the problem is not unlike electing any other candidate. Once they’re in office how do you persuade them to hold up their end? Simply voting against them the next time is not an effective answer.

Play of the Day:McCain’s conservatism in a word

By CHARLES BABINGTON, AP, Tue Aug 12

Speaking to more than 2,000 people in York, Pa., McCain won deafening applause when he answered only “yes” to the woman, who read her statement from notes.

“We conservatives believe that you dismissed our serious quest for responsible, limited government,” she began. “In your quest for the presidency, we want to know if it is in you to become a passionate and forceful leader with a conservative agenda to fight the lure of socialistic programs promoted by Sen. (Barack) Obama.”

crossposted at:
Maggie’s Notebook | Conservative Blog
Faultline USA
Conservative Thoughts

Whenever the word bipartisan is used an alarm should go off to warn the uninformed or remind the politically astute of impending skulduggery from government whether at the federal, state or local level. While politicians tout bipartisanship as a process that should be endorsed by the public, the truth is the only purpose it serves is that of politicians. Contrary to the proposition that bipartisan efforts embody a noble and altruistic function by public officials, it is merely a contrived ploy involving cooperation from both parties for a mutually beneficial outcome. That outcome in no way suggests any benefit for the public at large.

One commentary on the current issue dealing with the Senate confirmation of President Bush’s nominee for AG points to Senator Chuck Schumer’s performance on this issue.

Schumer’s Epiphany
November 5, 2007

Michael Mukasey’s prospects for confirmation as Attorney General seem to be resuscitated, thanks to the endorsements of two Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. We suppose this counts as progress — of a sort.

On Friday the New York Senator ended his indecision, noting that, while Mr. Mukasey was “not my ideal choice,” he was “the best we can hope for” from President Bush. California’s Dianne Feinstein also came out in favor; she reportedly made up her mind earlier in the week but waited to announce her intentions to give some cover to Mr. Schumer. That’s another indication of the leftward pressure on Democrats.

As the commentary above notes the probable motives of both Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Dianne Feinstein, the press release below indicates Schumer’s evolving position on Mukasey from 2003. If he is unsure of his own choice for AG, why was Mukasey on his short list for SCOTUS?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: June 10, 2003

WITH SUPREME COURT VACANCY LOOMING, SCHUMER OFFERS PRESIDENT BIPARTISAN APPROACH; SUGGESTS LIST OF CONSENSUS PICKS FOR HIGH COURT

Schumer’s action intended to inject bipartisanship into confirmation process to ensure that next SCOTUS nominee gets backing of all 100 Senators, not just 51

Schumer’s list for the Court include several Reagan judicial
appointments and a prominent Republican Senator

Schumer submitted the following names:
• Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennsylvania.
• Judge Ann Williams, Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Reagan to the Northern District of Illinois.
• Judge Edward Prado, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Bush.
• Judge Michael Mukasey, Southern District of New York, nominated by President Reagan.
• Judge Stanley Marcus, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, nominated by President Reagan.

The only real surprise on Schumer’s short list above is no candidate from the Ninth Circus but since this was obviously an attempt to gain favor with the public and his political rivals there is no need for it to make sense. These are common characteristics of bipartisanship. In the abstract, a notion such as bipartisanship is a good thing. But like so much in the real world there is little chance those good things will ever be realized by this process.

And one last point about this particular claim of bipartisanship. The torture issue in this confirmation process is merely the primary characteristic of political camouflage.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Bullwinkle Blog, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, Right Voices, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Schwab Announces Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to Serve on Prestigious NAFTA Roster of Judges

06/04/2007

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Trade Representative Susan C. Schwab today announced that retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has agreed to serve on an elite roster of current and former U.S. judges that helps resolve trade remedy disputes between Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

“I am delighted that one of America’s most distinguished jurists will lend her formidable legal mind to the NAFTA dispute settlement process,” said Ambassador Schwab. “Her willingness to serve on the Extraordinary Challenge Committee roster underscores NAFTA’s importance. I know Justice O’Connor will make a valuable contribution to the free and fair flow of commerce in North America.”

The North American Free Trade Agreement Extraordinary Challenge Committee (ECC) roster consists of distinguished current and former federal judges from the three NAFTA countries, and helps resolve significant trade disputes between the United States and its NAFTA partners.

Background

The NAFTA entered into force on January 1, 1994 and is one of the United States’ most significant regional trade agreements. Canada and Mexico are the first and second largest export markets for U.S. goods. From 1993 to 2006, trade among the NAFTA nations climbed 198 percent, from $293 billion to $875 billion. Each day the NAFTA countries conduct nearly $2.2 billion in trilateral trade. Since 1993, U.S. merchandise exports to Canada and Mexico grew more rapidly – at 158 percent – than our exports to the rest of the world combined (108 percent). U.S. employment, manufacturing output, and compensation have all risen more in the period since NAFTA entered into force than in the decade preceding entry into force.

Chapter 19 of the NAFTA provides for binational panels of five private sector experts to review a NAFTA government’s final antidumping and countervailing duty determinations for consistency with that government’s trade remedy laws. Once convened, binational panels replace domestic judicial review of these determinations. The two NAFTA governments with a trade interest in the matter select the panelists to serve in each case, typically from among trade remedy and customs experts.

Once a panel completes its work, either of the two governments may request the establishment of an Extraordinary Challenge Committee. An ECC, comprising three judges or former judges from the two involved countries, considers whether the panel took certain impermissible actions (such as failing to apply the appropriate standard of review) and, if so, whether those actions materially affected the panel’s decision and threaten the integrity of the bi-national panel review process. If an ECC finds that the panel has taken actions of this kind, the panel decision is either vacated or remanded. If an ECC does not make such a finding, the panel decision is affirmed. Since the NAFTA entered into force in 1994, three ECCs have been composed.

Under the NAFTA, Canada, Mexico, and the United States each must maintain a roster of five judges eligible to serve on ECCs. At present, the U.S. ECC roster consists of four retired federal judges: Arlin Adams, Susan Getzendanner, George Pratt, and Charles Renfrew.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Gonzales v Carhart, a press release by the ACLU and actions by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and others have presented a reason for this writer to reconsider a position of favoring what may be called a pro-choice stance on abortion.

More accurately, my personal view toward pro-choice was primarily governed by a reluctance to support the complete elimination of any choice a person can reasonably select especially when the public is largely divided on the topic. Allowing a woman to abort a pregnancy that resulted from rape, incest or one which threatened her own life did not seem to me to be unreasonable. And in general, choosing to abort shortly after conception, while not a choice to be advocated, may prove reasonable under some circumstance.

I never believed it was proper to perform an abortion on a whim or as a convenience or as contraception for dummies. And under no circumstance do I believe a partial birth, late term, 2nd or 3rd trimester abortion or whatever you choose to call it, is an acceptable abortion choice.

The Supreme Court decision to uphold a ban on what may be characterized as late term abortions, as defined in the majority opinion of Gonzales v Carhart (click here to download pdf file), the reaction to the opinion by what appears to be most pro-choice advocates and a redundant legislative proposal supported by Senator Barbara Boxer and others has caused me to reexamine my position on this topic.

If the details of ‘ending fetal life’ as discussed in Gonzales v Carhart are not sufficient to convince every person as to the barbaric nature and unnecessary selection of this particular ‘medical’ procedure and that no one should be allowed to make this selection, the ability of our species to advance beyond our current condition is severely limited.

While many arguments could be presented to compare and contrast my conclusion in the preceding paragraph, how anyone can defend the use of the procedure described above is beyond my ability to understand. Therefore, I honestly submit that the ACLU, Senator Barbara Boxer and others are entirely and completely misguided in opposing the Supreme Court ruling in Gonzales v Carhart. And even if it were put to a public vote as to whether or not Roe v Wade should be upheld or discarded solely based on late term abortions I would have to agree with it being discarded. And that comes from a largely pro-choice advocate.

Of the many other viewpoints and arguments available, I would like to add that there are many other issues within this topic that need to be addressed. A brief example would be that if men are to held liable for the care and well-being of any child for which they are the biological father, then allowing the woman to have complete control and rights over whether to complete or terminate a pregnancy is largely flawed. If two people are responsible for a pregnancy, then both should share the responsibilities and rights for the consequences of their actions. This of course addresses what might be described as a ‘normal’ pregnancy and not one caused by rape, incest or other situation that complicates the point. I know I just added to all the potential criticism with this last set of statements, but I trust that most readers will understand what has been expressed.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The press release from the ACLU is presented below as well as references to proposed legislation intended to circumvent the Supreme Court decision.

ACLU Applauds Introduction of the Freedom of Choice Act (4/19/2007)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON - The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its strong support for the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) introduced by Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA) and Representative Jerrold Nadler (D - NY). This legislation would preserve women’s health and reproductive rights by protecting their right to privacy and ability to make their own reproductive choices.

This new legislation is especially important in light of yesterday’s Supreme Court decision upholding a federal ban on certain abortion procedures over the strong objections of the medical community, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, an organization representing 90 percent of the country’s OB-GYNs.

“This latest attack on women’s reproductive health shows once again the pressing need for legislation keeping personal medical decisions in the hands of doctors and their patients,” said Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, we still believe that doctors, not politicians, are most qualified to determine the safest course of treatment for their patients. The Freedom of Choice Act will protect women’s relationships with their doctors from political intrusion.”

The Freedom of Choice Act would restore critical protections for women’s health, a core principle of Roe v. Wade that was undercut by yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling. It would protect the right of women, in conjunction with their doctors, to make personal medical decisions and prohibit the government interfering in those decisions.

Said Fredrickson, “At a time when the core protections of Roe v. Wade are under attack, FOCA is essential to guarantee reproductive freedom in federal law for future generations of American women. The ACLU strongly supports this important legislation and urges Congress to lend the bill its support.”

2. [110th] H.R.1964 : To protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (71)
Committees: House Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

3. [110th] S.1173 : A bill to protect, consistent with Roe v. Wade, a woman’s freedom to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 4/19/2007) Cosponsors (15)
Committees: Senate Judiciary
Latest Major Action: 4/19/2007 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

H.R.3719
Title: To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] (introduced 1/21/2004) Cosponsors (87)
Related Bills: S.2020
Latest Major Action: 3/1/2004 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

S.2020
Title: A bill to prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman’s right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Boxer, Barbara [CA] (introduced 1/22/2004) Cosponsors (17)
Related Bills: H.R.3719
Latest Major Action: 1/22/2004 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.ALL ACTIONS:

1/22/2004:
Introductory remarks on measure. (CR S186-187)
1/22/2004:
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, Big Dog’s Weblog, The Pet Haven Blog, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Rightlinx, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, stikNstein… has no mercy, , Pirate’s Cove, The Right Nation, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Conservative Cat, Conservative Thoughts, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Allie Is Wired, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, and High Desert Wanderer, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

update on SCOTUS via HotAir

One post at Stop the ACLU favors SCOTUS decision

One post at Stop the ACLU opposes SCOTUS decision 

There are no legal experts at MoreWhat.com. Readers should know this so as not to misunderstand this post. While browsing news sources this morning, it was impossible to avoid one selection. How can your curiosity prevent clicking on a headline that includes the Supreme Court and the phrase ‘ bong hits 4 Jesus’?

The short version is a high school student in 2002 held up a banner during an Olympic torch ceremony that carried the words ‘bong hits 4 Jesus’. It was reported the kid was testing free speech. Since Morse v. Frederick made it to the Supreme Court and oral arguments were heard on March 19th, it is safe to say he was successful.

You may care to read the transcript of oral arguments for it is a worthwhile use of time. They can be downloaded here. This is where this post again declares there is no attempt here to interpret the legal debate on the case before the court in any manner other than that of ordinary citizen. It appears the main thrust of the argument is how much authority a school’s officials may exercise over students when it comes to freedom of speech. It seems the discussion is limited to educational institutions that are not of the higher education variety, as in post-secondary education. And the oral arguments and responses by Supreme Court Justices appear to center on how broadly or narrowly to interpret previous cases presented by both sides.

Now for an ordinary citizen take from MoreWhat.com. To an ordinary citizen, the oral arguments presented can be viewed as lawyers making their best argument as an appeal to biased jurors. Although entertaining, at times compelling and always underwhelming, it is as if this is purely theater for the the masses. But wait….the masses do not care about issues while being presented in the Supreme Court. Hell, you’re lucky if you can get them to the ballot box on election day.

During long past and recent history, filling vacancies on the bench has all the trappings of a political right of passage to stack the deck rather than a search for objectivity as illusive as it is. But it is the best system on the planet. Is that true or is it a handy excuse for failure to properly address all matters judicial in favor of political expediency? You be the judge, not that it will matter.

So what about Morse v. Frederick and free speech in schools? How about this? Had the school exercised some restraint in managing an otherwise minor infraction, there would be no Morse v. Frederick. At least not until the next time. For a group, children that is, are devoid of any serious rights other than the rights of their parents and what they are told to do. Maybe the real question here is again parenting. If a child is suspended from school, no matter the reason, it may be a good time for parents to perform self-evaluation. How well am I parenting my child? Is what he or she or they did a reflection of my parenting skills and should we find a remedy for this at home?

Using the Supreme Court’s limited access to argue a case for free speech is laudable. Arguing that case based on a student being suspended from school is not. If it is against the law to yell ‘fire’ in a theater and our freedom of speech as adults is regularly diminished based on venue or other circumstances, Morse v. Frederick is just too insignificant for a free speech debate. Especially since it is now being heard and the consequences may be far reaching.

But that is just an ordinary citizens view. We should stop reacting to every single event and take a breath. To comment is one thing, to file suit is another. Save the big battles for big issues. Again, free speech is big, school suspensions pale in comparison. Perhaps more thinking, more parenting, intelligent choices and better decisions would alleviate distractions from the real issues.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Dumb Ox Daily News, The World According to Carl, Pursuing Holiness, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Random Yak, Adam’s Blog, basil’s blog, Rightlinx, third world county, Faultline USA, Right Celebrity, Allie Is Wired, stikNstein… has no mercy, stikNstein… has no mercy, Pirate’s Cove, Planck’s Constant, The Pink Flamingo, Right Voices, and Gone Hollywood, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Members of Congress are paid about $165,000 per year last time we looked. If judges leave for higher pay in the private sector, maybe they shouldn’t have been judges in the first place. Your pay is nearly five times the average per capita income in the US. If you earned MoreWhat the rest of us do, you might appreciate your current compensation.
MoreWhat.com staff

Justice Kennedy Pleads For More Pay

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told senators that Congress has neglected judicial pay, harming morale among judges. Associate justices of the Supreme Court earn $203,000; the chief justice gets $212,100.