Bloviating Zeppelin: Courts: Win One, Lose One

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Courts: Win One, Lose One

1. FORNICALIA SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS GAY MARRIAGE BAN:

But allows the marriages of those already wed to stand.

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The California Supreme Court has upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.
The decision Tuesday rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

2. Obama Nominates Puerto Rican Female To Replace Retiring Souter:

Mr Obama acquires the best of both worlds with this nomination: a female and a minority. The first of likely two more nominations during his term, Obama gets to set the literal agenda for this nation by seeking to control the United States Supreme Court.

His nominee, Sonia Sotomayer, is currently a federal appeals court judge for the 2nd Circuit, which oversees Vermont, Connecticut and New York states. She is known for ruling against white firefighters in a discrimination case where the City of New Haven, Connecticut threw out the results of a promotional exam when "too few" minorities yielded sufficiently high scores. That case, oddly enough, is now before the US Supreme Court.

As a federal district judge in 1995, she ruled against baseball owners and for baseball players in that contentious labor strike which resulted in the cancellation of the season.

Mr Obama, if you recall, wants judges who do naught much more than "empathize." Mr Obama also believes that "compassion" is required to interpret the Constitution. It would appear, once again, that the law and precedent will have little if anything to do with court decisions and that the workings of foreign nations will be considered equally or moreso than our founding document. With the current configuration of Congress confirmation is pretty much a sure thing. The GOP will likely stand back and kvetch only.

You win some, you lose some.

8 Comments:

TexasFred said...: OK, we knew that Obama was going to nominate a libber to the SCOTUS, that was a given. It was suspected that he would nominate a female and a minority too, so, no real surprises there either. A libber president doing what a scumbag libber is expected to do, take this nation down the sewer by seating a scumbag libber on the SCOTUS. Just sayin’…; Tue May 26, 01:40:00 PM PDT
Bloviating Zeppelin said...: Yes indeed, pretty much a given. It's the NEXT nomination which will change the power structure of SCOTUS.

BZ; Tue May 26, 02:38:00 PM PDT
shoprat said...: Sadly it is a given'; Tue May 26, 03:10:00 PM PDT
WMD_Maker said...: The MSM is now claiming the GOP will roll over so as not to upset the apple cart as it were and "upset" the hispanic voting populace (illegal and legal). I dont give a good rats ass if she is female, homosexual or hispanic. Its her view of the law as moveable to her will and desires that is WRONG and has been shown WRONG in 80% of her judgements. Sorry if you are correct only 20% of the time you should be removed from your job. If your decisions are overturned 80% of the time that a VERY POOR PICK for the job.; Tue May 26, 04:19:00 PM PDT
Bloviating Zeppelin said...: WMD: just as, for example, my local 9th District Circuit Court of Appeals is overturned, a MINIMUM, 80% of the time by SCOTUS.

BZ; Tue May 26, 05:26:00 PM PDT
TexasFred said...: If your decisions are overturned 80% of the time that a VERY POOR PICK for the job.
******************
If she was a confirmed tax cheat, she would be perfect...; Tue May 26, 07:23:00 PM PDT
Rivka said...: I just hold my breath on this one, and then hope no one else retires until 2012 after Palin gets in. ;0)

We have to find some kind of silver lining in the midst of this HUGE, COLOSSAL mess we are in right now.; Tue May 26, 07:35:00 PM PDT
A Jacksonian said...: Republicans tout 'strict constructionism'.

They don't mean it, though.

If they meant it they would hold Sotomayor's feet to the fire and point out her horrific record of legislating from the bench, awarding more power to States and private firms in cahoots with local government, and her stated biased outlook which should require her to abstain from any cases involving: white men, men in general, latinas, and women in general.

Instead a few on the right will tout her abortion ruling and hope, just like with Obama, that she is not as awful as her record of having 60% of her decisions over-turned appears.

Remember 'strict constructionism' applies to everything in the Constitution if you believe in it. Not just the SCOTUS. And now I expect Republicans to abandon that principle because they will not stand and defend being a Nation with the rule of law, not of the rule of men.

This is a character test for the Republican party, of being able to point out that saying 'hispanics will hate you for this' is racist in its very construction, to impute that all people of a race think alike. That IS Jim Crow. That IS racism.

And yet the watery legs appear again in the Republican party.

If the party members cannot grasp the idea of 'counter-attack' and hit hard, then it is a failure as a party. Time is growing very short, and distaste for Obama and the Democrats to hope to win elections is meaningless if you vote in Democrat-lite candidates.

Do as you say you will do, stick to the principles come hell or high water.

Say what you mean, so it is backed with the meaning and able to point to how history backs you up.

Mean what you do and do not accept petty losses, as that encourages greater ones (the party of Giuliani must understand that even if Giuliani, himself, cannot, as it is the same idea on crime).

Stop 'standing athwart history yelling STOP!' as it is a useless spectacle if you won't stand for anything to the bitter end.

Counter-attack.

Hit the enemy hard where they are weak and show that their strength is a shared delusion and not backed by history, tradition or even the LAW.

This did not happen with Reagan.

This did not happen with Gingrich.

Can the Republican party stand FOR anything to keep this country whole and protect our liberty against government? Because not doing so comes to a blood red end... and folks start to see you as aiding tyrants, which is not a good place to be.; Thu May 28, 05:33:00 AM PDT

This Page

Bloviating Zeppelin

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Courts: Win One, Lose One

8 Comments:

Bloviating Zeppelin

About Me

Previous Posts