SUPREME COURT: Bunch of Catholics?

Let me talk a little about Sonia Sotomayor being Catholic. She was raised a Catholic but so was I so I don’t hold that against people; my concerns are what kind of Catholic are you now – regular mass attendee or in name only. To me you were either brainwashed at an early age and remain facing backward or you used the great education given by the Catholic Parochial School System to open your eyes and fly forward.

Of course I am not stereotyping all Catholics that way!

Interestingly enough, five (5) of the nine (9) Supreme Court judges are Catholic; Sonia would make six (6) or 66% of the court.

John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito are regular mass attendees. Anthony Kennedy is not. The mass attendees make up the conservative wing of the court, Kennedy is a swing vote.

Sonia Sotomayor appears to be a Catholic in name only with no regular mass attending, no parish to call her own, no priest confessor and no wearing of religion on her sleeve. There is also a divorce in her past with no indication of an annulment, either sought or granted – I breathe a sigh of relief.

I have been reading a variety of surveys that have found “religious” people and I mean staunchly religious people are the ones who are most ready to approve of war, of torture, of the death penalty, of anti-gay legislation and in general most anti-Christian or better said, anti-Jesus issues you can think of and by that I mean issues that Jesus would not support because of his philosophy and therefore his teachings – interesting heh?

Don’t take my word for it, just see on which side Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts stand.

SUPREME COURT: Nominee Credentials?

The battle against the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court justice has begun.

The Right is all about interpreting the U.S. Constitution as it was written (like reading the Bible literally) and against “activist” judges who “create” policy out of “their” reading of the law (U.S. Constitution).

This is actually a tough subject to discuss because the Constitution was written some time ago (1787) and did not address issues that did not exist when it was written.

The Supremes are the final “interpreters” of the Constitution which means they render their decisions based on what they “think” the Constitution means or says about various issues. In many cases, the Constitution does not “directly’ say anything about specific issues and the judges are forced to rely on “judicial precedent” (what was ruled previously) or on “cultural norms” (what is normal to our culture). Please keep in mind that many of us disagree as to what is normal and accepted in our culture.

The pro-abortion decision was based on a very nebulous “right to privacy” clause in the Constitution while the “right to bear arms” issue (which was addressed directly by the Constitution) was, in my view, misinterpreted by the judges as a right for all to bear arms while the Constitution stipulated only people in “militias” can. The bottom line is that the Constitution is like the Bible, people can read whatever they want INTO it.

So when Rightists demand for strict “constructionists” and the liberals call for “empathetic interpretation”, judges will see what they want in the Constitution and that is that.

Obama keeps repeating that Sonia has been a judge longer than most and therefore has experience. Experience is a plus but if you are “flawed” as a jurist, you remain flawed throughout your years on the bench. The fact that Sonia Sotomayor has been often overturned by higher courts has me concerned. To me this says that she is not reading and understanding the law as her judicial peers are. I will have to see if she is overturned more times than what the norm is for judges.

She finished at the top of her classes throughout her education so she does have smarts or at least the ability to comprehend which is an important base to work from. George Bush was a C- student and look what great deeds he has accomplished in his public career.

My concern is not how many years you have of judicial experience; my concern is with your character and your thought process and your belief system and all those things that may play a role in your decision making on specific issues. As I mentioned before, some judges with very conservative histories have turned out very liberal on the Supreme Court.

Let me look deeper into who she is…………………..

SUPREME COURT: Sotomayor?

The much anticipated nominee for the Supreme Court was announced by Barak recently. Sonia Sotomayor (54) is a woman as expected and I think that is a positive factor since I think we really need another woman on the court to replace Sandra Day O’Conner, after all, women represent over 50% of our population so two (2) seats among nine (9) is definitely warranted.

The fact that she is Puerto Rican (Latino) is of lesser importance to me but it is a positive political move for Obama with an ever growing Latino population in this country.

She is a Democrat and a supposed liberal that will definitely help balance things against the conservative right wing of the court. It is interesting to point out that David Souter, the judge leaving the Supreme Court, was originally appointed as a conservative based on his judicial history but turned out to be a liberal as a Supreme Court justice.

There are other cases of Supreme Court judges changing their ideological stripes while on the court. I have always thought that once they are “in” for life and realize that they will be part of history, they become somehow different; looking at issues with a national and world view developed over their entire life of experiences and study. I guess what I am saying is that “some” judges are profoundly affected by their new role and allow themselves to listen, think and decide issues like “real” Supreme Court justices and not as narrow minded ideologues that are programmed to think only one way, cannot except new arguments and are basically robots which describes a number of judges on today’s Supreme Court.

I have taken a number of courses on the Supreme Court one on its history and the history of its members and one on the cases heard by the court throughout the ages and how the court itself changed in its legal outlook. I must admit that taking these courses has a very sobering affect on one’s perception of the court and what it does – I recommend learning something about the court before going crazy about this or that appointee.

Let me state at the outset that some of the things Judge Sotomayor has said in public over her years as a judge give me pause. I don’t like to take sound-bites out of context but she has given the right wingers some usable ammunition. Saying that her decisions as a Latina are somehow better than those of “white” men was totally stupid. Saying that courts should not make policy but do is stupid to say but may be factual.

I would like to touch on a number of factors in this case in later blogs but for now, I am reserving my opinion whether she will make a good addition to the Supreme Court.

VACATION: Back from South Dakota

Well, we are finally back from our vacation trip to SOUTH DAKOTA. Yes I said South Dakota. We have never been there and have a habit of visiting states we have not visited before in the springtime before all the tourists invade the area after Memorial Day.

We were not disappointed. We stayed in a log cabin near the town of Keystone and radiated from there all over the state. We landed in Rapid City which is on the west side of the state (small airport) and Keystone was just an hour away in the Black Hills.

We knew we wanted to see Mount Rushmore and the Crazy Horse Memorial Mountain and maybe a trip to the town of Deadwood (an HBO special by the same name) all the rest was a pleasant discovery.

A few local observations; the state has more bikers on the roads than cars. I know there is a annual gathering of the Harley-Davidson crowd in Sturgis in the Fall but this was the month of May. It appears the helmet law is not enforced and the rides must be fantastic from a biker perspective but I don’t see what the fascination is of getting your body beat up by the constant wind and all that god-damn noise – how about enjoying the sounds of nature?

The history here is basically the fight between the Indians (Lakota & Dakota) and the U.S. Army trying to protect the gold miners that were trespassing on Indian land. I will have more to say on that issue later.

Also I will talk some about the Indians and their dependence on the buffalo which was basically exterminated by the marauding European Americans shooting millions for the fun of it.

Kevin Costner did his “Dancing with Wolves” movie here and is very involved with the plight of the Indians here. He even sponsored an Indian museum here documenting their history – very educational.

Buffalo are everywhere here. They roam freely and don’t bother the cars and the people staring at them. Actually, the whole state abounds with free roaming animals of all kinds and my wife had to snap a picture of every one of them.

The difference between the Black Hills in Custer State Park and the Badlands area of prairies is stunning and something to behold. I will post some pictures to share the vistas even though pictures cannot do justice to being there and either driving straight up mountains or across never-ending prairies.

Lots of issues are up for discussion since I last posted – hoping to have time to comment.

CHRYSLER: Here we go...

Well, here we go; Chrysler declared bankruptcy as they should and now we will see capitalism in action.

I have maintained from the beginning, as many others have too, that GM and Chrysler have no other option at survival except going bankrupt and re-emerging as “new” companies that can function in the new economic reality.

I have been reading a lot of heated words about auto workers and the great things they have done for our society and why they should be somehow “saved” or their jobs preserved. Well, even my socialist / Communist wife realizes that companies do not exist and were not started primarily to create jobs; they exist to make and sell products and in so doing, to make money for their owners (investors).

This simple reality has somehow been lost in all the hubbub surrounding the demise of our auto companies. People want the factories to keep going EVEN though no one is buying the products those factories are making – excuse me?

Yes, we in Michigan have had a great run of prosperity from the auto industry. Many in my family have done VERY well working for the auto industry BUT it is now OVER and let’s just say thank you for the past 50 great years and prepare and adjust for what the next 50 years have in store for us.

Some people are looking to blame someone for our current situation BUT really it is many people and organizations that are to blame; everyone saw it coming but no one wanted to do something or anything about it except maybe FORD somewhat.

The world will be watching the Chrysler bankruptcy knowing that GM is right behind. Obama’s people will hopefully grease the skids and have Chrysler re-emerge within 60 days as a new entity.

The one thing I do not hear much about is the possibility that if the economy continues to suck and people remain too afraid to spend money on new cars, how can ANY auto company survive, even as leaner and more efficient business models?

SOCIETY: The Bimbo Affair

Well, here is something I never write about: the Miss America contest.

The runner up, Miss California Carrie Prejean is hitting the right wind media circuit to complain that the only reason she lost to Miss N. Carolina was that when asked a question by flaming gay Perez Hilton about states that are legalizing same sex marriage, she replied that she strongly believed that marriage was and should be between a man and a woman – only!

This was not what Perez wanted to hear and therefore he voted against her and for Miss N. Carolina who, by the way, was not asked the same question and therefore did not make her views on the subject known.

Because this issue created some heated debate in my family, I though it was something we might want to kick around a bit.

Was this a fair competition? NO, all contestants should answer the same question.

Should contestants be judged on their brainpower in a beauty contest? NO but some time ago we, in this country, decided that talent and smarts should count for something as it added to the person’s beauty? – Oh well…

Perez called Miss Prejean a “dumb bitch” on his blog for her non-inclusive answer. My wife strongly defended her right to her opinion and that her opinion should not dismiss her or detract from her “beauty” score.

I listened to Perez defend himself on TV and I liked what I heard. He said that she could have answered a little differently and still held true to her views. He was saying she could have said that marriage is between a man and a woman but that she supported equal, legal provisions of marriage for gay civil unions. In that way she would have been seen as “inclusive” and therefore a true representative of American values of fairness.

Even though I don’t watch the Miss America contest and think it is plain silly, I do feel she has a right to her opinion and I think the judge has a right to make his selection based on what he perceives as a “well rounded” American beauty that will be representing this country (for whatever reason) and that may serve as some kind of role model (I don’t think so) since hopefully young girls see this whole affair as the “bimbo” affair.