Fail.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life…”
So are the words of Obama’s first (and hopefully LAST) pick for the Supreme court Sonia Sotomayor. Arrogance picks arrogance. Is anyone surprised? How is it that Liberal judges think that accurate jurisprudence is dependent upon someone’s ethnicity, personal experience and feelings on a subject? Could it be that they don’t actually give a rat’s kazoo about the constitution and it’s directive to the court to decide the constitutionality of law and the judgment of cases based on current US law and precedent?
I’ll be anxious to find out how our mainstream media views such an ethnically charged and ignorant statement. By default, it implies that we “poor, stupid, ignorant and inexperienced white folk” don’t have the same “richness of experience” as your standard, “wise (and apparently culturally superior) latina”.
Well, Judge Sotomayor, have you ever lived outside of New York? Ever lived in a foreign country for years at a time, or walked the shell-cratered beaches of Normandy? Have you ever seen the magnificent castles of Europe or studied the walled fortresses of Roman-era Britain first hand? Looked down from the windows of the Marksburg to the banks of the Rhine? Have you ever tasted haggis or listened to the lonely wail of a piper playing Amazing Grace from the towers of Edinburgh castle on a cold spring night? Ever experienced a ferry ride across the pitching north Atlantic to see Vestman Islands? Ever taken stock of the American graves in Europe personally? Ever seen the works of Monet, Manet, Van Gogh and been close enough to touch them? Seen the place where King Henry VIII executed his wives? Seen the bunker where Churchill directed the British War effort during WWII? Visted the Ossuary at Verdun and seen the bones of unidentified WWI soldiers stacked by the room-full? Visited Stonehenge? Seen the Book of Kells? Traveled across the green hills of Ireland? Have you walked the streets of Paris? Dublin? Cologne? Reykjavik? Munich? Bonn? London? Inverness? St. Andrews? Strasbourg? Calais? Seen the ruins of the Abbey at Wrexham? Ever seen the Alps at sunrise out the back of a tent? Ever whitewater rafted down a glacier-fed river in Austria? Ever bothered to visit the battlefields that checker the eastern half of the US that bore witness to our own domestic conflict? Seen the ruins of a Native American palisade wall or a mound complex that contains not only the bones of those who built them but also those of US soldiers? Been aboard a US aircraft carrier?
That’s all just stuff that us poor, stupid honky white folk do. I suppose I still lack the “cultural richness” of your standard “wise latina”.
FAIL.
A new job listing…
Wanted: Candidates to fill an important judicial position in Washington D.C. starting this fall.
Length of appointment: Candidate selected will be appointed to this position for life (or until such time as they see fit to retire)
Requirements:
Candidates must be able to distinguish between the law as written and their own personal feelings
Candidates must understand that foreign law is inadmissible in Supreme Court deliberations
Candidates must demonstrate an understanding of the phrase “Legislating from the bench” and be able to effectively show how doing so is contrary to the very fabric of a Representative Democracy.
Candidates must have read the entire U.S. Constitution at least once (and be intimately familiar with Article III of the same).
Candidate must be able to demonstrate a record of healthy respect for the limits and dicatates of the U.S. Constitution and ALL of it’s ammendments in previous positions of employment.
Well qualified candidates will be able to summarize either (orally or in writing) the duties and responsibilities of the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to the other two branches of government. Must have a spine and an excellent grasp of history, including U.S. founding documents and their contemporaries in literature that describe the thoughts of the founders on the limits of government, especially where the judicial branch is concerned.
Candidates will be expected to appear before congress prior to their appointment, where they may be subjected to endless grandstanding and will undoubtedly be used by politicians of both parties to further their own political agendas (to include scoring cheap brownie points at your expense). Candidates may be defamed, smeared or humiliated as part of this appearance.
Other duties include: Avoiding the US Press at all costs, living in relative seclusion, and sitting through each State of the Union Speech without showing any emotion whatsoever.
Long Black Robes will be provided as part of the candidate’s compensation package.
Originalist, Libertarian and/or Conservative Jurisprudence is a definate plus.
If you fit the above requirements, please forward your resume to the White House, care of Rahm Emmanuel.
However, if you fit the above description, don’t hold your breath…
You’re from where? Well then, we don’t care what you think.
So today I find myself reading an article about our only (present) female Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The article appeared in the New York Times and discussed Justice Ginsburg’s propensity for considering foreign law when rendering decisions in cases that come before her. She was discussing these views at Ohio State University as part of a symposium honoring her time as a Justice. (see article here)
Her defense of this practice was stated thusly:
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a law school professor?”
Well, here’s a reason: Neither of those documents holds any legal value in the Supreme Court of the United States. How about that? An article in a law review could be about anything, written by anyone, and hold firm to any set of standards, depending on the subject and the jurisdiction… so that narrows it down to… well, everything. Just because some law school professor writes it doesn’t mean that it should be given consideration by a Supreme Court Justice as part of their particular jurisprudence. Besides, if law professors are like other types of professors, then there are plenty of stupid, arrogant, self-involved, liberally twisted, loudmouth Law Professors to go around. Hardly a winning combination.
Reason number two? Article III, Section 2 of our Constitution states in part:
“The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;”
Um, that pretty much explains where the limits lie. The Court is allowed to preside over cases that arise under OUR laws and Constitution. I don’t see anything in those sentences (or the surrounding text) that would give any credence to the ability of a foreign judge of any level to have a say or even the chance of influencing the outcome of a case under US law. Foreign judges consider cases under THEIR laws and are not beholden to the rights that we as US citizens are granted. So, to use their opinions as part of any consideration or citation in a US case before the Supreme Court is at best foolish. Justice Roberts stated it best when he said:
“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country.”
Amen to that. Foreign law has NO PLACE in the courts of the United States on ANY level, much less the highest level.
Justice Ginsburg says that citing the foreign case and considering oneself bound by it are two different issues. I beg to differ. Why the hell would you bring it up in the first place if you did not feel somehow bound (or at least deferential) to that decision and it’s underlying argument? So what if you like what it says. I like creamed spinach, but I don’t bring it up in discussions on tax policy because I think it should be considered as part of the argument.
During the same appearance, she used the Canadian Supreme Court as an example of a Court that is cited abroad, both widely and frequently. Presumably, that is meant to be a good thing. So people like to quote the Canadians, eh …and your point is?
I don’t live in Canada, or in any of those countries that might feel beholden to the moral values and legal structures of our frozen neighbors to the north. I live in the US, under US law and the US Constitution. (Well, at least for a little while longer.) Her subtending argument for the example of Canada being cited abroad more that the US Supreme Court topped off the touchy-feely, liberally twisted logic. Check out this winner of a quote:
“You will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”
HEY, RUTH! You weren’t appointed to the bench to be cited abroad!! We don’t give one sweet rat’s rear what they think of our court system in Bangladesh or Belize. If they want to quote Canada, let ‘em. If they want to climb trees in orange pants while their doing it, good for them. Your job is to apply the US Constitution and the laws derived from it to the cases that are brought to you under the above stated confines of the same document. At the same time, it is not the purpose of the US Supreme Court to attempt to mold the decisions of foreign courts. They have their laws and their own founding beliefs. If they want to cite foreign law, that is their perogative.
This whole issue goes back to the basic liberal tenent that if you’re not getting along with everyone, YOU must be doing something wrong. Anyone who was ever picked on in grade school by a bully knows how sound that logic is… Some people are just jerks and they like it that way. At some point, you have to realize that being the most “popular” person, country or government stopped being important in High School.
Look, if you want to be a US Supreme Court Justice, do it using OUR laws and precedent set in OUR courts. If you want to make a living being quoted around the world, quit your job and go work with Al Gore. He’s a twisted liberal loony toon and people around the world quote him like a god.
Justice Ginsburg out?
I think we can all agree that Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg was going to resign during Barack’s term, lest she be replaced by yet another conservative justice on the court, but today’s news that she has been diagnosed with and treated for pancreatic cancer may certainly hurry along that process. Pancreatic cancer is a very deadly form of the disease, and almost always fatal within 5 years. I think I can speak for all of us here at H&B when I say that we sincerely wish her all the best for a full and speedy recovery.
Ginsberg has been one of the court’s most vocal and liberal judges, writing and reading the dissent against the court’s decision on the legality of partial birth abortion. I can’t understand why ANYONE, even supporters of free, on-demand abortion for convenience sake would support such a grisly and horrible procedure, but she put her liberal views before common respect for life and said that it was a conservative effort to ‘chip away at a woman’s right to choose’. (Instead of a liberal’s effort to chip away at a baby’s skull and suck their brains out…) I actually heard a detailed description of the process today on an audio book I had borrowed and it almost made me wretch on my keyboard as I worked.
I don’t expect that she will be replaced with anyone other than a screaming left wing female justice (the lefties wouldn’t allow anything else) and Barack will certainly oblige them. You see, THIS is really where elections count. If McCain is Prez, the court is totally changed for a good twenty years. Now it will remain much the same as it has. Again, I’m certainly NOT glad that she has cancer, that would make me an absolute jerk. Do I want her ideology off the court? You betcha. Best wishes, Justice G, but you’re still wrong.