Rev. Wright - "Jews" control President Obama

Like the stray dog that never seems to get the hint, Rev. Jeremiah Wright is back in the headlines with his claim that “Jews” are preventing him from talking with President Obama. Rev. Wright spoke with David Squires of the Daily Press and retorted when asked if he has contacted President Obama that, “Them Jews ain’t going to let him to me. I told my baby daughter that he’ll talk to me in five years when he’s a lame duck, or in eight years when he’s out of office.”

Now while the election process was playing out last year, I contended that President Obama was a Manchurian Candidate. Rev. Wright went on to say, “once you start compromising your beliefs, you become a puppet of a political machine you are no longer yourself.” Rev. Wright asserted Jews control President Obama in light of Barak’s decision to no send a delegation to a recent world racism conference in Geneva, Switzerland. “Ethnic cleansing is going on in Gaza. Ethnic cleansing of the Zionist is a sin and a crime against humanity, and they don’t want Barack talking like that because that’s anti-Israel.” Now, who am I to argue with a man of God when he attempts to affirm my assertion of Manchurian Candidate Barack Obama?

Rev. Wright may be on the right track but then why did they allow President Obama, during his message in Cairo, demand Israel stop the natural expansion of settlements? Newport News reported a retort by Rabbi Scott Gurdin to Rev. Wright’s accusations. Rabbi Scott Gurdin said, “I want to be cautious about what I say, because I don’t want to sound like Rev. Wright. But my goodness, if a prominent Jewish person said something at a rabbinical conference that was disparaging against blacks, he (Wright) would be all over it.” There is a lot of truth to what Rabbi Gurdin states.

It is rather comical how racism and anti-anything words can be spun by certain minority groups and cannot be done by others. Perhaps Rabbi Gurdin now understands how white Americans feel and understand why many see a double standard exists. A prime example is Sotomayor’s comments about how a Latino women making a better decision than a white male. Mainstream media will not condemn either statement.

You can hear Rev. Wright comments at the link below.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_wright_0610jun10,0,7603283.story

Sotomayor's 2001 Speech:Racist, Sexist, or not?

After days of looking I finally found the 2001 Berkely speech that has gotten the Right all up in arms.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6444523/Sonia-Sotomayors-2001-speech-at-UC-Berkeley

The paragraph that has lead to so much controversy is:

"Whether born form experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origin may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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."

Now, as has been argued by Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, had a white male nominee said, "I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a [insert race] female who hasn't lived that life" the demand for him to step down would be story one in all media outlets. I have read all 8 pages of her speech and there are other aspects that concern me from the notion of establishing Law from the judge seat.

To stay informed, I suggest that all read the speech so you can see the racial statement in its context and review her views of the purpose of the Judge. A take away from her speech that I have is that Justice is not blind in her court as it is to be.

Sonia Sotomayor: The Sacrificial Lamb

President Obama announced his nominee for United States Supreme Court by introducing Sonia Sotomayor. Sonia Sotomayor is an U.S. Court of Appeals judge in the Second Circuit. In response to her nomination, the pundits grasped onto her being the first Hispanic to be nominated to the highest court in the land. Who cares!! Skin color, ethnic background, and sex are not criteria to be used when nominating a Supreme Court Justice.

Currently Justice Ginsburg is the only female while Justice Thomas is the only non-white Justice on the bench. Many have looked for President Obama to appoint a more diverse nominee to the bench. With Sonia Sotomayor he gets both the female and ethnic box checked. Over the summer, Miss Sotomayor will be put under the spot light by both parties prior to being voted on by the Senate.

Jeff Rosen, writer for The New Republic, in his story “The Case Against Sotomayor” published May 4, 2009, attempts to look at all sides of the potential nomination of Sotomayor. Rosen reports that “former clerks sing her praises as a demanding but thoughtful boss whose personal experiences have given her a commitment to legal fairness.” My hope is that she does not use the bench as a pulpit which is something many judges do attempt. Rosen goes on to report, when talking about former law clerks of judges on the Second Circuit or federal prosecutors in New York (most Democrats); many are concerned “about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.”

If she is intellectual enough to provide “counterweight” to conservative voices on bench now, why would President Obama nominate her? One concern I have is a quote, if true, in Rosen’s article by a former clerk of the Second circuit of “she has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” If Sotomayor lacks the ability to ask probing questions then she is definitely not Supreme Court material.

Sen. Schumer in a letter to President Obama stated, “It’s long overdue that a Latino sit on the United States Supreme Court. Sonia Sotomayor and Ken Salazar are two candidates who would make outstanding justices. They have top-notch legal minds, years of experience, moderate approaches to the law, and would make history by being the first Latino on the court.” While I agree that having a diverse look to the Supreme Court is appealing, but we cannot afford it to be done if the candidate does not understand the limited role of a Supreme Court Justice.

Kidding or not, Sotomayor is caught on tape saying, “court of appeals is where policy is made” when addressing potential law clerks in 2005. She did later add that she was not promoting or advocating the concept. It is these types of slips that can give real insight into true belief of the words being said. The interesting part will be if liberals will be okay with her “moderate” view of the law since many liberals are looking for more influence for their cause on the bench.

President Obama’s introduction read like a campaign stop. Earlier I posted that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be the next Supreme Court Justice and I have not given up on that yet. It will be interesting to see how Sotomayor defends her position when she upheld the reverse discrimination case of white and Hispanic firefighters in New Haven, Conn; Ricci v. DeStefano. It will be this interpretation of law that will start the unraveling of Sotomayer and pave the way for Clinton. Previously I spoke on the reverse discrimination case by the New Haven firefighters. Please read further there as this case will become a central component to whether Sotomayor is confirmed.

Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell said in a statement, “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.” This examination of her record will bring to light the reverse discrimination case of New Haven firefighters as well as the six decisions she made that saw five reversed and one where the court disagreed with her reasoning.

A lot will be made of her comments and case load. One in particular that will see a lot of attention, beside New Haven, is the 1993 case where Sotomayer, as reported in Foxnews article “Sotomayor’s Judicial Record could be Battlefield for Critics, Advocates”, “threw out evidence obtained by police in a drug case, because a detective lied to obtain the search warrant – prosecutors agreed to a plea bargain. However, during sentencing Sotomayor made controversial statements by criticizing the five-year mandatory sentence, calling it an ‘abomination’ that the defendant did not deserve.” Due to a failed search warrant the evidence was thrown out but for her to criticize the mandatory sentence is the type of empathy that many will say does not exist at the Supreme Court level.

The Supreme Court is to interpret law based on the guidelines and amendments in the United States Constitution. Not to interpret law based on upbringing, life experience, or empathy for the excused.