Sotomayor's race colored glasses

Barack Obama's selection of Sonia Sotomayor is par for the course with this president, a man who ascended the presidency on the basis of a compelling personal story and a bag full of bromides about post-partisan hope and change. Those who bought the Obama schtick may not have known it then, but they elected a hyper-partisan pol with big dreams of remaking America into a social justice utopia where the ends always justify the means. Rules -- and indeed the rule of law -- mean little in this world where grievance politics dominate, and the playing field shifts regularly to protect those suffering all manner of "discrimination" at the hands of the (white) power structure. Its typical class warfare, only this time it is practiced with extreme efficiency and on the backs of a huge Congressional left-wing majority. For those who believe that America is a meritocracy and should be truly "color-blind", the country is now being run by those who see everything through race-colored glasses. The nomination of Sotomayor is a perfect example of this. Obama picked her not because she has the finest legal mind in the country (she does not), but because of she is an Hispanic woman who has a personal history that is appealing. She grew up poor in the Bronx and worked hard, and made something of herself. She also satisfies two check boxes on the identity politics checklist -- being a woman and a minority -- which brings Obama praise from NOW and other interest groups.

Ironically, Sotomayor's story is little different than that of conservative Justice Clarence Thomas -- a point eloquently made today by Kim Strassel in the Wall Street Journal. But whereas Thomas' personal struggles led him to embrace the lesson that if "I can do it, so can others" -- Sotomayor fell firmly into victimization's clutches, where she joins a legion of other minorities in the belief that the system is arrayed against them. The irony, of course, is that the evidence of their own success from hard-scrabble beginnings has done nothing to dissuade them from their hardened belief that somehow "the man" is out to get them. This is yet another example of how facts have little bearing on the "feeling" politics practiced by the left.

Sotomayor has made it clear that her view of the world -- and the law -- is based principally on her gender and background. It is something that she feels makes her better positioned to "come to a wise decision" than is a white man who hasn't been subjected to the devastating discrimination that people like Sotomayor see lurking behind every tree. If you view America as a mean place where Hispanics, women and other minorities need protection, then I suppose this is a reasonable position to take. But is this what a Justice of the United States Supreme Court should believe? Someone appointed to intepret the Constitution for all Americans -- white, black or other? A process that, by definition, must be impartial and based on legal fact and analysis?

As it happens, a famous case of Sotomayor's from her tenure on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is now being reviewed by the current Supreme Court -- as the Wall Street Journal outlines today in the case of the New Haven Fire Department:

With a single paragraph, Judge Sonia Sotomayor and two colleagues dashed the hopes of firefighters here who believed they'd scored high enough on exams to win a promotion.

The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters scored high enough.

The ruling is now turning into perhaps the most contentious of the 4,000 Judge Sotomayor made in 17 years on the federal bench, and it is likely to come up in her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. The justices whom she may soon join on the high court are expected to rule within weeks on the case, which they took on an appeal by white firefighters.

The facts of the case are as follows:

A total of 118 applicants took the two tests for promotion to lieutenant or captain in late 2003, and 59 earned passing scores. Because there were limited vacancies, only the top scorers were eligible for promotion -- a group of 17 whites, and two Hispanics. None of the 27 black firefighters with passing scores was eligible.

New Haven city lawyers advised the city's Civil Service Board to reject the results, warning the city could be exposed to a race-discrimination lawsuit by minority firefighters if it let the exam stand. The board heard conflicting views on whether the test could have been re-engineered to have a less disparate impact. It split 2-2, which meant the exam wasn't certified.

This is classic liberal social engineering at work: you give a merit based test to determine promotions and tell firefighters to study hard for it. They take the test and when the results come back in a way that you don't like, you throw the results out and say "nevermind". If no blacks and only two Hispanics scored high enough, it must be because of some discrimination at work. Let's not reward those who passed -- let's reengineer the test so more blacks and Hispanics will pass.

Sotomayor was at the heart of this decision -- stating that it was in the "state's interest" to throw out the results so that the outcome was more to her liking. And what about the white firefighters who have now been discriminated against? To Sotomayor, it doesn't matter, because she lives in a world where color matters more than principle. This is a woman who values outcomes over equality -- even if it results in a decision that is reverse discrimination.

We can take some solace that her decision in New Haven is almost certainly going to be reversed by the current Supreme Court. But it leaves little comfort that we are now poised to put this very same judge on the highest court in the land for a generation to come.

Torturing the truth more than our enemies

On September 11, 2001, a date which certainly ought to "live in infamy," 19 violent enemies of the United States carried out vicious airliner attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., killing nearly 3,000 persons. This is known to all, of course. Yet the ruling party today is determined to deprive us of the necessary means to prevent more attacks by abandoning the policies which protected us for the last eight years. President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats in Congress profess to be horrified at the specific tactics which the Central Intelligence Agency used to elicit information from three"high-value" targets. These men were seized in our successful campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan that harbored the Al Qaeda terrorists who carried out the 9/11 and other acts of mayhem, such as the previous bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993.

I say "profess" because the "torture" to which these mass murderers were subjected did not elicit any outrage from Democrats when they were briefed on the techniques back in 2001. There appeared to be general agreement that no stone should be left unturned in the effort to gain whatever information that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri could provide.

Although Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi denies it now, others present with her at the briefings the Bush Administration gave to congressional leaders have said that she not only knew of the enhanced interrogation techniques but approved of them, even urging that the CIA go beyond them if necessary. She was responding then as virtually every other American would have in her circumstances, given the enormity of the evil inflicted upon us and the undeniable evidence that these three men were either directly responsible for or fully informed about the 9/11 outrage.

The most useful information obtained was that an airliner attack was planned for Los Angeles. Was thwarting that attack not worth the CIA’s best efforts?

Webster’s Dictionary defines torture as "the infliction of severe pain, as to force information or confession." While any definition is only as accurate as its correspondence to reality, and that depends upon the judgment of those who understand what it is, a dictionary provides an impartial reference point.

However, the Wikipedia definition of waterboarding, which is based upon the contributions of "editors" who may or may not be impartial, describes waterboarding as "a form of torture" which "consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passage." It adds: "In contrast to submerging the head face-forward in water [the technique used in the Spanish Inquisition], waterboarding precipitates a gag reflex almost immediately. The technique does not inevitably cause lasting physical damage."

This is torture?

The rest of this story is that waterboarding has been used on American servicemen for years to prepare them for the abuse they will be subjected to should they be captured by enemy forces. There is no evidence that they have ever been subjected to the unspeakable methods favored by despotisms.

Few of us do not know that mutilation and decapitation have been resorted to by Islamist terrorists. It beggars belief that men who are that brutal will be inspired to change their ways by our refusal to use a harsh method that actually falls short of real torture.

Meanwhile, two Bush Administration legal advisors who thought through the constitutional and legal implications of enhanced interrogation techniques and wrote extensive memos about them, have been treated as evil men who provided cover for the government’s allegedly brutal policies. This is second-guessing at best and witch hunting at worst.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist Papers, "A government ought to contain in itself every power requisite to the full accomplishment of the objects committed to its care, and to the complete execution of the trusts for which it is responsible, free from every other control but a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."

The first duty of the government is public safety which, if it is to be adequately provided for, cannot be restricted as to means unless those means are immoral. It is not clear that subjecting a highly select group of known terrorists to maximum discomfort amounts to torture. If our government actually shrinks from its duties, the torture for millions of people will be far worse than that on three al-Qaeda operatives.

Too cute by half

George W. Bush had his share of flaws as president, but one of his abiding strengths was his clarity on the most important issues of the day. He was never a good communicator, but you always knew where he stood. He was resolute on protecting America and was willing to put his popularity in the cross hairs of his opponents to do so. He opposed stem-cell research because he is pro-life, and was adamant against the use of tax-payer monies to fund abortions. The Bush clarity was maddening to the left, but was a source of comfort for many in the country who knew that they didn't have to guess on a daily basis where the president stood. Contrast that with Barack Obama, and you are struck by the difference. As during the campaign, Obama still seeks to be all things to all people, trying to split the middle in lawyer-like fashion in order to make everyone happy. His statements on many issues have been muddled and confused, because he is apparently interested in being able to argue both sides with equal conviction. It makes for a fine lawyer. But does it make for a good president?

Daniel Henninger has an interesting take on it today in an opinion piece entitled "Harry, I have a gift". Here's an excerpt:

Early in the campaign, in January 2007, a New York Times reporter wrote a story about Mr. Obama's time as president of the Harvard Law Review. It was there, the reporter noted, "he first became a political sensation."

Here's why: "Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once." Also: "People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama's words."

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Ogletree told how Mr. Obama spoke on one contentious issue at the law school, and each side thought he was endorsing their view. Mr. Ogletree said: "Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me."

The reason I have never forgotten this article is its last sentence, in which Al Gore's former chief of staff Ron Klain, also of Harvard Law, reflects on the Obama sensation: "The interesting caveat is that is a style of leadership more effective running a law review than running a country."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in a book out next week, tells of congratulating freshman Sen. Obama on a phenomenal speech. Without a hint of conceit, Mr. Obama replied, "Harry, I have a gift."

He does. We know from tradition, though, that when the gods bestow magic on mortals, the gift can also imperil its possessor. The first hint of potential peril in Mr. Obama's gift arrived last week with the confusion over where the president stood on the terrorist interrogation memos and prosecution of former Bush officials. Here, as 19 years ago, many on both sides of a contentious issue who heard him speak thought Mr. Obama agreed with them.

Henninger goes on to discuss the confusion over the interrogation memos and the potential prosecutions of the memo-writers, when Rahm Emanuel said decisively "no" to prosecutions and the President said "well, maybe". The President was, as is his want, trying to give grist to the left in his public statement, while his staff later took great pains to clarify that he "wants to move on" from this chapter and isn't really interested in a prolonged "witch hunt", etc. It was splitting the difference in a way that Obama likes -- saying enough to appease his base but not so much that he can be pinned down to any clear position. It's Obama's way to use his "gift" to obfuscate and confuse, to distract people from his real intentions. He did it brilliantly during his campaign, where he appeared to be a moderate post-partisan politician who wanted to "change" Washington. The reality as we now know is quite different: a highly partisan pol who doesn't seem strong enough to stand up to the most partisan groups in the Democratic Party.

There is a very real danger when the gift for gab become a substitute for clear thought and concise communication. Perhaps the president's teleprompter has too much sway in this administration, taking the president on verbal forays that are too cute by half. It is bad enough when it confuses the American public. It is worse when it confuses our enemies into believing that we are weak and willing to compromise on even the most vital of national security issues.

I'd take clarity over the gift, any day.

Another one bites the dust

It's just a shame that a song by that title was actually more popular than Tuesday’s announcement from Senator Arlen Specter. This man just recently proclaimed he would not switch parties because it would upset the balance of power. A couple of years ago he got up in front of the Senate to announce he would sponsor a bill that would not allow Senators to switch parties during their term. So what does all this mean? Here are a few thoughts:

Once again another politician disappoints and outright lies to the public; One more reason not to trust them.

Our GOP has shown it has another member who can’t be trusted to do what he promises. All of us know without his support, the all-important 787 Billion “Economic Recovery” bill would not have been possible, and the world would be a different place today.

Let us be honest, Specter did this purely to save his own career. He most likely would have lost in the Republican primary and this was his only choice if he wanted to stay in the Senate.

Is this good or bad for the GOP?

I think it all depends on your point of view. If you are a tried and true Republican, you think they do no wrong and you will support them at all cost…..well then you probably are deeply distressed.

I happen to think it is both. If the party truly digs deep, atones for its sins, and finally stands up for itself, there is a great opportunity. What do I mean by “stands up for itself?” Well, it seems that every time the Democrats call us on the carpet about something, we just sit back and take it. We do not loudly defend our positions or even go after them when we do not like their policies. They play dirty politics, and folks, it is not our style. Sometimes you just cannot beat them if you do not have a straightforward and rational policy. It is rather obvious we need to get back to our roots, listen to Americans, stand up for what we believe, make some promises and LIVE by them. A message that is TRUE and really CONNECTS with America would be a good start.

Now for the BAD, or maybe the good. I fear if we do not get our act together quickly, our party will disintegrate. The history of political change is violent and quick. If you don’t believe me, read up on the transition from the Whigs to the Republican party before the Civil War. Or, how about how fast the Berlin Wall fell in 1989. It could happen if we are not careful. If we don’t clearly shape our positions, folks, I think it could happen before the next election in 2012.

Here is what I’d like to see us concentrate on:

** A Clear, Strong and Real Energy Policy that actually recognizes we need oil before we switch to another energy source. How about let’s go for a “Manhattan Project” to solve this problem.

** How about some REAL financial sanity.

** How about something to force our legislators to really live up to their promises. How about they have to sign a “warranty” that they actually read the bills they vote for.

** I’d go for a real and enforceable “None of the Above” on the ballot. If NOTA gets more votes, then both parties candidates are out and we have another election. Maybe they would actually do what they say!!!!

** And how about we change Election Day to April 15th. Nothing like having to vote on tax day!!! Maybe WE will actually think about what is really going on in Washington.

Bottom line: Time is running short for our party.

I do not want to see us go down into the junk heap of history as a failed experiment. I hope we can get our act together. If not we may be have to vote for the Democrats or the Common Sense party. It is important we speak to our leaders and plead with them for sanity and Common Sense.

Add Napolitano to lunatics list

Janet Napolitano, Homeland Security secretary for Obama, was responsible for that silly report about the potential of veterans and single-issue voters to be recruited into right-wing extremism. She issued this hastily written document over objections by some of her advisors, and just before the Tea Parties, in an apparent attempt to intimidate conservative and other protesters. Then she made her infamous remarks about border security. She claimed falsely that the 9/11 terrorists got into the USA by crossing the Canadian border. She also implied falsely that there is no border security there. “The pattern at the Canadian border has been informality,” she went on to say. “The borders are going to be enabled with greater technology, but it’s not going to be going back and forth as if there’s no border anymore.” She knew nothing about the subject, but pretended that she did.

She even said that whatever is being done on our southern border should also be done on our northern border. So either we stop building a border security fence along the Mexican border, or else we build one along the Canadian border. (All 5000 kilometers of it? Another Great Wall of China?) Canadians are seeing and hearing these things and are wondering just how bonkers she really is.

Then she went on CNN and said, falsely, "And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil."

Last year, as governor of Arizona, she tried to cut off Sheriff Joe Arpaio's funding for cracking down on illegal immigration in Maricopa County. Apparently Obama thought that this made her the perfect candidate for heading up Homeland Security.

I hereby add Janet Napolitano to my list as Democrat Lunatic #8.

Note: Earlier entries on my Dem Lunatics List were Nancy Pelosi, RFK Jr., Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Harry Reid, Bill Clinton, and of course Barack Obama.