Runner Up Comment of the Day

This could be a cloud with a silver lining. The Judge went so over the top in the dishonesty of his jurisprudence that the case is that much easier for the Supreme Court, especially Kennedy, to shoot it down and establish a lasting precedent. Hang in there, his evil can be used to accomplish good.
tommyboy on August 5, 2010 at 2:46 PM


from Hot Air.com

Sen. Jeff Sessions Warns that Kagan Is Dangerous

.

h/t: Breitbart TV

Sessions Attacks Judicial Activism

.

h/t: Hot Air.com

Senator Sessions Excoriates Kagan

This deserves replaying. He gives examples of her lying to congress but is too polite to come right out and say, "You're a liar."

Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties

.

h/t: NewsBusters

Sen. Jeff Sessions Speaks about Kagan Attacking US Military while Taking Money from Saudi Arabia

There is not much to say about her legal or judicial experience since she has little of either.

h/t: Hot Air.com

CLINTON LIBRARY WITHHOLDING KAGAN DOCUMENTS

.

h/t: Breitbart TV

Comment Of the Day

.
Who cares if what I’ve written may show my tedancies toward a form of government that historically has been reproved time and again by people who favor an individuals right of liberty? Confirm me to the Supreme Court, I promise not sting you because our futures depend on the decisions we make tomorrow, not the one you’re making today.

The Scorpion and the Frog

The story is about a scorpion asking a frog to carry him across a river. The frog is afraid of being stung, but the scorpion reassures him that if it stung the frog, the frog would sink and the scorpion would drown as well. The frog then agrees; nevertheless, in mid-river, the scorpion stings him, dooming the two of them. When asked why, the scorpion explains, “I’m a scorpion; it’s my nature.”

Americannodash on May 20, 2010 at 12:35 AM

from Hot Air

Not Surprisingly the Goldman Sachs Candidate for Supreme Court and Obama's Candidate Are the SAME PERSON

This from USAToday:

"Solicitor General Elena Kagan was a member of the Research Advisory Council of the Goldman Sachs Global Markets Institute, according to the financial disclosures she filed when President Obama appointed her last year to her current post. Kagan served on the Goldman panel from 2005 through 2008, when she was dean of Harvard Law School, and received a $10,000 stipend for her service in 2008, her disclosure forms show.


h/t: AnnCoulter.com

Is Anyone Surprised that Obama's Solicitor General Argued that Feds Can Ban Books??

After listening to Obama's people for over a year I know they have no respect for the civil rights of non-Democrats. They seem to think that if someone disagrees with them that person has somehow proved they are 'anti government' and they tend to treat them as enemies with a vigor they never seem able to summon in dealing with our country's true enemies. They seem to share intolerance for dissent and a need to control everything that starkly contrasts with the democratic and basic human rights elements in our Constitution and traditions.
From The Hill:
""Solicitor Kagan's office in the initial hearing argued that it would be OK to ban books," McConnell said. "And then when there was a rehearing Solicitor Kagan herself in her first Supreme Court argument suggested that it might be OK to ban pamphlets.
"I think that's very troubling, and this whole area of her view of the First Amendment and political speech is something that ought to be explored by the Judiciary Committee and by the full Senate," McConnell said.

"In the case in question, Chief Justice John Roberts asked the government lawyer whether the law in question could also prevent the publication of a campaign-related book, if it was paid for by a corporation or labor union.

"“If it's a 500-page book, and at the end it says, 'and so vote for x,' the government could ban that?” Roberts asked.

"Kagan's deputy, Malcolm L. Stewart, said yes.

""We could prohibit the publication of that book," he responded.

""In a later oral argument, Kagan slightly modified that position, but still found herself arguing that the government could ban certain pamphlets, depending on who paid for their publication.

""And if you say that you are not going to apply it to a book, what about a pamphlet?" Roberts asked.

"“A pamphlet would be different. A pamphlet is pretty classic electioneering, so there is no attempt to say that [law] only applies to video and not to print," Kagan responded."

Separate but Equal Accomadations for Military: No Itty Bity Matter or Sound and Fury Signifying Nothing??

.

OBAMA FLASHBACK: A SUPREME COURT NOMINEE WITH NO JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE REQUIRES EXTREME SCRUTINY

.


h/t: Breitbart TV

Sometimes You Just Can't Decide Whether the Progressive Spouting All That Crap Is Lying or Just Stupid

***

High School Students React to SOTU

I am reproducing this post from the dailyKos complete (except that I have not brought along the 55 comments).

SOTU - a discussion with my students
by teacherken

Thu Jan 28, 2010 at 02:04:20 PM PST

Homework for last night was to watch SOTU, and if possible, the Republican response by McDonnell. Today was devoted to a discussion, asking what they thought, exploring the questions they raised.

I have 6 classes. My first three are a state required course in Local, State and National government. The students in this class are not identified as honors/gifted, although there are a few who clearly are. They range from 10th to 12 graders. The students are mainly African-American. My final three classes of the day are Advanced Placement (College-level) US Government and Politics. Almost all of these students are 10th graders, although there are 9 spread across the thre classes who are seniors in a special program who took LSN with me as sophomores. These classes are about 60% white, with a real mix among the rests, including some bi-racial kids, kids with two moms,etc. Most of the students consider themselves Democrats, but there was little difference from the Republicans, libertarians, and independents in the reactions they offered.

teacherken's diary :: ::
In general the students liked the speech. By and large they did not think McDonnell's response was effective. They criticize his (McDonnell's) delivery, thought he spoke to fast and without regard for his audience, thought the physical set-up was weak. One student in an AP class remarked that McDonnell lied, because he did not keep his remarks to 10 minutes as he promised. Another thought the humor about Sports Center set the wrong tone right up front.

Most of the discussion was, of course, about Obama, about the setting. Not all had seen the ceremonial entrances. There were questions about the two guys squeezed side-by-side announcing the President. There were questions about why the military and the judges did not stand and applaud - but those were usually answered by other students without my intervention.

About half the students had noticed Alito's reaction. There were comments about that. A few had seen the video being replayed. I was asked in several classes if Obama were in fact attacking the Supreme Court for the decision as they had heard some Republicans say since the speech. What I did is to repeat the relevant portion of the President's remarks, parsing it for them:

deference to separation of powers - recognizing SCOTUS has a different role

noting the decision overturned 100 years of law - original Corrupt Practices Act dates to 1911

raising questions about the possible impact

asking Congress to legislatively try to at least lesson that impact

I then asked which part represented an attack on the COurt or its decision. They decided there was none.

I then read them the relevant portion of Article II Section 3, with emphasis on what I am bolding:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient

The students decided that the President was well within his rights to ask for a legislative addressing of what he considered a problem within the context of SOTU.

Students were fascinated with what the President said about education, but they did not understand tax credits and how that worked, and most did not know about Pell Grants (which given that most of them would be ineligible for them is understandable).

When I asked how they thought the speech went over with the American people, most thought the people might approve, but some raised questions whether there were enough specifics to satisfy some people. That led to having to explain that while SOTU may have a laundry list of proposals, often they are not spelled out in the speech itself.

Some students questions whether the President was attempting to trade with Republicans by offering support for nuclear power and off-shore drilling in hopes of getting support for some of his initiatives in return.

There was a LOT of discussion about whether he was attacking Republicans, and/or attempting to blame Bush. Some students noted that Obama made the point of the bad conditions he inherited at least two times, at the beginning and then again later on.

Everyone noted the chastising of both parties. Most students understood clearly about the 60 votes and the relationship to the filibuster.

Some criticized Biden for his reactions, for example, how much he was vigorously nodding.

There were questions about DADT, with one young lady noting how little time Obama spent on it as compared to talking about jobs. Some questioned whether the lack of clapping by the military on that meant that they opposed it, others pointed out that Secretary Gates had vigorously applauded that and we had a discussion that the military is prepared to implement it as soon as it is passed by the Congress - here I probably should have mentioned the possibility of such an effort being filibustered. I don't know if there is a head count of how many Republicans might support repeal and how many Dems might opposed, but I can conceive of a problem getting to 60 for cloture. But there is only so much one can squeeze into a 45 minute period, particularly when as a teacher you are trying to get the students to talk and discuss.

If I compare student reactions to SOTU compared to things like the Inaugural address last year's students were required to watch, or the debates, or the convention acceptance, or even Obama's remarks in Grant Park, this speech had less impact upon them, but given the function of a SOTU that does not surprise me.

In general most of my young people are still favorably inclined towards Obama, and there was nothing about which they commented that gave any indication they inclination was in any way diminished by what they heard. Some raised questions of whether or not he will be able to offer concrete results, not just words. Given that I heard similar expressions last night on the Hill, including from several electeds, I think that was a more than fair question for them to raise.

Some students discussed the speech with their parents. Particular my AP students, there is a real hunger to understand Obama, how the government works, and a real hope that he will succeed in much of what he is attempting.

I suspect a similar feeling exists among the American people as a whole, at least as I looked at the data from the CBS snap poll, the results of which I shared with students towards the end of class. There were a few things from that poll that really stood out for me, especially how those who viewed the speech increased significantly in their approval of Obama having a clear plan for jobs (from 40 to 59%) and having a clear plan for dealing with the economy (from 55 to 76%). I did not want to share the polling data with the students before they had offered their opinions and insights. I suspect that most Americans still want this president to succeed, hope he will succeed, although they may have their doubts. My students reflected that in their comments.

So that is a brief overview of our discussions today. Nothing earthshattering to report. Perhaps largely as one might expect. What I think is note-worthy is that so many of my students are still hopefully, still willing to engage in the political process, still wanting to have national leadership in which they can trust. That gives me some hope for the future, and makes me feel better about continuing the task of being a teacher.

What about you?

Peace.

Tags: SOTU, students, Bob McDonnell, Barack Obama, Congress, Joe Biden, Samuel Alito, DADT, State of the Union, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

CNN Focus Group on SOTU

**********************************************

Finest Links in All of Christendom

Pundit and Pundette has a piece about Barbara Boxer’s racist attack on Harry Alford. Boxer is a sad case. Her lefty mentality has built a confining little box in her head for blacks and she is determined to not let them out of that box. She just cannot allow blacks to be just people like the rest of us. I often find it especially funny when these ideologues with their boxy little heads start calling others racists because they won’t build racist boxes in their heads and imprison blacks in them. P & P also has a piece about Rush's reaction to a recent speech on health care by Obama. Basically Rush says that every last word that Obama utters on the subject is a lie. But what are you going to say? Why would being elected president suddenly and inexplicably make the man honest? My favorite recent thing at P & P is the appearance of my favorite Canadian: Diana Krall. Yes, I think I like her even more than Mark Steyn.
And So It Goes In Shreveport has a post about tens of millions of people who will lose their private insurance if ObamaCare is passed. Remember how it was promised that ObamaCare’s public option would not would not give free health care to anyone who could somehow get their feet on American soil? Well, the Democrats in the House Ways and Means Committee have made a lie out of that. How can costs be lowered if ANYONE who can cross our intentionally porous borders has to be covered? How many tens of trillions of dollars might that end up costing? Why even listen to what any Democrat has to say about health care when they will probably say the opposite tomorrow next week? You cannot engage in rational discourse with inveterate liars.
Jo-Joe Politico has a post about Obama ordering Israel to stop a private company from building in Jerusalem. Please read the whole thing. I feel compelled to quote a few lines: “In what realm of imagination does President BO get off demanding that Israel cease construction on anything?
“How did he get jurisdiction over ANY foreign country, let alone Israel?
“ . . . Megalomania does not even come close to describing this guy's sense of self and his willingness to be in complete control of the universe.
“Watch it, boys and girls.
“He really is dangerous.
“Please wake up.
“This is no dream. Your personal future is at stake.”
Then there is Sonya Sotomayor and the confirmation process all of which Joe deftly skewers. Joe recontextualizes the hearing to put the lies and the humor in clearer light. Then Joe’s account of the hearings that he feels was inaccurately reported by the MSM.

SOTOMAYOR Don’t Ever Forget that She Feels that Law Should Come from Judges

Sotomeyer and Obama Contaminated by Affirmative Action

Pretty ballsy. He looks me right in the eyes and out and out lies to me. Just because Brian Williams seems to enjoy being insulted, abused and spat upon doesn’t mean that I like it. The teleprompter might tell Obama that Williams represents America. But he does not. And that foolish notion is just going to render Obama out of touch and too audacious.
This is at the root of what is the problem with both Obama and Sotomeyer. They are both products of affirmative action. They both got super fantastic grades and headed law review. Both of them are smart, well spoken and reasonably capable. But the lefty ideology of their college professors and law school professors dictated that students of identified protected minority groups who met the so-so standards that these two met should be made examples of. They had to be flung to the top of their classes to prove to the world that what lefties say about their sacrosanct groups is true. So, no matter what they do they get the anti-gentleman’s A+. Therefore they enter the world thinking whatever they do is A+ work.
But you have Obama who raises quickly from office to office without ever having mastered what was involved in any office along the way. His main skill is smiling while fools draw near to tell him how wonderful he is. He is better than average at delivering a speech. But the speeches are nothing to write home about. They are boring, empty off shoots of some forgotten Onanistic endeavor. He has achieved nothing. Even though he has spent years as a legislator he was never in one office long enough to forge allegiances, identify needed legislation and write it and make it happen. That would require a concern and knowledge about his constituents that would not have been able to coexist with his obsession with getting ahead. Now we have a president who truly believes he knows what he’s doing but could not possibly have a clue.
And he’s trying to hire an affirmative action judge. There seems to be no limit to how highly she thinks of herself and the magic power of her Latina-ness. But all reports seem to indicate that she is at the lower end of adequate for the position she presently holds. Maybe that’s why she looks down on white males: it’s a way of compensating for the frequency with which they reverse her decisions. And I have the impression that she would prefer not to publish her opinions. Barry O. must have felt his heart leap at her being a kindred spirit in that area.
************************************************
UPDATE May 31,2009 at 0715
************************************************
Ace of Spades HQ has a post pointing out that that Sotomeyer does not even meet the minimum ABA criteria to be a judge. (I suspect this does not matter to the ABA since she is an affirmative action grad and judge.) Much of what Ace says is from a post by a guy (and lawyer) who calls himself Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere. But Ace nails it in a short space so I'm just giving a couple of quotes from him which takes up the remainder of this space.


He points out that her statements are not only overtly and breathtakingly racist, as we have been arguing, but also that they violate the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct.
From BiW's caption of the commentary to Canon 1 of the Code:
"Deference to the judgments and rulings of courts depends upon public confidence in the integrity and independence of judges. The integrity and independence of judges depends in turn upon their acting without fear or favor. A judiciary of integrity is one in which judges are known for their probity, fairness, honesty, uprightness, and soundness of character. An independent judiciary is one free of inappropriate outside influences."
. . . . . . . . . . . .
However, there's no doubt about the 'favor' of this judge; that she believes white men to be inferior to her. That her ethnicity and background somehow convey upon her a greater natural ability to adjudicate. Why not also say that her ethnicity and gender also convey upon her a heightened natural ability to pick lettuce? Because that would be just as racist. This person has told us in no uncertain terms that she is not inspiring. Not intelligent.
Not judicial material.
He also quotes this part of the code regarding the appearance of impropriety.
"The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired."
Well, besides her aforementioned OVERT, OBVIOUS, AND PRECISELY ENUNCIATED RACISM, there's this.
That she believes appellate courts are "where policy is made."
. . . . . . . . . . .
Which hardly inspires the confidence of people bringing cases before her, as they will (quite reasonably) believe that she will use any opportunity to use cases to shape policy in a leftward direction, rather than judge their cases fairly and according to established law. Thus eroding the public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Which according to the Code, is a major no-no.

************************************************
UPDATE May 31 1:00 PM
************************************************
Very relevant are the following quotes from Just One Minute.

The oddest thing about affirmative action is that it is promoted as a vital program with no actual beneficiaries.  Sonia Sotomayor is going to the Supreme Court!  Yet instead of hailing this as a triumph of affirmative action (since Princeton might very well have overlooked this qualified candidate many years ago) Ms. Sotomayor and her supporters want to pretend that affirmative action has had nothing to do with her success.
… .. ……. … .. . .. .
when the question of "equal resumes" was kicked around a few years back, the suggestions as to why black-sounding names were at a disadvantage was summarized as follows by the CalPundit:
The gist of the thread seemed to be that maybe blacks were more likely to sue over being fired, or maybe their degrees were perceived as being worth less due to lower standards caused by affirmative action...
In other words, if affirmative action distorts the college grading process as well as the recruitment process then equal resumes aren't really equal.  The greater legal protection afforded newly hired minorities is obvious.

The Finest Links In All of Christendom

Townhall.com has the transcript of an interview in which Hugh Hewitt makes Lawrence O’Donnell look like a fool. Actually O‘Donnell is a fool and Hewitt just puts the high beams on that fact.
Insert clever s.logan has observations on spelling bees and why she still spells it ‘rasberry.’
And So It Goes In Shreveport has a link to a special about Louisiana Honor Air. Then she has a post about Hannity’s interview of Marco Rubio.
Pundit and Pundette has a good post about Sonia Sotomryer that has quotes from many sources and links to a lit of sites.
By The Other McCain I think he means the good McCain, i. e. , not John or Meghan. From the Other I get this quote: "The idea that you pull back from a fight because someone is from a different ethnic group is part of the mistake Republicans made and how we got President Obama in the first place."
-- Ron Robinson, Young America's Foundation
And he has a post titled Happy News for Weimar America that describes the state of the American economy today. He’s not so sure you can take to the bank everything the President and his most respectful worshipers say on that topic.

More Good Reading on the Net

Jo-Joe Politico has story about three newly commissioned US Navy ships. To give a little of the flavor, the USS BARACK OBAMA has, “An onboard Type One DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may seem hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.”
Jane Q. Republican has a clip from the Rachel Maddow show. Rachel seems unbelievably self-satisfied that she just happens to have joined a political party that is presently in the ascendancy. She seems to be under the impression that there is some kind of direct relationship between truth and number of people claiming membership in a party this week. I wonder if she will make a similar connection between herself generally being FOS and tne mass migration of viewers away from her show. Reminds me of the Democratic Party days of being an offshoot of the KKK throughout the South and so many Democrats felt especially smart for having been born white. She probably acts especially smug also because this is not one of those days that her Mercedes had to be hauled into the shop. During most of the clip she is interviewing Ron Paul.
Stop the ACLU has a fascinating clip of the Democrat members of the House Judiciary Committee voting to protect pedophiles from hate crimes. Then one of the Democrats gets all uppity and nasty because she feels it’s an insult to pedophiles and others to propose that the legislation also protect veterans. The money quote: “If a mother hears that their child has been raped and she slaps the assailant with her purse, she is now gone after as a hate criminal because this is a protected class. There are other protected classes in here. I mean simple exhibitionism. I have female friends who have told me over the years that some guy flashed them, and their immediate reaction was to hit them with their purse. Well now, he’s committed a misdemeanor, she has committed a federal hate crime because the exhibitionism is protected under sexual orientation.” Truly the nuts are now running the walnut factory, they just call themselves Democrats and members of congress.
Pundit and Pundette have a post titled ‘Obama and henchmen accused of Mafia-like Tactics’ which is about the reports coming out of the Chrysler reorganization talks. They provide some good links. They have a couple of good quotes from Mark Steyn. And then a clip of the Oklahoma Full Auto Shoot and Trade Show which will appeal to fans of sniper rifles and fully automatic weaponry titled ‘Video: Just for fun, shooting at a minivan filled with explosives.’ Finally P & P have a post about some communication between the president and Senator Orin Hatch about the coming SCOTUS nomination. “On Monday, Obama presented him with a decoder ring in the form of a phone call to assure the conservative Hatch that the court pick wouldn’t be divisive or dangerous — and would attract bipartisan support“ But in Obama‘s brave new world, who knows what this means, so P & P give it some context.
Suzanna at Insert clever s,logan here has a post titled ‘Punk-smacking the Beyotch, er Behar’ about a recent interview of Ann Coulter by Joy Behar in which AC owns Behar who was left with a confused look on her face. Then comes a post titled ’The Dark Side’ that is about Wolverine. Suzanna hasn’t seen it yet but I have little doubt that she will.
And So It Goes In Shreveport has a post about Saxbe Chambliss’s effort to make sure none of the Gitmo detainees are released onto US soil. Why, you might wonder, does Chambliss have to go to a lot of trouble to enact what is plainly common sense? Read the post, I highly recommend it. Pat also has a little post about the presidential--plane NYC flyover fiasco (also known as the $328,835 snapshot that caused many in DC to exclaim. “Who me? No not me?” but left me wondering if anyone is both responsible and accountable). This is followed by a piece titled ‘An Empathetic Judge' that I would subtitle ‘SCOTUS, Empathy. Code Words and what drives those in Washington to never say what the truly mean” and the subsubtitle would be “I was a fool to trust you or anyone like you.’ If you’re picking up a lot of attitude here, it’s from me not Pat. She tends to traffic more in the objective world. At least until she talks about goats. She likes them. The last recent thing is a nightmare inducing post about someone recommending Algore to replace Souter. Thankfully I feel certain that our advocate for the polar bears would not take that low a salary or accept that heavy a workload.
Betsy’s Page tells us that, in spite of Reid’s support, Specter was not allowed any seniority in the Democrat’s caucus for time served as a Republican. Then Betsy, who is a high school teacher, has a long post critical of tenure for teachers. This was occasioned by a story in the L. A. Times that points out tenure is bad for kids, schools and education. Her quote from Mickey Kaus is worth relaying, “It's worth saying again: If the twittish, PC L.A.Times is now going after the teachers' unions, those unions have lost the PR battle in the mainstream press. Does President Obama ("We can afford nothing but the best when it comes to our children's teachers") know this? Do the Republicans who are desperately looking for an issue to use against the Dems?”