Humberto Leal Garcia, Jr. was executed in Texas on July 7th for the rape, torture, and murder of a 16-year-old girl back in 1994. There’s no controversy about whether or not he committed the crime; he even admitted to it before being executed. President Obama asked Governor Perry for a stay of execution to appease the International Court of Justice. Leal, as a Mexican national (a.k.a., illegal alien) was entitled to assistance from the Mexican consul. He didn’t receive it at the time of his arrest because the officers didn’t know he was an illegal alien.
Well, isn’t this a Catch 22? Liberals don’t want police officers to ask for papers because it’s racist, but at the same time liberals want the United States to abide by international law. How then are the police supposed to offer foreign counsel? What liberal signed this stupid treaty, you ask? It was none other that that crazy neo-con President Bush. He signed the treaty with the International Court of Justice, but it’s never been ratified by Congress so it’s non-binding.
The Supreme Court refused a stay of execution by a 5-4 vote. There is some fear that the execution damages the United States’ image abroad, especially with Mexico, though Leal had been in the United States since he was two years old. Mexico is going to find it difficult to find anyone who feels sorry for Lear given the heinous nature of his crime. Before Leal was executed he apologized to the victim’s family and then shouted twice: “Viva Mexico!”
I haven’t been paying close attention to what’s going on recently in Wisconsin. The pro-union arm of the Democratic party has been trying to do whatever it takes to stop their elected leaders from doing their jobs.
It appears Democrats have lost another tough race in Wisconsin. The Democrats have taken to the courts to defeat their legislators. There’s one problem: The court isn’t liberal enough. Fortunately there was a Wisconsin Supreme Court election this week. How awesome is that? Here’s a chance for the Democrats to hold a referendum on the controversial collective bargaining issue. Shouldn’t this be a blowout win for the Democrats? Well… not so much.
It looks like the liberals have lost again. The election is close and it triggered a recount. That didn’t stop the liberal candidate JoAnne Kloppenberg from declaring victory. What a difference a day makes. Today, she trails by over 7,000 votes due to a clerical error. Here come the voter fraud theories. Michael Moore is on the case:
What does this have to do with this election? Nothing, but when did logic and common sense ever have anything in common with Michael Moore? It appears everything is on the up and up.
Nickolaus, who is a Republican, said the canvassing process was transparent and bipartisan:
“We sat through an open transparent meeting for the last day and a half. We sat with people from both sides of the aisle and went through every tape, number by number, then proofed those numbers again.”
At one point Ramona Kitzinger, a Democratic representative on the canvassing board and vice-chair of county’s Democratic party, stepped up to podium to confirm Nickolaus’s account. “We’re satisfied that it’s correct,” Kitzinger said of the numbers.“We went over everything and made sure the numbers jibed.”
One last thing… Chris Matthews was busy trying to spin the Kloppenberg win on MSNBC when the news broke that she didn’t. So much for those talking points. What does it all mean? I’m not so sure, but I know one thing: the Democratic party is clueless right now. What is their big idea? The country is going bankrupt and they’re desprately trying to protect the status quo and spending on Planned Parenthood. I can’t wait to hear what Obama is going to campaign on next year.
There can’t be much doubt that liberal judges share some disdain for the Constitution. What else can explain Justice Breyer’s idiotic remarks about the Second Amendment on Fox News Sunday? The crux of Breyer’s argument is that James Madison didn’t really want the Second Amendment and only added it to help the Constitution get ratified. Ed Morrissey tries to make some sense of it all, but he falls short. It just doesn’t make any logical sense.
Finally, American Pundit points out the most obvious issue with Breyer’s argument; it doesn’t matter.
Who cares what Madison’s intent was? Who cares why the Second Amendment was added? Who cares what the motivation for its inclusion was? It’s there.
Is Breyer now saying that judges, including the Supreme Court, can ignore rights specifically guaranteed in the Constitution based upon the motivation for their inclusion? That judges can decide explicit rights don’t exist because they weren’t included in good faith? Wow.
To say that’s a dangerous precedent is probably the biggest understatement on this blog. That would mean a judge could decide you no longer have the right to free speech or freedom of the press because, hey, those rights were only included to appease one group needed for ratification.
I thought using international law and believing in a living constitution was bad. Now Supreme Court justices are misinterpreting original intent to bypass the Bill of Rights. Justice Breyer should be impeached and removed for this kind of crazy talk. What Justice Breyer is suggesting is a violation of his role as a Supreme Court justice. Supreme Court justices are required to take two oaths of office.
Oath 1:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
When I was researching this I was horrified because I thought that might be the only oath they have to take. I’m not exactly sure why the above oath is even necessary. A Supreme Court justice’s job is simple: interpret the written Constitution.
Oath 2:
“I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Justice Breyer is neither supporting nor defending the Constitution. In fact, it seems Breyer is more of an Oath 1 type of guy. Breyer’s comment are in opposition to the Constitution. He has a right to say whatever he wants but his comments are in violation of the oath. The American people should have some kind of recourse to remove these renegade justices. Unfortunately, nothing will be done about it and Justice Breyer will continue to make it up as he goes along.
Here I am driving up I-95 in South Carolina. I don’t have anything better to do and there’s an election in a week, so it’s time to flush!
Fake but Accurate Voting: Voter fraud claims are always prevalent during election season, but it’s odd that the evil voting machines are leaning Democrat this election cycle. Some voters are finding the Democrat candidate already checked when they’re voting… or are they?
Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax said there is no voter fraud, although the issues do come up because the touch-screens are sensitive. For that reason, a person may not want to have their fingers linger too long on the screen after they make a selection at any time.”Especially in a community with elderly citizens (they have) difficulty in (casting their) ballot,” Lomax said. “Team leaders said there were complaints (and the) race filled in.”
Yeah, just blame the old people. There have also been some complaints in North Carolina about the machines, but the truth about voter fraud claims are almost never verified, though Democrats are the party of voter fraud. They have illegal immigrants canvasing voters in Washington state. Teachers are busing children to vote in Cincinnati and handing out Democrat voter guides. Plus, the dead and felon vote will be Democrat as well.
Impeachment: The crazies on the left have zoned in on a new villain. Chief Justice Roberts is evidently a threat to the “progressive movement.” His crime? Correctly interpreting the Constitution. The Blaze has all the details. Apparently, Democratic Congressman DeFazio believes Justice Roberts agreed to honor precedent in all cases when he testified before Congress. Obviously DeFazio is stuck on stupid, but it’s odd watching elected Democrats attack the court. The President called out the court during the State of the Union and the party is just following the example.
Cheaters Never Win, Except in Politics: The Daily Plunge has pointed out for years that Democrats believe that the ends justify the means. It’s why they’ve politicized the Supreme Court (see: Bork), justify voter fraud, and are in favor amnesty for illegal immigrations. All of these morally shaky practices are forgiven because social justice means not having to say you’re sorry. If a dress gets stained, if a woman drowns, if enemies are punished, if the dead vote, and if a candidate receives help during a debate it doesn’t matter because the “progressive movement” is more important.
Democratic Governor candidate Alex Sink received a message from her makeup artist during the debate. Of course this is illegal. Sink has been beating up her opponent Rick Scott with ads about his ethics. Breaking debate rules is okay if you champion “social justice.” The adviser has been removed from the campaign following the revelation, but I guess the Sink campaign will go on.
Scaring White People: I hate even bringing up Rachel Maddow. Everyone at MSNBC has become a sad, liberal caricature of a sad, liberal caricature. The hipster dufuses who take her seriously are typically feel good utopians who probably haven’t worked a day in their lives. You know the person. They feel things. They like IKEA and Target. They hate Wal-Mart and love ecotourism (more on that later). Maddow was on David Letterman and said that the GOP was scaring white people. She called it “good politics.” It’s a fascinating idea considering Maddow cut her teeth on a network that fanned the flames of wingnut lunacy during the Bush years. I don’t understand how people turn on these talking heads at FOX, CNN, and MSNBC and take anything they say seriously.
Ecotourism: This is more of a rant than news; however, ecotourism crept into my consciousness today and immediately I could see the hipster dufus fingerprints. For those uninitiated here is the definition of ecotourism according to Wikipedia.
‘Ecotourism’ (also known as ecological tourism) is responsible travel to fragile, pristine, and usually protected areas that strives to be low impact and (often) small scale. It purports to educate the traveler; provide funds for conservation; directly benefit the economic development and political empowerment of local communities; and foster respect for different cultures and for human rights.
I have a better definition. Ecotourism is for guilty rich people. Traveling to Paris is great, but you have to mix with all those unwashed Americans. Those stupid tourists! A trip to Tokyo isn’t great because the typical ignorant tourist never “learns” anything. The elite ecotourist travels to La Boca, Buenos Aires and purchases a Boca Juniors jersey from a street vendor and suddenly feels enlightened. I’ve encountered this type of person before. The American ecotourist wearing the Boca Junior shirt will tell people that Boca is their favorite team. When pressed about the team’s history, players or formation you’ll likely get a blank stare. At least the street vendor was able to find some stupid American to purchase a knock-off jersey.
The best part of ecotourism is the idea that it won’t damage fragile environments. If the environment is fragile shouldn’t it be avoided altogether? If Joe “Ecotourist” Smith finds an awesome place to visit and goes home to tell ten other hipster dufuses and they visit, guess what? That fragile, untouched tourist destination is going to be trampled by all the other people. Shuush…. I know, I’m using too much logic.
Kagan Confirmed: Elena Kagan will be a fine liberal replacement to Justice Stevens. The Constitution weeps, Founders roll over in graves, and so on and so forth…
Say What? It’s a little known fact that President Obama is opposed to gay marriage. It’s probably that way because the rhetoric coming out of the White House is mind numbingly incoherent. White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod tried to explain this equation:
(a) He [Obama] opposes same-sex marriage and (b) believes that states should be able to set their own marriage rules, but (c) if a state decides to set its own rules by adopting his position, then, according to a White House spokesman, it’s “divisive and discriminatory.”
We all know what the President really believes on this issue. He’s just too scared of “white people” to give an honest opinion. Remember transparency?
August Surprise: James Pethokoukis reports that Obama is about to offer an $800 billion dollar bailout for people upside down on their Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac loans. Count me unconvinced since it seems like that would fuel a backlash. There are all kinds of problems with this idea, but buying votes isn’t exactly new for Democrats.
That’s all I’ve got for today. Until next time, America!
Estrada is of Hispanic decent and the Democrats didn’t want to deal with the idea that he could later be chosen for the Supreme Court. It was easier to filibusterer his nomination at that time because the press wouldn’t cover it and the Democrats wouldn’t pay a political price for it. Estrada’s was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate, and the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee. That’s how the Democrats do business.
Fast forward to today. Estrada has written a letter of recommendation for Elena Kagan. That’s a very classy move by Estrada and Senator Lindsey Graham is using as an excuse to vote for Kagan (as if he needed one). Taking the high ground may make Graham and other Republicans feel better about themselves, but hoping it will change Democratic minds when it comes to blocking nominees is idiotic. Look at the vote counts when it comes to court appointments made by Republicans over the past three decades.
The Democratic party knows they cannot effectively pass its agenda through the legislative branch without the help of judicial branch. They can ram it down our throats like they’re doing today, but the courts won’t allow it unless they’re stacked with brainwashed zombies who care more about International Law, personal experience and faux diversity than about the Constitution.
What happened to Miguel Estrada is a national tragedy, but there’s no one in the press that cares enough to write the story. The ends justify the means.
In 2005 when President Bush nominated the White House counsel Harriet Miers to be on the Supreme Court the choice was widely ridiculed, particularly by conservatives. She lacked the experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. Now Presidential Obama has made the same mistake with Elena Kagen. The only problem is that it’s very likely that Kagen’s nomination will be approved with nary a peep raised by so-called progressives. There are simply too many distractions for the American people to pay attention and Kagen has the ideological approval of the mainstream press.
Yuval Levin has one example why Kagen should never be allowed on the court. Kagen basically distorted the scientific findings of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists to suit the White House.
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
This would be a scandal if a Bush appointee did something like this, but I doubt this even makes the news. What happened to the left’s supposed respect of science? President Obama has made that sickening remark a few times himself. I guess liberals only respect science distorted to fit a particular ideological outcome. Want to kill babies? Why not just make something up? Want to tax Americans back to the stone age? Hide the decline!
Does anyone really think Americans know anything about the Commerce Clause? That’s the double standard we’re living under. It’s the same reason why the Washington Post has an entire blog dedicated to conservatives and not to liberals.
Even if Obama withdrew the nomination it’s not likely he would pick someone better. Only Republican Presidents make the mistake of picking the wrong people and then actually withdraw the nomination. It’s never the other way around.
Well, that should be the real headline of today’s Supreme Court ruling on gun control. It is possible to debate whether or not it’s a good idea for every American to have a firearm. The same could be said about the Freedom of Speech. What puzzles me is that four justices on the Supreme Court and many liberals believe it’s the court’s place to limit a right given by the United States Constitution.
If liberals wish to remove the right they should repeal the second amendment. A repeal isn’t likely to happen, but it’s shocking that progressives seem so cavalier about the Bill of Rights when it suits them.
Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, each wrote a dissent. Stevens, in his final day on the bench after more than 34 years, said that unlike the Washington case, Monday’s decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally – to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.”
It’s unclear which constitution Justice Stevens is referencing. I’ve often wondered if he had his own version. So I guess this ruling would be destructive to Stevens’ imaginary constitution. What these four Justices believe is that the ends justify the means. In other words, they’ve put their own ideology over the written law of the land. If there is no law, there is no truth. If there is no truth, there is only anarchy, which will be fantastic.
The big news today is that President Obama has selected his nominee for the Supreme Court. Elena Kagan doesn’t have much of a record and would be the first justice in 40 years without prior judicial experience. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. We’re supposed to believe Kagan might not be liberal enough, but I’m starting to suspect that Salon‘s Glenn Greenwald is just giving his side cover. There’s nothing to suggest that Kagan isn’t as liberal as Justice Stevens and it’s likely she’s further to the left. Why anyone takes Greenwald seriously is another story.
Ultimately, this is one of the consequences of the 2008 election. Many may forget that in 2006 then Senator Obama tried to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. For those that don’t know, that’s an extremely partisan gesture. There’s no telling how extreme Kagan will be on the court, but if Obama’s record is any indication it won’t be good for the nation.
The biggest question I have today is rather trivial. Doesn’t Elena Kagan look a lot like Rachel Maddow?
I think I can see Maddow's future.
I’ll leave this question to the scholars to ponder, and I’ll let Scott Lemieux make my final point. He might be a little over the top, but I think his central argument is true. Liberals aren’t really concerned that much about what the constitution says, but what they can interpret it to say.
When you’re reduced to noting that a prospective nominee for the highest court in the land is a “brilliant conversationalist” and that other Harvardites think she’s good people, one has pretty much conceded that the pick is Ivy League nepotism of the worst sort. The idea that the complete absence of evidence about her constitutional vision is no big deal is something that’s easy for someone who will never be denied an abortion, be discriminated against by an employer, etc., to say, but for people who actually take such things seriously it’s rather important.
As the conservative reaction to Harriet Miers indicates, conservatives do take their constitutional values seriously. I suspect we’re about to find out that far too many liberals don’t. And if a more Republican future Senate rejects or filibusters Obama’s next nominee down the road, this will rank as a blunder on a par with Reagan‘s failure to nominate Robert Bork while the GOP still controlled the Senate. You don’t waste a pick on a blank-slate centrist when your position in the Senate is about to get dramatically weaker.
There are plenty of things I hate about politics. One of my pet peeves is how Supreme Court Justices are picked. Republican and Democrats are guilty of nominating people based solely on their race and gender. It’s ludicrous. Shouldn’t we be looking for the most qualified person to be on the court? Here’s the disbarred President Clinton’s take on the selection process.
Clinton suggested Obama should “first of all see what the court is missing” when it comes to faith or sex. “Does there need to be another woman on the court? Should there be some other group represented? Because Justice Stevens was part of the four-person progressive block, he will of course nominate someone who will be part of that,” Clinton said.
I guess this is just the natural inclination of things. Our culture is slowly advancing the “idea of fairness” over making the most logical decision. I have no problem with “fairness,” but the “idea of fairness” is another subject. To get an idea of how stupid this process has become let me compair the use of “fairness” in other areas.
There's no fairness doctrine in competitive sports nor should there be
Imagine if tomorrow I purchased the Los Angeles Lakers and decided that the fair thing to do would be to have a roster of 12 players with a proportion of players based on racial makeup in the U.S. Does this sound stupid? I would never win. The Lakers and any other competitive team find the best players available. They don’t care what they look like and neither should anyone else for that matter.
What is more important to our society? Sports or the interpretation of the Constitution? Why aren’t we looking for the most qualified people available? Life isn’t fair. Get over it.
Recent Comments