What about Sonia Sotomayor?

[pamsback]

 OK I'm back, the IRA whupped the Taliban by the way.

  Billy I didn't think you were tryin to make a joke Askin what laws are unfair......you all talk about laws you think are unfair all the time!

  Personally........let me think....my pet one is the seatbelt law, I cannot STAND to be constrained in any way shape or form and wearin a seatbelt drives me insane. I either have to pay a fine if I get caught or wear one and I think that's a personal thing.
  The drinkin age of 21, if a person is old enough to fight and die they are old enough to have a drink.
Most anti-gun laws are ridiculous.....give me time to think about it and I'll think of many more.
  Income Tax.........

allowing women and minorities to vote and hold office,

Never should have been UNallowed in the first place and saying it's "allowed" still makes it something we/they are not enTITLED to do as human beings except for the benevolence of men white or otherwise.
 
I'm really not one for accepting authority.....I quietly go my own way and get along but if I'm pushed I push back, it's just the way I am. I"m not really broke to lead

[Varmit]

IRA whupped'em... SWEEET!

You're right, I do talk about unfair laws, guess I just misread your post, like I was trying to goad you or something.

Seatbelt laws, drinking age, gun laws...yeah they pretty much suck.

As for the rest of your post, I'll leave that one alone.

[Teresa]

As for the rest of your post, I'll leave that one alone.

Good Call ~~
You're right...You better leave he rest of the post lay Billy.. I'll have to jump in there on the "girls side"" and you will be outranked.. LOL

[pamsback]

 

[Diane Amberg]

Billy, it shouldn't have anything to do with law. But as long as people will yell racial discrimination or sex discrimination, some cases will go to higher courts to decide whether it was or wasn't. As long as there are still  hate crimes or cases that have that appearance, some one will have to decide. If a female says rape and a male says it was consensual, someone has to decide. The whole business about date rape is one example. There used to be such a thing as" jail bait."  An adult male who had sex with a minor was guilty of statutory rape, period. You don't hear that much any more. Can anyone really prove she was going 55 when the cops says 85? Did the police officer suggest that a few sexual favors would make it all go away. That's why they are called JUDGEment calls. Some things do call for an interpretation. Who says what torture really is? The Gevena Convention was suppose to, but now? There may yet be criminal charges, even if they just go through the motions. If no interpretation, then what is justifiable homicide? I still think if there is a lot of diversity on the bench the group or person who lost will be less likely to yell discrimination.  The media sometimes adds to it by making big things out of little things.

[flintauqua]

A viewpoint from the center-right, as published on Forbes.com

The Sotomayor Sideshow
By Reihan Salam, New America Foundation
Forbes.com | June 1, 2009

The supposed "battle" over the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor is in truth a political sideshow, one that is briefly distracting the public from real debates over the future of our badly broken health care system. While I'm quite sure that Newt Gingrich and Tom Tancredo and Rush Limbaugh sincerely believe that Sotomayor is a dangerous racist, most Americans, including most Republicans, would find the idea more than a little eccentric.

Despite the fact that Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, a Republican who actually sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and thus has some real-world influence, has asked that Sotomayor be given a fair hearing, the loudest and most provocative voices attract the most attention.

Rather depressingly, conservatives who've made inflammatory remarks about Sotomayor, a garden-variety liberal very unlikely to become an electrifying ideologue in the vein of William Brennan, have garnered far more attention than the four Congressional Republicans behind the impressive Patients' Choice Act.

The incentives are clear. Instead of rolling up your shirtsleeves and crafting an effective alternative to Obamacare, Republicans are best served by calling the National Council of La Raza--a small group of professional activists backed by some of the country's largest corporations and foundations--the "Latino KKK." It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Actually, I'll bet David Axelrod is laughing.

One of the most powerful concepts in development economics is the distinction between centralized corruption and decentralized corruption. Under a regime of centralized corruption, a big boss--say a dictator like Indonesia's Haji Muhammad Suharto, who ruled his country for over 30 years--decides that his minions are allowed to skim off, say, 10% of society's riches. Anyone who takes more than that will be punished by the big boss.

Under decentralized corruption, no one sets limits. Every corrupt official is out for herself, and as a result she'll take whatever she thinks she can get. The end result is that the society stops producing riches: The golden goose is left mangled and bloodied on the ground, and the corrupt officials are left with nothing. Centralized corruption is bad. But decentralized corruption is much, much worse.

A similar dynamic exists in party politics. A strong leader can, like Suharto, crush rebellions from below. At the height of his popularity, George W. Bush made a strong effort to make the Republican Party more inclusive. And so those who opposed his agenda of reaching out to Latinos through immigration reform were marginalized. But as Bush's popularity declined, he lost the ability to discipline Republican rebels. Republicans lost their lockstep discipline, sensing, rightly, that they were being led astray.

Since about 2005, when it first became clear that the GOP ship was in danger of sinking, Republicans have been thinking more about their own political survival and less about the good of the party. This explains the crusade against so-called RINOs or "Republicans in name only." A more disciplined party will protect crass opportunists like Arlen Specter, seeing them as a necessary evil or, more generously, as a pragmatic accommodation with centrist public opinion.

The Democrats were in a similar state until 2005, with moderates attacking liberals and hawks attacking doves, in the hope of gaining favorable media attention and campaign cash. This is an admittedly cynical view, and I imagine the individuals involved have a more generous interpretation of their own motivations. But this approach has great explanatory value. When it seemed that Democrats were on their way back to power, the party almost instantly became more disciplined. It started when President Bush began his push for Social Security reform in 2005. The Bush White House had assumed that some moderate Democrats would join them in supporting a proposal that included private accounts.

Yet public opinion was strongly opposed, and Democratic factions started to converge. In short order, arguments over gun rights and abortion died down. Victory was in sight, and that was all that mattered. Now, with Barack Obama at the helm, this tight central coordination is happening from a very politically savvy White House. The Democrats are by nature a more diverse, disputatious lot thanks to the regional, economic and cultural diversity of their coalition. Even so, they've managed to get habitual freelancers like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to knuckle under more often than not.

Can Republicans regain the discipline they need to win back power? Unfortunately, that's a very hard trick to pull off without a leader.

[redcliffsw]

Dr. Thomas Sowell

http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=100599

[Varmit]

Very good post Red.  That guy hit it dead center.

[redcliffsw]

Judge Roy Moore

Judging by law or feelings?


In July 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama set forth his criterion for selecting Supreme Court justices:

    We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.

Unfortunately, this is one campaign promise Obama kept when he selected U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor to fill the vacancy soon to be left by retiring Justice David Souter. Her objectivity immediately became a key question for the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating her for confirmation. Sen. Jeff Sessions noted that the central question should be whether she allows her personal views to taint her judicial decisions.

A common symbol of justice that adorns many courtrooms and law offices in America is that of a robed woman holding the scales of justice and wearing a blindfold. Justice is supposed to "blind" – but what exactly does that mean?

Judge Roy Moore's classic book about his battle for liberty is now available in paperback: "So Help Me God: The Ten Commandments, Judicial Tyranny, and the Battle for Religious Freedom"

We certainly want the eyes and ears of the judge and jury to be open to all relevant and competent evidence without which it would be impossible to discover the truth. But historically the judge was impartial and, in a sense, "blind" as to the person coming before him: rich and poor, young and old, men and women of all races were entitled to equal justice under the law.

  Read rest of story:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100628

[redcliffsw]

Miss Affirmative Action, 2009
-Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=100835