...and what's worse, he is a traitor to his people. Here is Citizen Obama's attempt to be relevant while opposing the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown to the DC Court of Appeals.
(Note to the senator: Take a good look at what happens to other blacks annointed as "rising stars" in the Party of Blasphemy, Buggery, and 'Bortion.)
Now, the test for a qualified judicial nominee is not simply whether they are intelligent. Some of us who attended law school or are in business know there are a lot of real smart people out there whom you would not put in charge of stuff. The test of whether a judge is qualified to be a judge is not their intelligence. It is their judgment.
Wow, how persuasive.
Unfortunately, as has been stated repeatedly on this floor, in almost every legal decision that she has made and every political speech that she has given, Justice Brown has shown she is not simply a judge with very strong political views, she is a political activist who happens to be a judge. It is a pretty easy observation to make when you look at her judicial decisions. While some judges tend to favor an activist interpretation of the law and others tend to believe in a restrained interpretation of the law providing great deference to the legislature, Justice Brown tends to favor whatever interpretation leads her to the very same ideological conclusions every single time.
Socialists always accuse their enemies of doing what they themselves do. A classic and effective Leninist-Leninist tactic.
Judicial decisions ultimately have to be based on evidence and on fact. They have to be based on precedent and on law. When you bend and twist all of these to cramp them into a conclusion you have already made -- a conclusion that is based on your own personal ideology -- you do a disservice to the ideal of an independent judiciary and to the American people who count on an independent judiciary.
Huh? Which is it?
Because of this tendency, and because of her record, it seems as if Justice Brown's mission is not blind justice but political activism. The only thing that seems to be consistent about her overarching judicial philosophy in an unyielding belief in an unfettered free market and a willingness to consistently side with the powerful over the powerless.
What he accuses his enemies of...
Justice Brown believes, as has already been stated in the Chamber, that the New Deal, which helped save our country and get it back on its feet after the Great Depression, was a triumph of our very own "Socialist revolution." She has equated altruism with communism. (Emphasis mine.) She equates even the most modest efforts to level life's playing field with somehow inhibiting our liberty.
Jackass. Read a book.
No.
I apologize to all the jackasses of the world. Even a jackass would hesitate to say "She has equated altruism with communism." Anyone who equates the New Deal with charity has serious problems indeed...
The junior senator from Illinois is nothing more than a low grade moron or its political equivalent, the left-fascist demagogue.
For those who pay attention to legal argument, one of the things that is most troubling is Justice Brown's approval of the Lochner era of the Supreme Court. In the Lochner case, and in a whole series of cases prior to Lochner being overturned, the Supreme Court consistently overturned basic measures like minimum wage laws, child labor safety laws, and rights to organize, deeming those laws as somehow violating a constitutional right to private property. The basic argument in Lochner was you can't regulate the free market because it is going to constrain people's use of their private property. Keep in mind that that same judicial philosophy was the underpinning of Dred Scott, the ruling that overturned the Missouri Compromise and said that it was unconstitutional to forbid slavery from being imported into the free States.
The ignorance of this descendent of slaves (my assumption) is breathtaking. The constitution defined slaves as chattel. It was not a question of property rights. It was a question of whether some people are allowed to say who is human and who is not. (For you bourgeois legalists out there, please see Dred Scott v. Sanford, Jews v. Nazis, and Roe v. Wade.)
BTW, to all of you who laughed at Alan Keyes and refused to help him win: I told you so.
No comments:
Post a Comment