Sotomayor and Baseball


An attempt will be made throughout the Sotomayor nomination process to connect her to the common man. This will undoubtably be done through her connection to her baseball ruling. In Obama’s introduction, he stated:

During her tenure on the District Court, she presided over roughly 450 cases. One case in particular involved a matter of enormous concern to many Americans, including me: the baseball strike of 1994-1995. (Laughter.) In a decision that reportedly took her just 15 minutes to announce, a swiftness much appreciated by baseball fans everywhere — (laughter) — she issued an injunction that helped end the strike. Some say that Judge Sotomayor saved baseball. (Applause.)

This will be repeated ad nauseam throughout the coming months, and many people will accept this as proof of her “common man touch”. Whereas this story is compelling, baseball also presents an opportunity to explain her judicial philosophy in a way that most can appreciate, and in a way that condems her nomination.

Baseball is a game of rules. But, it is a game that must be officiated, because the rules cannot be enforced through automatic methods (as can be done in a game like Blackjack). Officiating is also required in baseball, because it has no legacy of honor that compels its players to enforce the rules upon themselves, like in golf. In a nutshell, baseball is a microcosm of society, competitive in a way that the boundaries are constantly pushed, and filled with both scoundrels (Pete Rose) and saints (Cal Ripken).

So, I’d like to see at lease one line of questioning at the hearings go something like this:

Judge Sotomayer, you’ve been credited by President Obama with saving baseball, so, I’d like to take the opportunity to pursue a line of questioning using baseball to explain your judical philosophy and views. In baseball, the umpire is the judge, responsible for interpreting and enforcing the rules of baseball. The rules are just like laws.

Judge Sotomayer, President Obama has stated that one of his highest goals for seating a new judge in the Supreme Court is that the judge rule with empathy, and he has indicated that this is consistent with your judicial philosophy. Can you explain this in baseball terms? Would you, for instance, take into account the salary level of the two teams playing, and adjust your ruling to benefit the poorer team? Would you widen the strike zone for a pitcher who had came from a disadvantaged upbringing? Would you give more strikes per inning to the team with more minorities?

Judge Sotomayer, you have been captured on video stating that the Appeals Court is the place where policy is made. This is analogous to saying that the baseball rules are made by the group of umpires at each game, not by the rules organization in the league. Are you saying that, in effect, if the umpire feels that some of the rules are unfair, and that they disadvantage the poorer teams, that the umpire shoiuld be free to make up new rules? Would it be fair for the umpires, for instance, to make the richer teams play with less players than the poorer teams, if they felt that that would lead to a better outcome? If a batter had a strong tendancy to hit to left field, might you mandate that the left fielder must stand far away from the left field line to give the batter a better chance?

Judge, you made a controversial ruling regarding the New Haven Fire Department where you allowed test results for a job promotion for 19 firefighters to be invalidated because of the skin color of the firefighters that performed well on the test. In this case, the rules of promotion and the study material was well known by all the players before the test was administered. Again, in the baseball analogy where the rules are well known before the game, do you believe that skin color should, at times, invalidate various rules during the game? Should white players have some of their hits invalidated depending on the skin color of the pitcher?

Judge, you have stated that your rulings are better, because of your Latina heritage, and because you are a woman. In baseball terms, are you saying that, in general, white umpires are inferior to umpires with other skin color? Are you saying that the difficulty in a umpire’s background makes him a better umprire, and that an umpire that didn’t suffer a traumatic upbringing can’t be a good umpire? Are you saying that an umpire’s race gives him an advantage in calling balls and strikes? Are you saying that male umpires are generally inferior to female umpires?

Lastly, Judge Sotomayer, many of the liberal judges are stating that the Supreme Court needs to consider the laws in other countries in their rulings. The baseball analogy would be for an umpire at a game to consider the rules in Japanese baseball instead of exclusively following the rules in Major League Baseball. Do you share this view, and do you think that the laws in the United States are inadequate to form a ruling.

Judge, in baseball, there is no room for umpires who make up new rules on the fly to suit their own prejudices. There is no room for umpires who show favoritism for one interest group over another. Umpires who exhibit these tendencies are not hired, and if they are currently employed by the league, they are summarily fired. I would hope that the Congress follows through on its solomn duty and hires a judge who will be fair to all who come before him or her.


What’s behind the need to close Gitmo???


I’ve always been curious about the motivation behind the left’s desperate desire to remove prisoners from Guantanamo Bay Cuba. The explanation that we shouldn’t have prisons outside of the US is belied by Obama’s continuation of the Rendition Program as well as the prison that we’re running in Afghanistan.

Well, I guess that it’s pretty obvious now why. It looks like Obama is setting up to continue down the path that Jimmy Carter blazed, and that he’s going to parrot Carter’s return of Panama with the return of Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE50S6WF20090129).

Obama must be thinking that Guantanamo would be a good place for Russia to set up a ballistic missle base.

Category: , , ,

Acorn $1B in the Stimulus Bill


So, the Stimulus Bill has $1B in money for Community Organizing, right? I would assume that it’s possible for anyone, no matter what their political affiliation, to apply for this money, right?

Is it possible for a conservative lawyer to deconstruct the Stimulus Bill and give us some pointers on what is needed to apply? Can we turn this money into “Get out the Republican vote?” for 2010?


Bait and Switch Coming with the Fairness Doctrine


Obama and his handlers were very dexterous during the Presidential campaign. The McCain campaign and Republican pundits always seemed to go for the red cape that Obama artfully displayed in obfuscation, and they ended up clumsily slashing at the air with their horns. Bill Ayers, Father Phlager, and Reverend Wright became the cape, and Obama stepped aside with “Hey, I’m a really likable guy, why would you think that any of their problems rubbed off on me?” All the while no one directly challenged his lack of knowledge of economics and American history. So, guys, when are we going to wake up and see those skinny legs behind the cape?

I’m sure that the Obama’s Administration has polled for the reaction to the words “Fairness Doctrine”, and they see that the language will be incendiary. So, instead of quietly letting it die, they are coming out in force against it. Clever, but transparent. All this to play cover for when the FCC lurches down the path of Local Content Requirements. We’ve all know that the FCC approach was coming, but is there an argument prepared for before the FCC makes its move? Can someone in the Republican Party, who is prominent enough to get on TV, compliment the Administration on their strong stand for free speech, and say that this stance surely communicates to the American people that Obama isn’t planning on playing dirty tricks inside the FCC. Instead, if we wait until the FCC begins, the Obama Administration will artfully claim to have already dealt with the free speech issue when they killed the Fairness Doctrine.

Can we for once be out ahead of an issue, and put the Administration in an uncomfortable position?