Category Archives: Judiciary

Judiciary, Politics, Race Relations

Justice Clarence Thomas / Rush Limbaugh Interview

Justice Clarence Thomas of the United States Supreme Court has published his memoir called My Grandfather’s Son and has been doing interviews on all the usual media outlets that people do who come out with a book, except one. That would be Rush Limbaugh’s radio show. For the first time ever, Rush used his radio show airtime to interview Justice Thomas for 90 minutes. Minus the news and commercial breaks it boils down to just under an hour.

For kids today, Justice Thomas’ life story, the problems he faced and how he dealt with them in a segregated South, serves as a blueprint for how to deal with adversity and make the American dream your own. It is truly awe inspiring regardless of the color of your skin and I hope you take the time to hear his story in his own words.

Best I can say about the interview is, regardless what prejudices one might hold about Rush, or Justice Thomas, or blacks, or whites, or conservatives, put it all aside and listen to this interview, his story. In my humble opinion, his book, if not this interview, deserves a hearing in elementary schools everywhere.

Hear the entire interview HERE.

2008 Election, Judiciary, Politics

Mocking McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform

Here’s a story in today’s Washington Post that actually represents a fine tutorial on how illegal campaign contributions get to the Clinton campaign. But it could be to any-one’s campaign. The only thing missing in this article is how these ‘contributors’ who don’t have two nickels to rub together get their money back from Alonzo Cantu, a self-made multi-millionaire who literally owns McAllen, Texas, a small border town near the Rio Grande.

Well, it’s not exactly missing. Instead of checks to replace their contribution, those people do business with and get business from Cantu. There’s the quid pro quo. But try to prove that in court.

Campaign finance reform is the one thing that politicians really don’t want, but say they do. Bottom line, it doesn’t matter that congress, Bush, and the SCOTUS all had their hands in it. It needs to go.

The premise that special interests, aka money, are corrupting the politicians and that laws need to be made to limit the money, totally misses the point. If anyone is corrupt, it is the politician that does a quid pro quo or who otherwise breaks the law in money laundering and/or takes bribes like William Jefferson (D-La) did. It’s not the donor, it’s what the recipient does. Don’t re-elect a crook.

related links:
How Big Man In McAllen Bundles Big For Clinton | Way More Than The Lincoln Bedroom | Questions For John McCain and Russ Feingold

2008 Election, Immigration, Judiciary, Media, MRIOTD, Politics, Supreme Court, War On Terror

CNN’s Democrat Party Primary Debate Analysis

For those who didn’t see the Democrat debate tonight, after all it was on CNN, here is a recap. It started out with some bickering among the candidates, most of whom took shots at Sen. Clinton’s inability to state a position on giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens. To that and many other questions, Hillary’s response was her usual, ‘the American people know where I stand…’ Oh really? I must have missed it. All of them seemed to be running against Bush, who isn’t running.

On the drivers license subject, some came right out and said, like Gov. Bill Richardson, that yes they should be permitted to have a drivers license. Sen. Barak Obama thought it was a good idea too. Others hid behind the smoke of ‘we need comprehensive immigration reform,’ which is code for amnesty, drivers licenses, and more, but they wouldn’t come out and answer the question whether they should have a drivers license.

All of them wanted out of Iraq, and Iran is also out of the question. The most hawkish on Iran was Hillary who did go so far as to say that we should use diplomacy with Iran but keep the stick. She didn’t elaborate on the stick part. She held true to her belief system which is she hasn’t one. She likes blue ribbon panels to make decisions for her.

Iran brought out the weakness of them all on the subject of the Quds Force, the terrorist-supporting wing of the Iranian military. There seemed to be a consensus that calling them a terrorist organization was not nice, except Hillary. She’s the one who voted in favor of the resolution that labeled them a terrorist organization. She had no where to hide on that one, especially after her drivers license debacle at their last debate.

Wolf Blitzer, host of the debate, joined the ranks of Brian Williams and Tim Russert in qualifying for the Chris Matthews award by not asking or even mentioning the Iranian made 107mm rockets and super penetrating IED’s that are killing ours and Iraqi soldiers and Iraqi civilians. A fair question was again ignored, giving way to their diplomatic story line.

John Edwards’ hair looked good. He had trouble completing a sentence that didn’t have the words Bush, Cheney, and neocons in it. Obviously appealing to the Soros wing of their party, but looking very silly for harping on them.

All of them spoke confidently on raising taxes for this that and the other. And on the subject of taxes, another Chris Matthews moment came up. None of them were asked whether they would make permanent the Bush tax cuts due to expire in 2010, which if elected, would be during their first term. Hold on to your wallet or make your escape plan.

On education, Wolf did ask a relevant question. Should exceptional teachers be rewarded with higher pay or bonus incentives? They were in complete agreement in towing the line of the teachers unions with a NO. It was blatantly obvious that the success of the students were not a priority. Hillary surprised me by saying, no, don’t reward good teachers, just fire the bad ones. Another rather stunning revelation was that they couldn’t agree what made a teacher a good teacher. Joe Biden, whose wife is a teacher with a masters and doctorate degree, believes that a good teacher is one who has multiple and higher degrees than just a bachelors degree. No one, not one of them, thought that successful students were relevant in determining whether a teacher was exceptional. Hillary ignored the students’ success by taking the village format. She said all the teachers in a given school should be rewarded if the school does well. Doing well doesn’t mean that the students do well. Doing well by her standards means teachers who teach in the worst of cities or neighborhoods are the ones to be rewarded with higher pay. More like combat pay. Again, no measure of the success of the students was offered. On the subject of education, it is clear that Democrats don’t give a wit about the success of the students, let alone merit pay for a job well done.

One of the funniest and scariest subjects was that of appointments to the Supreme Court. They all wanted an abortion litmus test for potential appointments to the Supreme Court. Abortion is the holy sacrament of the liberals’ political philosophy. None of them seemed at all interested in a strict constructionist type justice. John Edwards said he didn’t want a constitutional scholar on the bench, he wanted ‘a dog catcher’ on the bench. Literally, no exaggeration. I have to give him credit on at least saying what the others wouldn’t say. Which is, they want the supreme court to be filled with justices who don’t know what it is they are supposed to uphold, and who will uphold whatever the democrats want that they can’t get done through the people, the legislature.

After those grueling two hours, I don’t think it is necessary to see any more of their debates. If you see one, you’ve seen them all.

CNN link

UPDATE 11/19/07: ‘undecided’ voters were plants, activists, and Democrat operatives.

Judiciary, Pensacola, Politics, Whiners

Lawyers Being Rounded Up, In US?

Pakistani President Musharraf has his hands full to say the least. He is rounding up protestLawyer Round-Up In Pakistaners who also happen to be lawyers. Or is he rounding up lawyers because they are the protesters? No word yet whether that would be good for global warming.

It’s a tough call.
And on the domestic front, lawyers face another challenge. They are being caught breaking the law. Imagine that? Officers of the court and all. I guess it shows more than anything else that lawyers are not unlike people in other occupations.

But, not everyone thinks that way. Class action attorney, and Host of the Ring of Fire show on Air America Radio, Mike Papantonio thinks there is a conspiracy in this country to single out the BIG LAW attorneys, like himself.

Mike Papantonio, a trial attorney in Florida, believes the recent indictments are part of “a design to dismantle the plaintiffs bar.”

A little tort reform never hurt anybody. I’ll never forget a piece of advice I got from an attorney for free. And that was, don’t break the law and you won’t need me.

2008 Election, Judiciary, Media, Politics, War On Terror, Whiners

The Empire Strikes Back, Over Mukasey

I knew the Soros wing of the Democrat party would be ticked off over the Senate Judiciary Committee taking steps Thursday to send his name out of committee and to the Senate floor for a vote, where he will most likely be confirmed as Attorney General, replacing Alberto Gonzalez. The left’s reaction is a Donor Strike.

In 2006, the voters of America elected Democratic majorities to the Senate and House in order to end the occupation of Iraq and restore the Constitution of the United States. We, the Netroots, helped elect Democratic majorities with large contributions of money, time, and passion.

Unfortunately Congressional Democrats have surrendered to George Bush and Dick Cheney on all of the issues we care about most: Iraq, Iran, warrantless wiretapping, torture, and habeas corpus.

We recognize that “Bush Democrats” are primarily to blame for Democratic failures, and we will do whatever we can to change their minds – or replace them with true Democrats in 2008. But we cannot wait until then to fix the urgent problems we face.

We will therefore begin a donor strike against the official fundraising committees for Senate Democrats (DSCC) and House Democrats (DCCC) until our core demands are met.

We will instead contribute only to individual candidates who firmly support the values of the Democratic Party and the American people, as certified by BlueAmerica and Progressive Challenge 2008.

Two things should be obvious about their reaction. That they believe, as they said themselves after the 2004 election, that they have bought and paid for the Democrat party with their campaign contributions, and that they expect the Democrats in Washington to obey. The other thing that is obvious is just how effective their money was in influencing the Democrats in Washington. Or to put it another way, just how easily Democrats in Washington can be influenced by money. Like, having no belief system of their own, they adopt the one from their donors. They echo their sentiments and believe that they had a mandate from the American people. How many times have we heard that from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid? In reality, it was only a mandate from them, a well financed and well organized group of about 400,000 activists.

They are making plans to send what they call the ‘Bush Democrats’ packing. Their arrogance is off the charts.

Hillary may have had a turning point last Tuesday, but the Democrat Party itself may be having one of its own. The netroots, or nutroots, will now only be giving money to individual politicians who pass their litmus test on the issues that they care about. How these Democrats react will be their own litmus test.

links: Democratic Donor Strike Against DSCC and DCCC | Code Pink

Judiciary, Media, Politics

Senate Democrats Clear Way For Bush’s AG Nominee

That’s the way the headline should read. But it would sound too much like beginning to get along with Bush and actually get things done. Hell no, can’t have any of that. So the Washington Post headline to this story is this, “Democratic Defections Clear Path For Mukasey.” Imagine that, there were ‘defections.’ Sort of like in Iraq where the former al-Qaeda supporters defected and started helping the government instead of the terrorists. The ‘defectors’ were Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Diane Feinstein (D-CA), making 11 Yes votes from the 19 member panel. We know who the insurgents are. This paves the way to send his nomination to the Senate floor making confirmation likely. But it wouldn’t have happened without them both. Gotta give credit where credit is due.

Schumer said . . .

I deeply esteem those who believe the issue of torture is so paramount that Judge Mukasey’s views on it should be the sole determinant of our vote,” Schumer said. “But I must respectfully disagree.

Good for Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) for sticking by Mukasey. After all, it was Schumer who recommended Mukasey for the position. No doubt the Soros wing of their party, the new base, will be ticked big time. Schumer is safe as far as a democratic challenger that they might put up to oust him. He would do what Leiberman did. Beat the guy hands down.

I’m guessing she said more, but this is all the WaPo quoted Feinstein as saying about Mukasey . . .

He is not Alberto Gonzales. Rather, he has forged an independent life path as a practitioner of the law and a federal judge.

At any rate, its more than a victory for Bush. Its a victory for the country. To bad the libs won’t see it that way.Who Whould Kennedy Save

Update 11/07/07: Ted Kennedy did his best to defeat Mukasey’s nomination.  After the Senate Judiciary Meeting that advanced Mukasey’s nomination to the Senate floor, Ted (the swimmer) Kennedy spoke about what its like to drown.  He is very determined to protect scum like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

2008 Election, Immigration, Judiciary, Media, Politics, War On Terror

Are Democrats Using Wrong Language?

Confused as to why Democrats aren’t just steamrolling over the administrations foreign policies as regards to Iraq, Iran, health care and the lot, they think its because they just aren’t using the right words.   That their message is not persuasive.  I think they are wrong in that assessment.  Their agenda is not being widely accepted because people DO know what their message is.  Trying a different color lipstick on the pig just won’t fly any more.

Democrats are losing the battle for voters’ hearts because the party’s message lacks emotional appeal, according to a widely circulated critique of House Democratic communications strategy.

2008 Election, Judiciary, War On Terror

ACLU Wins One For The Enemy

The National Security Letters portion of the Patriot Act came under attack today by U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero, who ruled the practice unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in New York ruled that the landmark anti-terrorism law violates the First Amendment and the Constitution’s separation of powers provisions because it effectively prohibits recipients of the FBI letters (NSLs) from revealing their existence and does not provide adequate judicial oversight of the process.

Just goes to show you who the ACLU is fighting. They are fighting the wrong enemy. It isn’t Bush, as articulated by the ACLU’s executive director. . .

The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a plaintiff identified only as John Doe, an Internet service provider prohibited under the law from publicly revealing the receipt of an NSL.

Anthony D. Romero, the ACLU’s executive director, said the ruling “is yet another setback in the Bush administration’s strategy in the war on terror and demonstrates the far-reaching efforts of this administration to use powers that are clearly unconstitutional.”

Can’t wait to hear the presidential wannabes comment on this one.

related:Free, But Not Free To Kill, Patriot Act, Washington Post link

2008 Election, Judiciary, Politics, Supreme Court

Way More Than The Lincoln Bedroom

Who believes that the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill worked, that is, did it accomplish what it was intended to accomplish? Of course not, and right from the start. Now, how effective do you think the ethics legislation just passed is? More importantly, how can Nancy Pelosi claim this as historic legislation? Because she’s Nancy Pelosi of course. Take pay for access
for example.

In a day and at a time when political ethics issues cast a pall on Washington D.C. caused by ‘special interests’ that influence politicians with money (all out of the kindness of their shareholders’ heart), with NO expectation of government decisions favorable to their company, you might be surprised to hear about this. . .

The host committees of 2008’s biggest political gatherings are soliciting corporations, wealthy individuals and others with a lot at stake in government decisions for seven-figure payments. In exchange, the givers receive all sorts of goodies, including access to lawmakers and other politicians. The more money the donors spend, the more access they get.

A million or five will get you a good meal and some face-time with the man, or woman. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. It does raise money necessary to conduct a campaign. It just seems like campaign finance reform is the one thing that politicians really don’t want but say they do.

The premise that special interests, aka money, are corrupting the politicians and that laws need to be made to limit the money, totally misses the point. If anyone is corrupt, it is the politician that does a quid pro quo or who otherwise breaks the law in money laundering and/or takes bribes like William Jefferson (D-La) did. It’s not the donor, it’s what the recipient does. Don’t re-elect a crook.

IMHO McCain-Feingold should be repealed. Despite what the SCOTUS says, limiting political speech is unconstitutional. Besides, it doesn’t work anyway.

WaPo: Convention Party Favors Include Face Time