Blogs For Victory

She doesn’t intend to, but she does, all the same:

I would love to have a sophisticated national dialogue about Legal Realism (which is much-discussed here at the University of Wisconsin Law School), but so far it looks as though the discussion will not be too sophisticated. It’s pretty much: she talked about Legal Realism, Legal Realism is judicial activism, and judicial activism is judges imposing their own political preferences, so Sonia Sotomayor is unfit for the Supreme Court. But, as University of Chicago lawprof Brian Leiter said:

“Everybody who knows anything knows that Legal Realism is a description of what judges really do… I give [Sotomayor] a lot of credit, frankly, for talking about it openly. It’s unusual for a sitting judge to say it openly, because judges don’t want to attract the political heat from acknowledging what everyone already knows, which is that appellate judges especially have to make new law – that they can’t just apply the law as written.”

I would love to have more Supreme Court Justices who say what they really think. Imagine if, when reading a “decision,” we were actually reading the decision.

Here is an excellent run-down on legal realism – well worth reading. But “legal realism”, “judicial activism” and such catch-phrases are really just a dodge, and a good part of the reason why the judicial system – and, especially, the lawyers who man it – are held in contempt. In the case of legal realism, what we have is a body of thought which refuses to say “I don’t know” – rather than admit that, at times, the law doesn’t cover the exact case before the Court, the Court simply decides to “get real” about it and make up legal feces as they go along. The underlying concept behind such things is a conviction that lawyers and judges know better – after all, they went to law school and have a book case full of law books, right? Must be smarter than the rest of us. They’re also rich, and we know that money is the measure of the man.

What do the people want? Well, the people want to know who did it – who did the murder/rape/robbery/con, and then impose the appropriate punishment on whomever did it, taking into consideration any mitigating circumstances. The people never were much interested in whether or not a crook caught red-handed knew precisely what his 5th Amendment rights were and the people certainly never felt it was the cops’ duty to tell the criminal about it…if you’re going in to crime as a career, its upon you to learn the ins and outs of criminal law, ya know? It took lawyers – once again, smarter than the people – to figure out that not only should a cop have to tell a criminal exactly what he can do, but that the way to punish the cops for getting it wrong was to release the criminal back into the public, to prey upon the people some more until the cops could dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s before bringing the miscreant back to the judge. It also took lawyers to figure out that someone who smokes for 50 years, and for decades after its found to be cancer-causing, are the innocent victims of tobacco growers…

We all know, in a moment, a hundred examples of lawyers and judges doing weird, inexplicable things – things which are so clearly in contravention of common sense and the law that it seems their goal is to see what they can get away with. Like the lawyers get together with the judge in the back room and say “hey, do you think they’ll buy a million dollar judgment for someone spilling coffee on themselves”? What we don’t need is another judge who thinks she’s so clever that she can figure out, all on her own, what is what. All we want out of our judges is the laws – as written – enforced, with due consideration given to the hierarchy of laws – ie, the US Constitution trumps the county ordinance. If the law turns out to be idiotic, then we’ll fix it, ourselves, via the legislative process…or, perhaps, we won’t…maybe we, the people, like idiotic laws. Its not for judges to decide.

Sotomayor is just another one in a long line of lawyers and judges who believes her own press releases. She’s unfit for the Court by virtue of her racist statement – but even if that is not to be considered dispositive, the fact that she wants to use “legal realism” rather than the law indicates that a judge is the last thing she should be. If she wants to make law, let her run for Congress…if she wants to be a judge, let her shut her trap on what the law should be, and just concentrate on what it is.

The murder of abortionist George Tiller is, indeed, a tragedy though not, as pro- and anti-abortion people are painting it. For the pro-abortion forces, the murder of Tiller is a horrific crime showing how bad the anti-abortion mindset can be. For the anti-abortion forced, the murder of Tiller is feared to cause a pro-abortion backlash, at least in law, at a time when the Culture of Life is rapidly winning the debate. It is a horrific crime, and it will cause a backlash – but there is a larger issue at stake.

In Tiller we had a man who gathered vast resources, public and private, to provide protection for his business – which was, after all, the killing of unborn children even long after they were viable outside the womb. In his murderer we have a man who turned reason on its head and proposed to murder in the name of life. Both men thought they were doing good – and managed to convince themselves of this while they were planning murder. As a commentary on just how depraved our society has become, there is no better (or worse) example.

Tiller has now gone before the judgment seat of God and, in the by and by, we’ll all know how he fared there. His murderer will likely be sent there at taxpayer expense, either via execution or life imprisonment. And there, too, we’ll all eventually find out how he fares. I don’t presume to speak for God, but I do wonder if Tiller will be confronted with the children he killed, and whether his murderer will be asked about the children he could have saved, had he opened up a crisis pregnancy center rather than plotting cold blooded murder? It is said in the linked news story that Tiller once wore a button stating “Trust Women”; the irony was apparently lost on him who worked diligently to relieve women of the children entrusted to them. I wonder what pro-life things we’ll find among his murderer’s effects?

As Our Lord was being nailed to the cross, he asked God to forgive his tormentors, as they did not know what they were doing – so, too, I think, with Tiller and his murderer. Both men were trapped in a confusion of loyalties wrought by a century of moral relativism; neither could see the humanity in their victim, neither could remember that what one does to the least of these, he does to Our Lord. I pray God will forgive both men and I pray that those who are now attempting to paint Tiller or his murderer a some sort of hero will come to an understanding of what Life is, and what it is for.

So, naturally, they are trying to suppress it – Ed Morrissey notes:

Mark Tapscott notices an interesting blog post by Norman Eisen, who works for Barack Obama as Special Counsel to the President on Ethics and Government Reform. Anticipating a deluge of criticism over the thus-far ineffectual spending plan, Eisen has a straightforward plan to deal with criticism. He’ll simply use the power of the federal government to silence it. Problem solved!

“First, we will expand the restriction on oral communications to cover all persons, not just federally registered lobbyists. For the first time, we will reach contacts not only by registered lobbyists but also by unregistered ones, as well as anyone else exerting influence on the process. We concluded this was necessary under the unique circumstances of the stimulus program. [emphasis mine — Ed]

Second, we will focus the restriction on oral communications to target the scenario where concerns about merit-based decision-making are greatest –after competitive grant applications are submitted and before awards are made. Once such applications are on file, the competition should be strictly on the merits. To that end, comments (unless initiated by an agency official) must be in writing and will be posted on the Internet for every American to see.

Third, we will continue to require immediate internet disclosure of all other communications with registered lobbyists. If registered lobbyists have conversations or meetings before an application is filed, a form must be completed and posted to each agency’s website documenting the contact.

For years we were told that dissent was the highest form of patriotism…apparently, the highest form in 2009 is slavish devotion to the Obamunist party line. Who is an “unregistered lobbyist”? Who is “exerting influence”? Well, my friends, that is you and me – and anyone else the White House doesn’t want mouthing off on the Spendulus program. We’re now shut out – unless we first fill out a form…the White House doesn’t have to fill out a form before commenting on us “unregistered lobbyists”, but we have to fill out a form for them to post on the web. Meanwhile, the CEO of GE – who is well connected to the White House – just what form do you think he’ll be expected to fill out? Only the one detailing how much money he’ll donate in 2012.

Obama and Co are trying to carefully script the whole thing. They have to, you see? When you’ve promised to “save or create” x number of jobs, provide health care for all Americans, reduce the deficit, win the war and a host of other things, you can’t afford to have a free flow of information…that would get tricky and might allow the truth to come out. And we can’t have that, now can we? I mean, if the truth comes out, Obama might lose in 2012, and how would that help Obama?

Words for the GOP to battle for:

I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and progress. – Frederick Douglas

They want to destroy the Church because that is the strongest bulwark of civilization – and the bulwark is fighting back:

In the United States District Court Friday, attorneys representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Bridgeport filed a lawsuit against officials of the State of Connecticut Office of State Ethics (OSE), seeking a court order to stop them from an unconstitutional application of state lobbying laws.

These officials are requiring the Diocese – and presumably all other organizations – to register as a lobbyist in order to engage in activities such as a rally at the State Capitol or using its website to encourage its members to contact their elected representatives. Application of the law in this manner would subject the First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Assembly to government oversight and penalties.

Bishop William E. Lori stated today, “Following the surprise introduction of Bill 1098, a proposal that singled out Catholic parishes and would have forced them to reorganize contrary to Church law and the First Amendment, our Diocese responded in the most natural, spontaneous, and frankly, American, of ways: we alerted our membership – in person and through our website; we encouraged them to exercise their free speech by contacting their elected representatives; and, we organized a rally at the State Capitol. How can this possibly be called lobbying?”

They are trying to make it very 1984-ish…in that it won’t be actually illegal to petition the government for redress of grievances, but there will be so many hoops to jump through that it is inevitable that if you do attempt to petition, you’ll be in violation of the law. Naturally, this will only apply to those groups who tend to be in favor of freedom…if you are petitioning the government to tighten the screws on, say, the Church, then no scrutiny will be applied. Fascism is coming to America in little drips…just a bit more, just a bit more, just a bit more…and before you know it, you’ve lost parental authority, property rights, freedom of speech…and free exercise of religion.

All of this – plus the increasing corrupt in government and the continuing collapse of the economy – are setting up a revolutionary sentiment in the population. In Britain it looks like more than half the members of Parlaiment will not be returned after the next election; in the United States, once safe liberals like Dodd are increasingly under threat. All across the western world, the people are growing restive about the way things have gone – the way, that is, our powerful elites have screwed things up and propose to cure the disease by giving us more of the same. These attempts to silence critics are just part of the desperate, rear-guard action of the powerful…trying to shut us down and shut us out, lest we turn them all out into the streets and take back our government.

The current is set, however – it can’t be turned back; it might be delayed for a while, but the river of liberty is about to drown liberal fascism in a flood of revolution.

Well, thanks, Democrats:

Continue reading →

Ann Althouse dispatches the concept that Sotomayor’s statement was something which was garbled, out of context or in some way excusable:

…it was not an unguarded spontaneous outburst. It was a carefully written speech delivered to a particular audience. Sotomayor was saying the things that would be well-received by her audience. Indeed, I have trouble getting roused by her statement — “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” — because I’ve been immersed for a quarter century in the kind of law school environment that she addressed. Here, we sympathetically smile and nod at such things. We nurture racial analysis. We create a school of thought and hire people to write about Critical Race Theory. What Sotomayor said was actually a weak, feel-good version of the kind of racial talk that is widespread in the legal academy.

Althouse suggests that we view the statement as “racial” rather than “racist” but to me that is a distinction without a difference. The plain fact of the matter is that the liberal elite of this nation believes that white people are inherently wicked (unless they are liberal, of course) and must pay back the non-white population for what they have stolen from them…thus Sotomayor’s racist statement that a Latina woman can have insights superior to a white male’s is nothing to write home about. Its non-controversial on the left. Its like asserting that low taxes are good on the right side of the aisle – a truth so embedded in the worldview as to be considered self-evident.

But it is racist – unlike the left, we on the right have retained our understanding of right and wrong. What Martin Luther King fought against was wrong – to consider anyone superior or inferior on account of race is morally wrong; it degrades the dignity inherent in all men, which is endowed to them by God. We learned, and we’ll never go down that road again. The left learned, but only for a moment…after MLK’s death, hustlers took over and the task was no longer justice, but what could be gotten out of government. Taking off from this, a whole host of idiocy was enshrined in our institutions of higher education (such as, among other monstrosity, “Chicano Studies”

Chicano studies, black studies, feminist studies…all of these disciplines built up in order to allow race-baiters to live on the government gravy train. Sotomayor is the product of this sort of thing – she was told this twaddle in college, she believes it, and she’s going to impose it on us via judicial fiat. If we wish to fight against racism, then this is our struggle – to eject from office anyone who holds to the sort of views Sotomayor has…she might very sincerely believe she’s not racist…but many whites in the South thought that, too.

Had a bit of a party at the Noonan homestead last night then had to work on Sunday…consider this an open thread.

And I’ll bet that Obamunism just accelerates this trend:

My friend Eric Ostermeier at the University of Minnesota has been parsing 160 polls taken recently in Minnesota and the Upper Midwest, and found a surprising result. Despite having elected Barack Obama by wide margins in most of the states, voters in the region have become more conservative over the past two years. Self-identifying conservatives have reached their highest levels in at least four years:

In 2006, the percentage of Minnesotans identifying as conservatives plunged 5.3 points (15.9 percent) to just 28.1 percent of Gopher State residents. Self-identified conservatives in Iowa also declined by 5.1 points (13.9 percent) to 31.5 percent that year, with the largest drop occurring in Wisconsin, with a 6.1-point decline (16.9 percent) to 29.9 percent. In that November’s election cycle, Republicans lost control of the Minnesota House, the Iowa House, the Wisconsin Senate, as well as three U.S. House seats (MN-01, IA-01, WI-08).

The percentage of residents identifying as conservatives declined again in 2007, by 1.6 points in Minnesota (to 26.5 percent), by 3.0 points in Iowa (to 28.5 percent), and by 2.2 points in Wisconsin (to 27.7 percent).

However, during the last two years, conservatism seems to be mounting a comeback in the Upper Midwest, even though the 2008 election cycle saw Republicans lose control of the Wisconsin Assembly, and lose additional seats in the Minnesota House, Minnesota Senate, Iowa House, and Iowa Senate.

In Minnesota, those Gopher State residents identifying as conservative increased by 1.3 points in 2008 (to 27.8 percent) and by another 1.2 points to 29.0 percent in an aggregation of polling data through the first five months of 2009. This marks the largest percentage of Minnesotans viewing themselves as conservative since 2005.

In Iowa and Wisconsin, the conservative resurgence has been even more pronounced.

Obviously, that didn’t help much in 2008, but part of the answer for that may be in the candidates fielded by the Republicans.

We’re being fed a siren song by the left and by weak kneed GOPers that we have to mute our conservatism…to be less confrontational, to be more nicey-nice and, of course, be more willing to “accept” moderates (which means, of course, “pour out your sweat and treasure for nominal GOPers who will cut you off at the knees when it really matters”). This bit of advice from liberals is what liberals want very much for us to do – because anything which tends to allow them to appear moderate by blending in with the GOP helps them get elected by a center/right electorate. This bit of advice from weak kneed GOPers is what the weak kneed want because they prefer to be invited to the cool parties and have soft-ball interviews on MSM talk shows…makes ’em look smart and important, ya know? Combined, this advice will allow the left to have a kept GOP minority and allow the left to rule the roost. This advice thus doesn’t commend itself to me.

We need to be more stark in our differentiation with the left – with Obama and his Democrats we must be clearly and absolutely different from them. When the wheels finish coming off the Obama Express, we have to be in a position where we warned it would happen, and have a clear alternate plan already in the public mind. Its like this – we screwed up and we lost; the liberals won…allow the liberals to run things and thus allow them to take full responsibility for how bad it gets. Enunciate a clear, conservative message and the people will swing back to us.

• Obama Fuel Economy Plan: Pay More, Get Less
• New York’s Taxes Send People and Businesses Out Of State
• Green Jobs Equal Green Unemployment
• The Empire State Strikes Back