Friday Funnies – “inspirational” life story no basis for confirming Sotomayor (or anyone) to lifetime Supreme Court appointment

by CTBC Director | 10:33 pm, July 17, 2009 | Comments Off

Following “three days of grueling questioning” (including such hard-hitting gems as “what was the publisher of  the encyclopedias your working-class mother bought you because she so strongly believed in the value of education” and “Perry Mason won all but one of his cases - what was the one case that he lost?“), Sonia Sotomayor is set to be confirmed as the next U.S. Supreme Court justice - the most rapid (rushed?) confirmation of any Supreme Court justice in U.S. history (beating out current justice and Clinton nominee Ruth Bader Ginsburg by a few days, depending on when the vote is actually held). It was apparent even before the hearings began that the fix was in (Feinstein: Sotomayor a sure thing). Given the overwhelming numerical advantage of Democrats in the Senate, and hard behind-the-scenes arm-twisting to ensure party discipline, there was little that either “blue-dog” Democrats or Republicans could do to block confirmation.  However, our Senators missed a golden opportunity to stand on principle and make the case for the rule of law, and the importance of confirming (or retaining) justices on that basis. Instead, the discussion revolved around racial politics (”underlying politics are dicey for Republicans“), personality ("She is an amazing, warm and intelligent woman“) and her “inspirational life story:”   Now, I’m as much a fan of “inspirational life stories” as the next guy; and when I have a daughter, I hope she’s just like Gracie (the cute, wide-eyed, precocious kid in the ”Baldo” comic strip, above) - especially since if I have a son, he’s MUCH more likely to resemble Calvin (of Calvin and Hobbes) at that age.  But an inspirational life story is NO BASIS for confirming or retaining a Supreme Court justice!  A judge’s appearance, gender, ethnicity, “inspirational life story,” etc. are irrelevant.  Our system of justice requires a judiciary committed to upholding the rule of law and equal administration of justice.  Although “we the people” don’t (directly) have a vote at the Federal level, we CAN vote to uphold the rule of law here in Colorado.  Vote “NO” on the unjust justices of the Mullarkey Court in 2010 - let’s Clear The Bench, Colorado!

Comments

Praise for PPC From Our Lefty "Fan"

• "Zany-ass bombast-entertainment...Hackneyed weirdo communist pseudo-nostalgia" --Alan Franklin, ProgressNow

Featured Posts

• Rising Oil Production in Alberta: More Evidence Disproving Hubbert’s Peak

  In today’s environment it’s hard to find good news. But this is good news: the free market is working, and putting statists’ predictions, like Hubbert’s, to shame. Oh, the joy!

• Regulatory Agencies Continue to Slow the Economy
• Printing Money Doesn’t Work in Britain Either
• Oklahoma’s Constitutional Amendment Would Pit Taxpayers Against Unions
• Friday’s Unemployment Numbers: Correcting the Corrections
• Romney Woos Grand Junction, Earns Sen. King’s Endorsement
• The Borking of Netflix: movie service finds privacy law to be an inconvenience