BluegrassBulletin.com

McConnell Makes The Case: Sotomayor Is Bad Choice

US Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell has taken a long look at Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and concluded she is not suited for the office.

In a report found in the Kentucky Enquirer from the AP, McConnell said this:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said Sotomayor's federal appeals court ruling last year against white firefighters alleging reverse discrimination leaves the impression she allows her own agenda to affect her judgment and she favors certain groups.

"It is a troubling philosophy for any judge — let alone one nominated to our highest court — to convert empathy into favoritism for particular groups,"

"With Liberty, and Justice for All", Sotomayor: not so much.

Might Supreme Court Overturn McCain Feingold?

The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take another look at the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation with arguments scheduled for September 9th. 

A reversal of their prior decision upholding the law could have a dramatic impact on the 2010 elections particularly if the Court throws out current prohibitions on corporate funding of campaign commercials.

“That would be a sea change in federal and state campaign finance,” said former Federal Election Commission Chairman Michael Toner. “The stakes will be enormous. And this will have a direct bearing on the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential elections.”

If the court reverses prior decisions upholding the legal foundations of the provision, corporations and unions would be able to spend millions of dollars on ads attacking or boosting candidates right up until Election Day without many restrictions. Under current law, campaign ads must be about issues and aren’t supposed to expressly support or oppose candidates.

FOR FULL STORY SEE: POLITICO

Supreme Court Issues Rare 8-1 Decison AGAINST Strip Search Of 13 Yr. Old Girl

Back in April I told you about the insane ruling by an initial panel of the California appellate court which approved of a school strip searching a 13 year old girl on suspicion she was in possession of an ibuprofen.  The Supreme Court has now ruled 8-1 that this violated her constitutional rights.

I'm a bit disappointed in Justice Thomas' reasoning that "Judges are not qualified to second-guess the best manner for maintaining quiet and order in the school environment".  His approach misses the point.  The issue was not about the manner by which schools maintain order, it was about the constitutional rights of the child.

Chalk one up for the good guys.

UCLA School Of Law Professor Says Harold Koh Raises Serious Question For Debate

Respected professor Eugene Volokh has written the first of a two part discussion regarding a topic I raised here yesterday when I alerted you to the upcoming confirmation of Harold Koh by the US Senate (and was quickly called a racist for doing so). 

As you will see, Professor Volokh agrees with me that this nomination raises some very important issues for the future of our nation.

The foreign law debate is, in fact, an important one, with much at stake, and it deserves a better airing than it has received in the blogosphere so far. This is the first of two posts that will discuss the debate.

What is true is that two clusters of positions have emerged on either side of a divide over the question how much American law, and in particular, American judicial decision making, should be influenced by foreign and international legal norms. Because of Koh’s nomination to the state department, he has become a symbol of the pro-foreign law position, which he has enthusiastically celebrated throughout his career.

The current debate addresses four issues. The first concerns the extent to which American courts should “incorporate” international legal norms into domestic (non-constitutional) law.  The second issue concerns the degree to which the United States should throw itself into the project of “advancing” international law and international institutions.  The third issue concerns one particular statute, the Alien Tort Statute, which gives federal courts jurisdiction to hear tort cases brought by aliens against violators of international law.  The fourth issue concerns the use of foreign and international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution. It is this issue that has received the most public attention.

It is wrong to say—as so many bloggers have—that these issues are easy and that Koh’s critics are inventing controversies that don’t exist. What is true is that, so far, not much has been at stake. [The Volokh Conspiracy]

Much is now at stake and we should familiarize ourselves with this issue by following Professor Volokh's discussion and watching closely how Mr. Koh advises our government.

Better Cash Your Traveler's Checks!

The  money grabbing members of the Kentucky legislature have been denied the right to cash your travelers checks and keep the dough.  A law they passed giving them the right to treat any travelers check more than seven years old as "abandoned property" was struck down by a Federal Court.

But that doesn't mean that you should keep your old travelers checks as a safe way to hold cash.  Checks more than 15 years old can still be seized.

Still got a few lying around after a vacation?  Think keeping them is safer than keeping cash?  Better think again.

STORY HERE

How To Tell If Sotomayor Is Biased: Ask The Guys Who Nominated Her

Justice is blind, justice is fair, justice and liberty for all, we pledge.  Okay, so when President Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court he had to know something about her right?  And odds are he talks to his buffoon of a Vice President, good ol' boy Joe Biden, don't you think?

So when Biden tells the police that Sotomayor's "got their backs", doesn't that perhaps reveal a bias known only to those who in secret vetted her nomination?

Probably not, probably just another stupid, brainless, spur of the moment gaffe by the next in line to be president, good ol' boy Joe Biden.  But it does have some people pretty upset.

Flanked by a dozen District of Columbia police officers, Biden said Sotomayor, a former prosecutor, could be counted on to support

law enforcement while on the high court.

“As you do your job

, know that Judge Sotomayor has your back as well. And throughout this nominating process, I know you’ll have her back,” Biden said.

“I think what Biden said was foolish,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University who is a prominent legal ethicist. “She’s not there to ‘have their back.’ She’s there to interpret the law as she sees fit. . .

“It’ll be embarrassing to her when she learns of it,” Gillers said. “Biden crosses the line when he starts representing to interest groups that she would be voting in their favor.”

READ STORY

Bright Young Judge May Decide Fate Of Slots

Patrick Crowley is reporting that state representative Joe Fischer has brought suit seeking a declaratory judgment whether the legislature can pass a bill allowing for slot machines at race tracks without running afoul of the Kentucky Constitution.  According to the report the case will likely be assigned to Julie Reinhardt Ward, Circuit Judge for Campbell County.

If the case presents a justiciable issue there could be no one better suited to the task than Judge Ward.  Her rulings have been heralded in Northern Kentucky as being well reasoned, well founded and surprisingly fair.  An unofficial poll on a local website has ranked her as running the most efficient docket in the region.

Judge Ward is no stranger to politics.  Her father, Jon David Reinhardt, was unbeatable as a state representative.  Despite severe re-redistricting attempts by democrats over the years, he continued to win election after election through sheer hard work. 

I know Judge Ward well.  She was my law clerk and then my associate for several years after completing law school.  Her work ethic was admirable but what truly suits her to this task is her deep dedication to principled legal analysis grounded in a fundamental understanding of the constitution and a commitment to enforcing laws rather than re-writing them.

The big question, from a legal point of view, is whether the suit is premature.  It is rarely the case when a court has accepted the responsibility of declaring as yet un-taken actions of the legislature to be legal or not.

Though I have not seen the suit, unless representative Fischer has raised the question of the legality of the Governor's call to special session under the theory that the Governor cannot call the legislature into special session to consider unconstitutional legislation, or that the call itself is otherwise defective, there is at least some risk that Fischer's suit will not get very far.

Either way it goes one thing is certain.  If the judge who hears the case is Julie Reinhardt Ward, the decision is likely to be the right one.

Sotomayor Accused Of Filing False Report With Senate Confirmation Committee

Wendy Long, counsel for the Judicial Confirmation Network, has sent a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary committee accusing Sonia Sotomayor of filing an incomplete and misleading response to their questionnaire.  Long says the response presents a false picture of Sotomayor because of its glaring omissions. According to Long, Sotomayor failed to reference, as required by the questionnaire, an opinion she penned which said this:

"[c]apital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society"

Long's letter also points out that even though Sotomayor revealed minor details like unpaid dentist bills, she did not disclose, as required by the questionnaire, that she had actively advocated "public opposition to restoring the death penalty in New York state."

Judge Sotomayor discloses elsewhere in the memo that from 1980 to 1992 she was a member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund (PRLDEF), serving in a number of high-ranking positions for the organization. Despite more than a decade of work for the organization, however, she has failed to disclose the sort of documents requested by the questionnaire documents that would give the Senate and the American public a better picture of who Judge Sotomayor is and how she has used her career to advance certain agendas.

Sotomayor lists on her Senate questionnaire a PRLDEF letter to then-Governor Hugh Carey, "opposing reinstatement of the death penalty," dated April 10, 1981. But she fails to list, and does not supply a copy of, a significant policy "Memorandum" that she signed on behalf of the PRLDEF "Task Force on the Bill to Restore the Death Penalty in New York State," dated March 24, 1981.

The Sotomayor memorandum that she withheld from the Senate provides an important data point to flesh out the picture of her that is emerging from her other writings, speeches and judicial opinions: a hard-left liberal judicial activist."

Sotomayor Avows To Not Deliver Equal Justice Under Law

Newt Gingrich was slammed for using the word "racist" to describe Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court.  In response he has admitted that his use of that word to describe her was "too strong".  He has sent an email asking that we read her words and conclude for ourselves if we want a justice with her judicial philosophy sitting on the highest court in the land.

From her speech in Berkeley you might have heard a line or two.  Newt has given us a link to the entire speech and concludes that after reading it respected legal scholars have concluded that as a whole it is WORSE than just the "wise latina woman" comment so many of Obama's people have urged was taken out of context.  Here is the link: Sotomayor Speech.

Here are some excerpts from the speech (emphasis Newt's):

• "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that."
  
• "Whether born from experience or inherent psychological or cultural differences...our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging."
  
• "Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases....I 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."

Newt makes a good case in his email that Obama's nomination of Sotomayor is perfectly in keeping with his plan to "Change" America.

Here is how President Obama explained his criteria for appointing judges earlier this year:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old - and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

With these words, President Obama is cleverly inviting his critics to come out swinging against empathy for the less fortunate among us. But Americans are smarter than this.

We understand that the job of a justice is to enforce the law, not the rule of empathy. And we understand that when a judge substitutes his or her personal experiences for the law, the law becomes what he or she wants it to be, not what the people, through their elected representatives, have decided it should be.

Most tragically, it is this principle of judicial impartiality - of justice, not just for the rich and the powerful, but for all - that has most benefited the vulnerable and the downtrodden in America.

No group has needed or continues to need justice - that can't be predetermined by wealth or privilege - as much as the less privileged. President Obama doesn't seem to grasp that, by weakening judges' adherence to the rule of law, he is also weakening the very foundation of equal justice for the less fortunate Americans he wants to help.

Newt has encouraged people to contact him to let him know how you feel about this candidate.  You can contact Speaker Gingrich at his website, Newt.org.

Sotomayor Supports Gun Control Despite Heller Decision

Liberty loving Americans celebrated last year when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Heller vs. DC that the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms was superior to federal, state and local legislation which might infringe upon that right.

"So what", Obama's pick for the Supreme Court seemed to be saying when she signed off on an opinion rendered after the Heller case affirming the right of the state of New York to outlaw possession of certain weapons saying:

“We will uphold legislation if we can identify some reasonably conceived state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the legislative action." [h/t Dave Hatter]

Understandably those with an interest in protecting the constitution from judicial activism are beginning to express significant worries about Obama's nomination.  In the days to come, as more is revealed about Sotomayor, quite frankly, more will be revealed about Obama himself.