Yesterday, Obama called for a speedy confirmation of his SCOTUS nominee, Sonia Sotomayor.  Any opposition, he claimed, was built along purely partisan lines, and not on drawing “old battle lines and playing the usual political games, pulling a few comments out of context to paint a distorted picture of Judge Sotomayor’s record.”

Obama seems to be missing the point, but fair enough; enough Republican pundits and pols have played the race card with Sotomayor’s comments that he can perhaps be forgiven for being confused on the issue.  So, in the spirit of fairness, let’s look at Sotomayor’s comments, and then the Administration’s interpretation of those comments, so that we can look at them in Obama’s “proper context.”

Sotomayor, of course, made the now-infamous remark that “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.”

For those painting the comments as “racist,” the sticking point here would appear to be the “better conclusion” remark.  And they have a point.  But there is a context here which lends itself to the Administration’s interpretation.  The argument can be made, and should be made, I think, that what she’s really saying is simply that her life experiences give her a perspective into the lives of the people involved in the individual cases, and better inform her judgements.

Okay?  Fair enough?  So let’s diffuse this racist thing and boil down what she’s “really” saying.  She’s not saying “Latina women are smarter than white men.”  No, what she’s saying is that because of her experiences, she has the ability to render judgements on individual cases, not according to the law and constitution, but based on subjective standards based on her subjective life experiences.  As Obama said, hers will be decisions based on empathy and understanding.

One problem with that, of course: any subjective coloring of her decisions based on her life experiences is a clear violation of her oath of office.

“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.”

(from about.com)

Without respect to persons.  Equal right to the poor and rich.  Faithfully and impartially.  This is the point Obama seems to be missing.  This is the point hidden by the “race” controversy.  A Justice should not be swayed by subjective experience.  At all.  The job of a Supreme Court Justice is to judge, not based on her idea of “fair,” not based on what she personally thinks would be best for one party or the other.  But on the law of the land and on the Constitution.

No wonder Obama wants a quick confirmation.  Perhaps he fears that, given enough time, the racial undertones of Sotomayor’s comments will give way to the reality of her views on the position of the courts as unelected activist legislators.

There is a reason for the courts being set up the way they are.  Put simply, the Highest Court exists as a safeguard against (often well-intentioned) idealism or ambition turning into tyranny against the citizens of the United States.  To be sure that the laws of the land apply equally to all, and not differently depending on your race, income or social status.

And even if you take Sotomayor’s comments in the context the Administration suggests, that’s really what it comes down to.  She — and Obama — believe that her experiences give her the insight into how to apply the law in the way that best fits their subjective version of “fairness,” as applied to each individual.  Which is precisely the opposite of what the Supreme Court oath demands.

Hopefully, Republican leaders can learn from the recent past and understand that when this administration calls for a quick decision, it’s often because there’s something to hide.

In letters to Senators Gillibrand and Schumer – as well as to Congressman John McHugh – Nancy Foster, Chairwoman of the Lousiville Republican Committee is urging new laws on legislative accountability and transparency.   The text of that letter follows:

Along with millions of other Americans we were absolutely appalled that our government representatives voted on the $787 billion dollar American Recovery and Investment Act of 2009 (stimulus bill) without personally reading the legislation in its entirety. We have since learned that it is not uncommon for our elected officials to vote on bills they have not personally read. Instead, they rely on staff recommendations and committee reports. No matter how dire our circumstances seem to be, members of Congress cannot abdicate their responsibility to their staff or committees.

The American public has become increasingly frustrated with a government whose rhetoric does not match its actions. We were promised transparency but have gotten a maze of convoluted trails that seem to be contrived to bar the public from following how, where, and when our tax dollars are being spent.

Not only is legislation rarely open for public scrutiny before it is voted on, it is written in legal language and references volumes of material not provided to the public when they are able to view a bill.

Although President Obama promised he would “…not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days” that has not happened. Government is losing the trust of the American people. You can help ebb that trend by authoring and supporting a bill that will guarantee, except in cases of extreme national security emergencies:

1.  The distribution of all legislation to the members of Congress seven days prior to a vote on said legislation.

2. The posting of all legislation, including references, to an internet site accessible to the public at the same time it is distributed to the members of Congress. Such posting shall also include a straightforward summary of the major points of the bill.

3. No last minute additions or changes shall be made to pending legislation without providing members of Congress and the public an additional seven days for review of the proposed additions or changes.

4. Most Americans view the practice of inserting identity free earmarks in the dead of night as unacceptable cowardly acts unworthy of our government representatives. All legislation must mandate author identification of all earmarks.

The American taxpayer needs reassurance that our government representatives are working on their behalf. Authoring and supporting a bill which includes the above components would be a very positive step in regaining an ebbing trust.

Given Obama’s own promises while on the campaign trail, and an out-of-control Congress, this is common sense legislation that every New Yorker — and every American — should not merely request of their representatives, but demand.  It is high time we remind our legislators who they work for.  They don’t work for the President, and they don’t work for the DNC, or George Soros, or Moveon.org.  They work for us.  For Americans.  Americans who are sick of the mountains of waste and debt being laid at the feet of our children.

The concepts contained in this letter are not partisan in nature.  Every Legislative session, whether run by Republicans or Democrats, ought to follow the rules outlined here.   And every voter – whether Republican, Democrat, Green or Libertarian — should expect nothing less from their representatives.

Remember, we’re not asking for anything that wasn’t promised by Candidate Obama before his election.  It’s time to hold our leaders accountable.  Call your represetatives, and demand this legislation.

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

(cross-posted at SLC Republitarian)

You’d think Senator Gillibrand would have important things to do, as both a member of the US Senate and as a member of the Agriculture Committee. Things like dealing with the economy, for example (not that I necessarily want her to and her Democrat allies to be passing legislation and such, but, still). But evidently, what she and others find to be of surpassing importance is a bill to require calorie counts on chain restaurant menues.

Well, I for one wish her all the luck in the world. After all, clearly the only reason I’m fat is because I just don’t understand how many calories I’m putting into my body. Well, that, and because soda is just a few cents too cheap. Please, Federal Government, save me from myself. If only I knew how fattening these foods are, I could stop putting them in my body. Just like how everybody quit smoking after the Surgeon General made them put all the cancer warnings on packs of cigarettes. And the children! How are parents supposed to know that chicken wrapped in starch and fried is actually not the healthiest thing their kids could eat, without proper labeling on the menues to tell them?

But, you know, why stop there? If the government is to be in charge of my safety and well-being (like all good governments should), why even give me the option? Why not just outlaw fatty foods? And cigarettes. Driving faster than 35 mph? Driving at all?

(warning: some strong language)