Sonia Sotomayor: Not MY Judge!

For Any and All Conserve-ative Constitutionalists:

After some sham public hearings, political rhetoric on both sides of the new Global Socialist Party holding court in D.C., and chess moves for re-election purposes with respect to the final vote and tally, Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed by the full Senate today as the replacement for retiring Justice Souter on the United States Supreme Court. The final vote, after all the drama and stand up vote count, was 68-31

Much fanfare was made due to this "historic" appointment in playing both the "race card" and also the fact that Ms. Sotomayor is the third woman to be appointed to the hallowed halls of the Court. Ms. Sotomayor may change the physical characteristics of the Court but it is unlikely she will change the complement of it in any manner since this court is still "liberal" insofar as Constitutional interpretation as mainly comprised of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Obama now appointees. All liberal Administrations.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor was appointed to the federal bench by a Bush, the first Bush, and it was the second Bush, George W., that referred to the Constitution as a "damn piece of paper" from all reports and whose actions post 9/11 certainly exhibited the reverence he and that Congress gave to the actual RULE OF LAW and government as set forth within its provisions.

It appears that Ms. Sotomayor in most of her responses is of like mind. As was most on the Senate panel conducting the staged public hearings with respect to her confirmation.

Her clear bias for prior precedents and judge made case law rulings was evident throughout the hearings when referring to the "Rule of Law," no matter how the panel members from both sides of the aisle tried to politically spin the issue with respect to Obama's seeking a candidate with empathy, and Ms. Sotomayor's statements with respect to her gender and race being a plus insofar as her intepretive skills over those of others.

Even when the Republicans were posturing with their objections, the main objections consisted of fear that she would not rule "according to the law" but her personal bias or emotion. But it was clear their objections were also "liberally" based in their definitions of the "Rule of Law" to which they feared she would stray as being those decisions and the many politically based prior court rulings, some of which are fundamentally and clearly outside the parameters of the Constitution.

Such as the most recent Kelo decision reached during the Bush Administration. And expanding the powers of the Executive Office outside their Constitutional restraints progressively, while diluting Congress's enumerated legal powers, and expanding the law making abilities of regulatory agencies that were never meant to have indpendent "law making" abilities with respect to the citizenry (NOT corporate business interests) in any manner whatsoever in their regulatory functions. Such as the off the wall IRS since its inception, and now the Department of Homeland Security in its jack boot bulletins and police state tactics.

In fact, Ms. Sotomayor's oath of office, as with all Justices, is to the Constitution itself, and not to any prior court rendering of it. So the liberals on both sides of the aisle used this appointment in order to deflect and distract most of all, not evaluate Ms. Sotomayor's rulings according to the true "RULE OF LAW."

And interesting the timing of Mr. Souter's resignation, and Ms. Sotomayor's new appointment.

Much has been publicized that Mr. Obama, just as the prior liberal Bush Administration, plans on addressing the status of the over 12 million illegal immigrants in this country, and from all reports very soon.

Although the American people spoke rather loudly and clearly the last time this was attempted with the McCain/Kennedy "Dream Act" in 2006 under a Bush directive while our southern borders, for the most part, remain unsecured and the funding cut or denied each time the appropriations bills come up under the Secure Fence Act also passed that year, while the citizens lawful and legal civil rights continued to be attacked and take a beating on the pretense of "national security" concerns.

MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund) also heralded the appointment as "historic" along with the liberal media and press.

MALDEF, of course, is indirectly federally funded by the U.S. taxpayers due to the fact that there is a federal statute that provides for their legal fees and awards for any and all civil rights actions brought by them on behalf of Mexican Americans living in this country and who are natural or naturalized citizens.

However, within the last several years they have also been bringing suits against American citizens on behalf of many of those illegal immigrants, which costs for suit are also being honored and paid by the federal government and being billed then to the deficit and U.S. citizens.

Could this appointment have been a strategic maneuver on behalf of both "liberal" parties which have now merged into the Global Socialist Party after that foreign AIG bailout and Wall Street stimulus prior to addressing the amnesty once again in the event of a legal challenge to its Constitutionality?

Since any amnesty of those already in this country unlawfully under prior federal statutory law would clearly be an "ex post" facto law and thus unconstitutional in any event with respect to those already here who entered unlawfully or have remained other than for temporary work visa, green card or tourism reasons, and such actions would not address nor solve the problem of the influx of illegals which occurs each and every day without first securing with a physical deterrant the over 500 miles of open desert in which they, and the Mexican drug cartels and other "foreigners", cross each and every day. Simply continue the madness, and the confusion as to citizenship status.

And now with all the "privileges and immunities" given foreigners over the lawful and legal Americans, it would appear that those illegals would actually lose "rights" and their free health care, and untaxed wages if they should take Uncle Sam up on that offer anyway. Now that they have been given by the federal courts "standing" and equality and even preference over Americans rights in numerous court actions, how is it now advantageous for them to become peon Americans and potentially lose those jobs to the next crop of illegals to cross those borders within the next month or two?

Appointing such a judge also insures that the "race card" can then be used by the press and liberals again in order to silence the public in such an event, a method used now quite frequently and especially in light of the "hate crimes" legislation and continued threats of "domestic terrorism," and such event isn't unlikely given the recent despicable moves by Washington to continue with its agendas and "in your face" legislation favoring insourced and outsourced foreigner rights and further violating lawful American citizens civil rights (such as the AIG bailout, GM joint venture firing Americans while retaining ownership of outsourced GM plants in Mexico and China, war in the Middle East on behalf of Israel and corporate America's outsourced foreign work force in India in tech and retail industries, etc.).

Before this country was settled for the most part even shortly after its founding, America's immigration policies were more restrictive than they are today.

The founders, after all, were protectionists building a new nation. We are in the midst of rebuilding after several natural disasters, and an economic tsunami due to amalgamating our economy with that of the global community unconstitutionally, and yet still affording carte blanche immigration to almost all comers. It has been reported that since 2006 several thousand "at risk" Iraqis now also have been added to the list annually amount to now over 20,000 native born Middle Easterners.

It will be interesting to see how this all unravels, but since we all know something has been rotten in Washington for now quite a number of years, it appears there is an agenda to the recent madness that is and continues to occur.

And this appointment smacks of "politics" and not "the Rule of Law" at all.

With more and more Americans now out of work and with the degree of insourcing that is occuring and increasing due to this worsening economy, such a measure is bound to create further outrage among the lawful population in this country.

In fact, through government contracts, the federal government itself is the largest employer of illegal immigrant labor, while continuing to increase the legal American citizens tax burdens in order to supplement and support this influx of cheap labor for their government contractors, and the big businesses and foreign investors in the financial sector on Wall Street.

In its actions, it appears Washington is almost begging for a civil war in the near future at least within the border states, the states which have been hardest hit with higher unemployment, homelessness and joblessness since the first Reagan amnesty back in the 80's, and are now under invasion from both the criminal property theft of the border hoppers, drug cartels and their distributors, and others that have resulted in the additional loss of Americans lives and jobs in the thousands in the eight years now since 9/11.

Stay tuned, America. The fireworks continue, and appears it is Washington that is promoting and facilitating purposely the civil unrest in this country with each and every Constitutional violation that is coming now off the Hill.

I'm wondering also, with all the still dissatisfied Americans that have been calling for the Constitutional proof of Mr. Obama's "natural born" or "naturalized" citizenship status prior to his running for the highest office in the land as should have been done due to the number of years in his youth he spent outside the United States and with one parent a non-citizen, if this push again so soon and with our economy now in the toilet, if there also is this other "political" agendas in that respect is also behind it.

The Supreme Court has been tap dancing on that one now for six months, and Congress just did attempt that little sleight of hand in a recent bogus Resolution introduced by a Hawaiian Congressman to in effect "declare" him a citizen again without any disclosure or documented proof that he so much as satisfies the bare minimal requirements for the Office in which he holds. Requirements that acually were based on the European gentry's ideas that children would be raised in this country until they were in their teens when they then left for their "European tours" to finish their educations abroad in languages and cultural differences. That was what was actually behind the 14 year provisions since geographic ties are normally formed in child and young adulthood.

And after that trick and the many, many before more so in the last eight years than at any other time, it is pretty clear that the powers that be on the Hill have no problem both violating the true "LAW OF THE LAND" or attempting in whatever unethical way possible time and again to facilitate end runs around it in order to further their liberalism, global socialism, power plays and political agendas at the cost of those they are truly charged to serve.

The AMERICAN people.

Sotomayor On Applying The Law

Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.

These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe. And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago. Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."

She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning. And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand. Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?

It doesn't appear so. She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand." Which all sounds well and good. But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings. Which is what is truly scary. Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.

With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.

In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.

Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution. Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.

And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law." "Settled" by whom? The judiciary in that Roe case? Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever. And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder." That is what is truly required. But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.

Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.

For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe. And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.

I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure. And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.

And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.

As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.

I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction. And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.

I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.

I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as: If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.

It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.

She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will." Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."

And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all. Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.

Sonia Sotomayor Vows To Rule According To The Law: But Which?

Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.

A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.

She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended.

This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary, which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution

The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing. And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less Constitutional, by the decade.

And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.

For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.

"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.

My question is, which "law" is she referring to? Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.

Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?

Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?

Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?

Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.

So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various press releases.

But I doubt it. In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."

I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."

The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449

Sonia Sotomayor: The Court Makes Policy?

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become. And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.