5/27/2009:   Barack Obama nominated Sonia Sotomayor to fill David Souter's Supreme Court seat. It's time to not only review her more interesting rulings and writings, it's also time to watch the GOP spin itself into butter trying to derail Obama's choice.

As recently as 2006, she expressed the view that a justice should apply their gender and racial composition to any decision in which it can be applied. So justice shouldn't be blind to such issues. Her argument is that those qualities apply, that it is a disservice to the cause of justice to ignore the various experiences that come with variations in these qualities. She went on to express the opinion that a latino woman would hand down superior opinions to white men who hadn't had the same experiences. Perhaps she simply has difficulty expressing herself when it comes to pointing out advantages to racial disparity, but not only does she do it poorly, it could be argued that she shouldn't be waving a racial banner at all.

When she won Senate confirmation to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1998, during Bill Clinton's term in office, all 29 "no" votes were cast by Republicans. And even though it was Poppa Bush that nominated her to the federal bench, I can't imagine why they wouldn't repeat themselves now in spite of her tremendous amount of judicial experience. She represents everything the conservatives hypocritically claim to despise: she has stated that she believes in deciding policy from the bench, she's a woman (as indicated)

A senior White House official told CNN that Sotomayor was "nominated by George Bush — then Bill Clinton — (and has) more judicial experience than anyone sitting on the court had at the time they were nominated."

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor said in a 2001 speech that a judge's gender and ethnicity does, and should, influence his or her decision-making on the bench.

Sotomayor made the comments on October 26, 2001, at a University of California-Berkeley symposium marking the 40th anniversary of the first Latino named to the federal district court.

"I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society," she said at the event, sponsored by the law school. "I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that — it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."

"Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement," she added. "First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio, the former Florida Speaker of the House competing in a Republican primary against Gov. Charlie Crist, is "deeply concerned" about Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's pick for the Supreme Court. And though Rubio is an up-and-coming Cuban-American politician in a battleground state where Hispanic voters can often tip elections, he believes Sotomayor's legal record should be the focal point of the nomination process — not her heritage. Crist has not weighed in on the nomination. Rubio issued the following statement: "I look forward to hearing more about Judge Sotomayor and her views about the proper role of the courts and judicial activism. The role the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution, not to make law. Given this, I am deeply concerned about Judge Sotomayor's past comment that the courts are 'where policy is made' and look forward to hearing her explanation and defense of that view. "Judge Sotomayor deserves a fair hearing and respectful treatment, but there is much in her legal background that is troubling and demands scrutiny and honest discussion. I hope that a serious examination of her record and beliefs will not be shelved or cast aside simply so Democrats can attempt to claim political credit for a 'historic' court nomination." Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney issued a statement Tuesday on Sotomayor's nomination: "The nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court is troubling. Her public statements make it clear she has an expansive view of the role of the judiciary. Historically, the Court is where judges interpret the Constitution and apply the law. It should never be the place "where policy is made," as Judge Sotomayor has said. Like any nominee, she deserves a fair and thorough hearing. What the American public deserves is a judge who will put the law above her own personal political philosophy." Former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee issued a statement Tuesday on Sotomayor's nomination: The appointment of Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court is the clearest indication yet that President Obama's campaign promises to be a centrist and think in a bi-partisan way were mere rhetoric. Sotomayor comes from the far left and will likely leave us with something akin to the "Extreme Court" that could mark a major shift. The notion that appellate court decisions are to be interpreted by the "feelings" of the judge is a direct affront of the basic premise of our judicial system that is supposed to apply the law without personal emotion. If she is confirmed, then we need to take the blindfold off Lady Justice.

5/27/2009:   Mr. Limbaugh: the thwarted plot against NYC that you mentioned on your show the other day while trying to justify torture happened in 2002, was about flying planes into a building, not detonating a nuclear device, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed wasn't captured until 2003, so no information he gave would have had anything to do with preventing that attack.

5/20/2009:   This one stumps me. District Judge John Bates handed down a decision that anyone the president labels a terrorist can be detained indefinitely without charges. Of course this includes al Qaeda and Taliban members, but it isn't limited to them. The only qualification required is that the president stipulate that the person is *believed* to support terror or enemy forces. Keep in mind that habeas corpus was thrown out by the Bush administration, and Obama has decided to keep that policy in force.

So Obama (I never thought I'd hear myself say this) is okay with, and has been given the green light for, labeling anyone at all with being a terrorist, throwing them in prison, and leaving them there without formal charges, legal counsel, or the ability to bring a habeas corpus suit.

That is too much damned power for one man, and Obama knows it. He's not stupid, he can't play the stupid card like Bush did. He's a pretty darned smart guy, and this is a direct violation of the principles upon which our government was founded.

It's weird to me that there are people in this country who scream for smaller government, but want the government to have the power to throw you or me away forever without having to justify it.

5/20/2009:   The GOP is making a ton of noise about the closing of Guantanamo. The picture they paint in garish Picasso style is of the terrorists being released into the general population or housed in a minimum security facility from which they will simply walk away.

Is anyone really buying this crap?

We have terrorists in American prisoners right now. We have people who are clinically insane, mass murderers, serial rapists, and child molesters in prison HERE, NOW. Why would we treat these guys any differently from other major threats to society? Of course they'd be held in a supermax prison. Of course they would never be released to the American public. Of course they would, if ever released, be deported. Is there anyone that actually is STUPID enough to believe otherwise?

Give me a break...

5/20/2009:   Integrity-challenged Newt Gingrich thinks Nancy Pelosi should resign because she says the CIA misled Congress about the use of torture in interrogating prisoners. He said, "She charged that the CIA, deliberately and as a matter of policy, violated the law by lying to Congress... And with that allegation, Speaker Pelosi disqualified herself from the office she holds."

Hang on, let me get this straight: Lying disqualifies you from holding political office? When did that memo go out? Do the rest of the Republicans know about your position on lying, Newt? Is that why you no longer hold public office, instead taking pot-shots at people who are doing the real work?

What an appropriate name, "Newt". Something slimey and wiggly that lives under rocks in muck-filled water, coming out only to feed on rotting material before scurrying back under the rocks.

He went on to say, "Speaker Pelosi has damaged America's safety. She's made America less secure by sending a signal to the men and women defending our country that they can't count on their leaders to defend them."

Actually, Newt, she makes the nation safer by requiring full and honest disclosure to Congress, something sorely lacking under the last administration.

"If you were a CIA agent today and you were told to brief Nancy Pelosi, how could you have any sense of confidence in telling her anything?"

Well, Newt, that depends on whether or not you intended to LIE to her. If you're telling the truth, you may want to document your visit and maybe even record it for future use if you actually think she'd lie to sell you out, but there's no proof of that here. In fact it's the CIA's integrity that ought to be in question here. We know that the CIA was instructed to fabricate "evidence" of WMDs to help make the case for invading Iraq. I have no trouble believing that a culture of secrecy, of answering truthfully and completely only to Dick Cheney, pervaded the CIA at that time.

And it bolsters her case that Bob Graham, former senator from Florida and once the governor of Florida, a fine upstanding individual and one helluva a sharp guy, takes notes about everything he does, from brushing his teeth to what he eats, who he talks to, what he talks about, where he goes, I mean EVERYTHING. And of the four dates the CIA claims they briefed Congress, three were flat out wrong. No briefing occurred at all. When Mr. Graham took his spiral bound notebooks containing his incredibly detailed journal to the CIA and asked for clarification, they got all red and mumbled that maybe he was right...

One last thing to keep in mind: Pelosi is making these claims as she is asking for full disclosure of torture documents and timelines. Full disclosure is not something that someone asks for when they're lying.

So, Newt, stick it up your bum, you idiot. Once a lying sack, always a lying sack, eh Newt? When you keep in mind that Newt's fantasy is the utter destruction of the United States of America, it all makes sense.

5/7/2009:   Found this on a foaming-at-the-mouth-rabid-NeoCon site:

I would tend to agree, but only insofar as there is destroying one's enemy, and there is destroying what makes someone one's enemy. The blog I found this attached to discussed being against women's rights, which is always couched in religious terms. True to form, most of the emblems and slogans are religiously extreme and at least hint at violent tactics. The slogan next to the blurb above read "Disproportionate Response", and, though it was blurred, seemed to have the U.S. flag and the Israeli flag on it. I'm guessing that's a reference to the "war on terror." The blurb strongly suggests that you should kill your enemies at the first opportunity.

I would suggest that, while the bloodthirsty contingent in this country would love to read that blurb in only one way, there is a more mature, albeit more challenging, translation. It could be construed that converting one's enemy, understanding your enemy and converying an understanding of yourself to your enemy, coming to a mutual graps of your commonality and coming to terms with your enemy, might very well make your enemy your friend, or at least someone you no longer have to call your enemy.

Bush touted the low road, the barbaric and far more dangerous course of challenging your enemy to a physical fight without first attempting diplomatic options. He never tried to convert his enemy, to reduce tensions. In the case of 9/11 and the Taliban in Afghanistan, there was just simply, "Get out of the way, we're coming in," and I can't say I wouldn't have done the same, but his handling of Iraq, Syria, and Korea amounted to labeling them the "Axis of Evil" and thereby setting a bullying and irrational tone to future interactions with those countries.

Obama, in a 180 degree turn, has made it clear to everyone without actually saying, "That last guy was a bozo; I'm smarter and cooler than he is, so you can relax," that Bush was a bozo, etc. He's destroying the walls between the U.S. and her enemies and attempting to quell violence with reason first. I have no doubt he has little compunction against sending our troops against hardened enemies that mean to attack us, but until we reach the moment of violence, he's smart enough to try *not* getting our troops killed until it's absolutely necessary. And in the end, he'll make friends of our enemies. And isn't that what the leader of the most powerful country in the world can not only afford to do, but has an obligation to attempt?

5/1/2009:   The GOP is trying to shake the label, "Party of No," blaming the lack of bipartisan cooperation in Congress right now on the Democrats. Then they turn around and make it very clear they will oppose anyone Obama picks to replace the retiring Supreme Court justice David Souter.

Irrelevant morons. Arlen Specter was smart to change sides, and when Coleman finally runs out of ways to keep Franken from being seated, the Dems will have 60 in the Senate and the potential, as unlikely as it may be, to break filibusters. The GOP is looking mighty weak right now, and it's going to take more than just "changing the message" to make them relevant again.

5/1/2009:   Last week, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, when asked how she felt about same-sex marriage, took a deep breath and answered honestly that she felt that same-sex marriage was wrong and that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry. She apologized if she offended anyone, but stuck to her guns.

Miss Prejean lost the contest and blamed it on the response to her answer. She felt that because she stood by her beliefs, she deserved to win.

The problem here is that Miss Prejean, who clearly isn't used to being told, "no," doesn't understand that perhaps her lack of intelligence trumped her integrity. Her 2009 BC answer could be expected to be held negatively in 2009 AD. Her willingness to discriminate against people who love each other and want to be treated as normal citizens, to echo ignorant positions about parenting, and to pretend that the words "no offense" and a pearly smile will assuage the hurt her opinion causes when publicly voiced, might very well have been the deciding factor in the contest.

And everyone that is screaming that she's being punished for expressing her views can sit down and shut up now. You're right. She's probably being punished for it. And that's to be expected when you voice an ignorant, hateful opinion. If she had trashed blacks using ignorant stereotypes, or Mexicans, or Jews, or Asians, etc., no one would have been surprised or defended her. The fact that she has the support of a subset of our population that constitute a culture of ignorance and hatred doesn't make her act less putrid and vile.

So, Miss California, seriously, go away. I don't know why you lost, but you have proven once again that beauty is skin deep, and you showed yourself to be shockingly ugly on the inside.

There were never any WMDs in Iraq.
No links to Al Qaeda.
No ties to 9/11.
Bush, Cheney, and Condie lied to you.
You ignored the facts.
You re-elected a liar and a murderer by proxy.
But now it's time to show your support for the troops.

I'm going to leave this up for a while yet. These traitors have not been held accountable for their crimes, and I want to make sure they never quite leave the public eye. Bush and Cheney deserve to be in jail, but even if that justice is never meted out, our nation deserves to have the crimes publicly recognized and measures taken to ensure that such a presidency can never happen again.

The following people voted against the Constitution, against the Fourth Amendment, against your rights, freedoms, liberties, and protections. A version of the FISA reform bill that grants retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that broke the law at the president's behest and gives the president the ability to grant immunity without oversight or further authorization, has passed the United States House of Representatives on Friday, June 20th, 2008. These are the people that voted for that measure. Included among them are Democrats that have betrayed their constituencies, including my own Jerry McNerney. Let us not forget these traitors at election time.