What follows is the oath of office taken by each Supreme Court Justice:
"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."
What follows is an excerpt of a speech give by Judge Sonia Sotomayor. In 2001, she gave the keynote speech at “a symposium commemorating the 40th anniversary of the first judicial appointment of a Latino to a federal district court.” The text of the speech was later published in the La Raza Law Journal.
"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...I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage."
I could just stop here and my point would be well made but that's not really my style. One has to ask how many times has Judge Sotomayor used her "Latina heritage" as a basis for dispensing justice. How often has the fact of her race played a role in her decisions? One would hope never but that doesn't seem to be the case for this particular judge. She is sensitive to issues of race in her decisions as is evident in a case just decided by the court she hopes to sit on. In fact, her earlier ruling was overturned by the SCOTUS oddly enough.
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act states:
"Title VII of the Act prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin." In simple terms, an employer may not use race as a basis for hiring or promotion. This means either to the positive or to the negative.
The Ricci v DeStefano case is obvious proof of her sensitivity to matters of race. It seems that not enough black firefighters passed a test for promotion given by the New Haven CT Fire Dept. and she summarily dismissed the promotions of white and Latino candidates who had passed and were due promotion but in this day of racial quotas and reverse profiling the Second Circuit Court Of Appeals ruled this way,
"We affirm, for the reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion
of the court below. Ricci v DeStefano. In this case, the Civil Service Board found itself in the unfortunate position of having no good alternatives. We are not unsympathetic to the plaintiffs’ expression of frustration. Mr. Ricci, for example, who is dyslexic, made intensive efforts that appear to have resulted in his scoring highly on one of the exams, only to have it invalidated. But it simply does
not follow that he has a viable Title VII claim. To the contrary, because the Board, in refusing to
validate the exams, was simply trying to fulfill its obligations under Title VII when confronted
with test results that had a disproportionate racial impact, its actions were protected."
Put simply, the Civil Service Board's bogus claim of a violation of Title VII trumps Ricci's valid claim. Put another way, they seem to acknowledge that Mr. Ricci is the most qualified candidate but since no blacks passed then neither will he. It's also important to note here that the court never says the test itself had a "disproportionate racial impact"...just the outcome. There were no claims that the test wasn't fair.They said only that the outcome basically doesn't look right to them. Of the 41 applicants who took the captain exam, eight were black; of the 77 who took the lieutenant exam, 19 were black. While it's true that no black applicants passed, quite a few white applicants failed as well. Only the three highest scores could be accepted based on New Haven's promotion policy. The idea that a test can have a "disproportionate racial impact" for firefighters is ludicrous. How can race have any bearing on how a fireman does his job? What it really means is that the Second Circuit just didn't like the outcome. They thought more black applicants should have passed. So much for the content of Ricci's character, apparently only his skin color counts to Judge Sotomayor.
Here's the kicker though. It seems New Haven had already thought ahead on matters of discrimination and attempted to nip any possible future recriminations in the bud. It seems that New Haven paid $100,000 to a high stakes diversity testing firm, IO Solutions, Inc. of Illinois, to design the exams to be completely free of any racial bias. This is a necessary step these days in order to avoid charges of disparate impact upon protected minority groups -- and New Haven does have a large population of protected minority groups.
IO Solutions, Inc. is one of a few dozen firms which specializes in this kind of politically correct test design, and they are very good at it. According to court filings, IO Solutions "did everything right in designing the New Haven fire department's promotional exams to be completely race-neutral, i.e., to not have a disparate impact upon selected, preferred skin colors."
So who do we believe? A firefighter who worked hard and studied extensively to pass an exam he knew would have a huge impact on his future or a Judge who thinks that skin color is a perfectly acceptable measure for determining outcome so long as that skin color is not white?
It seems open and shut to me and probably to most of you as well but Judge Sotomayor finds no error in her thinking regarding this decision. While it might have been whispered in the past that our justice system is not exactly blind, it's obvious now that with Judge Sotomayor sitting on the court the statue of Lady Justice will have to have her blindfold altered slightly so she can peek out to see if there are any people of color in line for the court.
Friday, July 17, 2009
Thursday, July 16, 2009
No, you can't have that Twinkie!
Socialized medicine...wow...where does one start when describing what an absolute boondoggle this will turn out to be? It's bad on so many fronts I can barely figure out where to start. Speaking for myself, I've boiled it down to three major areas of pending disaster if this abomination is allowed to be implemented:
1) Cost, not just in dollars but in lost jobs.
2) Quality of care.
3) The ever increasing level of government control over our lives.
COST
As it stands right now, the current legislation is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years. Trouble is, the CBO estimates that the plan will cost 284 billion dollars per year over ten years. Last time I checked, that's 2.84 trillion dollars at the end of the day. That cost will be passed onto the wealthy by way of raising their taxes to levels not seen since Jimmy Carter was president. That alone will have a crippling effect on job creation in the prvate sector but when you add the fact that many private sector jobs in healthcare will then be converted to the federal government, it gets even worse.
Even the Washington Post, bastion of liberal thinking agrees that simply taxing the wealthy to pay for the current plan won't work. There simply isn't enough money out there to pay for it. So who then will ultimately pay for it? We the people will by way of higher income taxes, gas taxes and our "sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and the like. Taxes on tobacco have already been hiked quite a bit over the last few months despite the anointed one's promise that he wouldn't dream of raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Or was that $150,000 a year? I get confused because Joe Biden, human gaffe machine, can't seem to get his facts straight. Just a side note, the vast majority of people who use tobacco, earn LESS than $150,000 a year. So much for not taxing the "poor".
The cost of this plan will enslave our children and grandchildren to the federal government through taxation that can't even be imagined at this point. The plan calls for taxing businesses who don't provide healthcare to their employees somewhere in the neighborhood of $750-$1000 per year, per employee. To put this in perspective, the company I work for pays $750 per month for my healthcare. What do you think would happen if this company were given the choice between paying $12,000 a year for my healthcare or $1,000 a year? They'd drop me like a bad habit and feel good about it because I still had coverage, just not with them. That little fact is the insidious truth that isn't talked about in this debate. Private coverage will simply dry up and cease to be when the government gets into the business of healthcare. That ultimately is the goal here. The complete destruction of private healthcare as we know it. Nationalizing one seventh of the nation's economy in a single pen stroke.
QUALITY OF CARE
Who hasn't heard the horror stories in the news about the level of care in countries where socialized medicine is the norm? The elderly being denied services simply because they've "lived a full life and aren't eligible for further treatment" or being diagnosed with cancer when it's treatable but waiting so long for that treament that by then it's terminal. The French now have to buy supplemental private insurance due in large part to the gaps in their government system. The Canadians have begun turning to private healthcare facilities to skirt the system for the very same reasons. Who wants to wait 6 months to a year for an MRI because the system is swamped? How would any of us like to be told that their elderly loved ones dialysis or cancer treatment has been declined simply because of their age?
What will most likely wind up happening will be that the wealthy who can still afford private insurance will still get better coverage than the masses that Obama claims he wants to help. The rest of us will be left with sub-standard coverage and no options when the system doesn't work. To think that the federal government will manage anything better than the private sector is ludicrous. The federal government can't manage to keep it's own roads in workable condition most of the time. Why would I want them in charge of something so vital as healthcare?
One bright spot in all this? Under government control of healthcare, there will be no one to sue for malpractice. You can't sue the government after all... can you?
GOVERNMENT CONTROL
It's a simple thing really, anytime the government provides money for anything, they assume a level of control over how that money is spent. In simple terms, if the govt. pays for my healthcare, they will then be able to, logically, tell me what is and is not "acceptable risk behavior".
For instance, my love of the occasional greasy cheeseburger and fries will come under the banner of "risky behavior" to my health. Sugary drinks are already one the list of soon to be high taxed items.
Let's say that I like to go skydiving. Who's to say that the govt. won't find a way to tax me or penalize me for that simply because of the risk? So many facets of our daily lives are linked to our health after all. The cars we drive, our commute, the foods we eat and the activities we engage in all play a part in our health and ultimately the govt. will be able to tell us what is risky and what is not. I might be told one day that sitting at my computer, writing my little rants is bad for my back and may cause carpal tunnel syndrome so that activity should be curtailed at all costs.
That's a stretch I'll admit but it illustrates the level of control we can eventually expect over our daily lives.
Socialized medicine is nothing more than the biggest power grab in history. For those of you who believe the govt. has no business telling you how to live your private lives, get ready to have that premise squashed into dust.
1) Cost, not just in dollars but in lost jobs.
2) Quality of care.
3) The ever increasing level of government control over our lives.
COST
As it stands right now, the current legislation is estimated to cost 1.5 trillion dollars over ten years. Trouble is, the CBO estimates that the plan will cost 284 billion dollars per year over ten years. Last time I checked, that's 2.84 trillion dollars at the end of the day. That cost will be passed onto the wealthy by way of raising their taxes to levels not seen since Jimmy Carter was president. That alone will have a crippling effect on job creation in the prvate sector but when you add the fact that many private sector jobs in healthcare will then be converted to the federal government, it gets even worse.
Even the Washington Post, bastion of liberal thinking agrees that simply taxing the wealthy to pay for the current plan won't work. There simply isn't enough money out there to pay for it. So who then will ultimately pay for it? We the people will by way of higher income taxes, gas taxes and our "sin" taxes on alcohol, tobacco and the like. Taxes on tobacco have already been hiked quite a bit over the last few months despite the anointed one's promise that he wouldn't dream of raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Or was that $150,000 a year? I get confused because Joe Biden, human gaffe machine, can't seem to get his facts straight. Just a side note, the vast majority of people who use tobacco, earn LESS than $150,000 a year. So much for not taxing the "poor".
The cost of this plan will enslave our children and grandchildren to the federal government through taxation that can't even be imagined at this point. The plan calls for taxing businesses who don't provide healthcare to their employees somewhere in the neighborhood of $750-$1000 per year, per employee. To put this in perspective, the company I work for pays $750 per month for my healthcare. What do you think would happen if this company were given the choice between paying $12,000 a year for my healthcare or $1,000 a year? They'd drop me like a bad habit and feel good about it because I still had coverage, just not with them. That little fact is the insidious truth that isn't talked about in this debate. Private coverage will simply dry up and cease to be when the government gets into the business of healthcare. That ultimately is the goal here. The complete destruction of private healthcare as we know it. Nationalizing one seventh of the nation's economy in a single pen stroke.
QUALITY OF CARE
Who hasn't heard the horror stories in the news about the level of care in countries where socialized medicine is the norm? The elderly being denied services simply because they've "lived a full life and aren't eligible for further treatment" or being diagnosed with cancer when it's treatable but waiting so long for that treament that by then it's terminal. The French now have to buy supplemental private insurance due in large part to the gaps in their government system. The Canadians have begun turning to private healthcare facilities to skirt the system for the very same reasons. Who wants to wait 6 months to a year for an MRI because the system is swamped? How would any of us like to be told that their elderly loved ones dialysis or cancer treatment has been declined simply because of their age?
What will most likely wind up happening will be that the wealthy who can still afford private insurance will still get better coverage than the masses that Obama claims he wants to help. The rest of us will be left with sub-standard coverage and no options when the system doesn't work. To think that the federal government will manage anything better than the private sector is ludicrous. The federal government can't manage to keep it's own roads in workable condition most of the time. Why would I want them in charge of something so vital as healthcare?
One bright spot in all this? Under government control of healthcare, there will be no one to sue for malpractice. You can't sue the government after all... can you?
GOVERNMENT CONTROL
It's a simple thing really, anytime the government provides money for anything, they assume a level of control over how that money is spent. In simple terms, if the govt. pays for my healthcare, they will then be able to, logically, tell me what is and is not "acceptable risk behavior".
For instance, my love of the occasional greasy cheeseburger and fries will come under the banner of "risky behavior" to my health. Sugary drinks are already one the list of soon to be high taxed items.
Let's say that I like to go skydiving. Who's to say that the govt. won't find a way to tax me or penalize me for that simply because of the risk? So many facets of our daily lives are linked to our health after all. The cars we drive, our commute, the foods we eat and the activities we engage in all play a part in our health and ultimately the govt. will be able to tell us what is risky and what is not. I might be told one day that sitting at my computer, writing my little rants is bad for my back and may cause carpal tunnel syndrome so that activity should be curtailed at all costs.
That's a stretch I'll admit but it illustrates the level of control we can eventually expect over our daily lives.
Socialized medicine is nothing more than the biggest power grab in history. For those of you who believe the govt. has no business telling you how to live your private lives, get ready to have that premise squashed into dust.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Who is Sarah Palin and why is she scaring the daylights out of the Liberals?
Another news item that had nothing to do with Michael Jackson played itself out before our eyes last week. It was the buzz about Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor of Alaska.
At first, speculation swirled about the reasons behind this odd move. Was it the final toll of too many frivolous ethics probes, leaving her in debt upwards of half a million dollars? Was it the numerous attacks on her family and children?
The press was deliciously astute in saying how tragic a move this was for her. Of course she's dead politically now, she let the naysayers drive her out and that smacks of weakness in the face of adversity. A sure sign that she's not ready for the big time in the beltway. She's too simple and too scared to take the heat. Either that or she's got a book deal brewing the likes of which would bury the NY Times Bestseller list for months on end...if it were true that is.
Seems it's not entirely true after all. The latest whispers say that she's actually making moves to boldly start a fourth party. Co-opting both the conservative Republicans who can still spell Reagan's name and the disenfranchised and probably somewhat disgusted Libertarians who are tired of backing a loser. Not to mention the blue dog democrats that inevitably spring up when a strong conservative rises to prominence.
And oddly enough, Sarah can thank the establishment media for all that exposure. You see, they were obssessed with her every move since she lost the election. They've devoted hours and hours of coverage to a woman most claim to despise and all certainly feel they're smarter than. She's a political Madonna...she's like a virgin to the press. They adore her...insomuch as they can look down their provincial noses at her and sneer at her "folksiness". She's like a bad Reagan in cheap shoes. It's at this point I see Paul Krugman dressed as Hannibal Lecter leering at Sarah and saying, "You're a rube. You're one step away from poor white trash."
Why...she doesn't even have a degree as good as Paul's. How can she possibly be anything more...than what Paul Krugman or Katie Couric think of her? Maureen Dowd calls her "Caribou Barbie" for pity's sake. Where's the N.O.W. gang when a woman could really use them? I suppose if Sarah were decrying the Republican party and spilling her guts about how she was just a pawn of those evil, greedy white men, N.O.W. would snap to the rescue and bring the ACLU along just for the whole solidarity factor.
I think what might be happening is very similar to another time and place and I think lots of liberals remember it well. That would explain their almost irrational hatred for all things "Sarah". It was in the late 60's and early 70's that the Democrat party began to change. No longer were they the party of tax cuts and free enterprise, they were the party of the social program. Ronald Reagan saw this change and knew if it continued, the true party ideals would be lost forever. Turns out, old Ron was right.
"I didn't leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left me." was his eloquent answer as to his shift in political alliances.
I think maybe...just maybe...Sarah Palin is feeling the same thing. She's seen the seedy underbelly of American Politics outside the frozen tundra of Wassilla and I think she's disgusted and more than a bit sad to learn the whole truth about the ruling elite on both sides of the aisle. They're all in it up to their eyeballs and not a one left has a shred of courage to stand up and say...
STOP! We work for THEM and not for ourselves!
Personally, I like Sarah Palin's approach. Mainly because it's not an approach...it's just who she is. She is folksy and plain spoken. To a fault it would seem for the press. After hearing the nuanced stylings of the anointed one, Sarah must sound like nails on a chalkboard to the press. His dulcet tones and sly smile lend themselves well to TV after all and he is charismatic, you have to give him that. I'll bet he's more than a little perturbed that he's had to hear more about Sarah Palin than himself during last week. In the coming weeks I suspect as well. If she does indeed try to form an independent conservative party, then she has her work cut out for her. After the debacle of having John McCain as our nominee last election cycle, it would take a miracle to cobble our broken party back together again.
If it works, she's going to be rewarded in ways she can only dream of. If it fails, she going to be the goat that lost us the election in 2012. Sorry Sarah, but that's the truth. Do I think she's ready to be president? Not really, but I still don't think Obama is qualified for it either and there he is anyway.
I wish her luck if that's what she's going to attempt. It's a bold move to be sure but back in 1980 another bold move brought Ronald Reagan to prominence. I'm not quite sure that Sarah can really use the tag line that Reagan did, "It's morning in America" but I'm certain we can think of something that will stick.
(fade in)
Sarah Palin stands in a child's bedroom with her baby in her arms. We see a sleeping figure curled in blankets lying motionless. Sarah Leans over, pulls the blanket back to reveal the sleep tousled hair of a teenage boy. She leans over with a sweet motherly smile and says softly,
"C'mon, it's time to get up. We have work to do."
At first, speculation swirled about the reasons behind this odd move. Was it the final toll of too many frivolous ethics probes, leaving her in debt upwards of half a million dollars? Was it the numerous attacks on her family and children?
The press was deliciously astute in saying how tragic a move this was for her. Of course she's dead politically now, she let the naysayers drive her out and that smacks of weakness in the face of adversity. A sure sign that she's not ready for the big time in the beltway. She's too simple and too scared to take the heat. Either that or she's got a book deal brewing the likes of which would bury the NY Times Bestseller list for months on end...if it were true that is.
Seems it's not entirely true after all. The latest whispers say that she's actually making moves to boldly start a fourth party. Co-opting both the conservative Republicans who can still spell Reagan's name and the disenfranchised and probably somewhat disgusted Libertarians who are tired of backing a loser. Not to mention the blue dog democrats that inevitably spring up when a strong conservative rises to prominence.
And oddly enough, Sarah can thank the establishment media for all that exposure. You see, they were obssessed with her every move since she lost the election. They've devoted hours and hours of coverage to a woman most claim to despise and all certainly feel they're smarter than. She's a political Madonna...she's like a virgin to the press. They adore her...insomuch as they can look down their provincial noses at her and sneer at her "folksiness". She's like a bad Reagan in cheap shoes. It's at this point I see Paul Krugman dressed as Hannibal Lecter leering at Sarah and saying, "You're a rube. You're one step away from poor white trash."
Why...she doesn't even have a degree as good as Paul's. How can she possibly be anything more...than what Paul Krugman or Katie Couric think of her? Maureen Dowd calls her "Caribou Barbie" for pity's sake. Where's the N.O.W. gang when a woman could really use them? I suppose if Sarah were decrying the Republican party and spilling her guts about how she was just a pawn of those evil, greedy white men, N.O.W. would snap to the rescue and bring the ACLU along just for the whole solidarity factor.
I think what might be happening is very similar to another time and place and I think lots of liberals remember it well. That would explain their almost irrational hatred for all things "Sarah". It was in the late 60's and early 70's that the Democrat party began to change. No longer were they the party of tax cuts and free enterprise, they were the party of the social program. Ronald Reagan saw this change and knew if it continued, the true party ideals would be lost forever. Turns out, old Ron was right.
"I didn't leave the Democrat party, the Democrat party left me." was his eloquent answer as to his shift in political alliances.
I think maybe...just maybe...Sarah Palin is feeling the same thing. She's seen the seedy underbelly of American Politics outside the frozen tundra of Wassilla and I think she's disgusted and more than a bit sad to learn the whole truth about the ruling elite on both sides of the aisle. They're all in it up to their eyeballs and not a one left has a shred of courage to stand up and say...
STOP! We work for THEM and not for ourselves!
Personally, I like Sarah Palin's approach. Mainly because it's not an approach...it's just who she is. She is folksy and plain spoken. To a fault it would seem for the press. After hearing the nuanced stylings of the anointed one, Sarah must sound like nails on a chalkboard to the press. His dulcet tones and sly smile lend themselves well to TV after all and he is charismatic, you have to give him that. I'll bet he's more than a little perturbed that he's had to hear more about Sarah Palin than himself during last week. In the coming weeks I suspect as well. If she does indeed try to form an independent conservative party, then she has her work cut out for her. After the debacle of having John McCain as our nominee last election cycle, it would take a miracle to cobble our broken party back together again.
If it works, she's going to be rewarded in ways she can only dream of. If it fails, she going to be the goat that lost us the election in 2012. Sorry Sarah, but that's the truth. Do I think she's ready to be president? Not really, but I still don't think Obama is qualified for it either and there he is anyway.
I wish her luck if that's what she's going to attempt. It's a bold move to be sure but back in 1980 another bold move brought Ronald Reagan to prominence. I'm not quite sure that Sarah can really use the tag line that Reagan did, "It's morning in America" but I'm certain we can think of something that will stick.
(fade in)
Sarah Palin stands in a child's bedroom with her baby in her arms. We see a sleeping figure curled in blankets lying motionless. Sarah Leans over, pulls the blanket back to reveal the sleep tousled hair of a teenage boy. She leans over with a sweet motherly smile and says softly,
"C'mon, it's time to get up. We have work to do."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
