Skip to comments.Sotomayor hard to read on security issues
Posted on 06/03/2009 2:16:07 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor remains something of an enigma on legal matters relating to national security and the war on terror, issues likely to loom large on the high court's docket in the coming years.
In one case touching directly on national security questions, Judge Sotomayor ruled for the Bush administration in 2006 in allowing broad search powers to a Vermont ferry operator for security purposes. But in a second case - still pending - she sharply questioned the government's "rendition" policy of shipping suspected terrorists to other countries for questioning.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Leave no racial or gender quotas behind
Now that "wise Latina woman" Sotomayor has been outed as a racist pinhead, hysterical liberals are desperately trying to "explain" away her racist ruling in the soon-to-be-overruled case of Ricci v. DeStefano, insisting it's not really racist because [insert lame-o excuse here], as they stupidly try to repackage her as non-racist. (The first sign of trouble should have been when Sotomayor called herself "wise".)
The Sotomayor nomination has gotten so controversial, the news media are calling it "controversial". Media outlets spent all last week insisting that Sotomayor would make a swell judge because she (unlike some stodgy white male) would decide cases relying on the emanations from the penumbras of her 'rich personal heritage' -- consisting of being divorced and childless, having a screwed-up childhood and loads of personal problems and hang-ups about white males.
Even the Kool-Aid impaired press now suspects that the mediocre Sotomayor was picked over more qualified candidates solely based on 'race' -- just like that obscure McCain v. Obama case was decided last November 4th. You might have heard of it.
Sensing a problem that one of Sotomayor's key appellate rulings is about to be overruled by the Supremes, the Los Angeles Times paused momentarily from its jabberwocky about her awesome background to note that if SCOTUS overrules her racist ruling, it "could fuel controversy" against her and give critics even more ammo (technically known as "facts").
In her now-famously balanced, even-handed ruling in Ricci v. DeStefano, Sotomayor and two other Second Circuit Court judges ruled that the city of New Haven's decision to discriminate against a group of 'white firefighters' because of race was in keeping with the Civil Rights Act, which says no employee may be discriminated against because of race. Suggesting the media are on the ball, the group of 18 "white firefighters" in the case consist of 17 whites and one wise Latino.
The firefighters who passed the test were denied promotion by city officials because they passed the test, in fairness to the losers who flunked because they didn't study. Astonishingly, only firefighters qualified for a promotion could pass the test, so the city concluded the test must be flawed. Or worse -- that the test they formulated was deliberately racist!
That the test didn't yield any qualified black candidates is the whole basis for the lunatic claim that the test was flawed. So, in a brilliant stroke, the results were disregarded out of fear that New Haven would be subjected to having qualified firefighters in senior positions. I have a dream of a city where firefighters will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their test scores for once.
Libbies claim Sotomayor was merely obeying another provision of the Civil Rights Act, which bars employers from using tests in hiring or promotions that have a "disparate impact" on racial minorities. The problem with that idiotic excuse is that the law allows it if there's a "business necessity," such as promoting qualified firefighters to supervisory gigs who can actually pass a basic test for supervisory gigs.
The Sotomayor standard of 'racial neutrality' consists of promoting unqualified firefighters because of race, that way fires won't be so hot anymore.
With La Razista Sotomayor, libbies have given up any attempt at hiding their lunatic devotion to race-preferences, gender-preferences and quotas, insisting that putting an unqualified hack judge on the high court because of her race and gender is what makes America great. Sotomayor humbly claims her decision-making process is inherently far superior to those of lumbering lower life forms called 'white male judges', one of whom recently laid into her ruling in the firefighters case, saying it "lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much of a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal."
Oh, wait -- that was wise Latino Judge Jose Cabranes writing for the dissent in Ricci v. DeStefano! Sorry about that.
My Two Cents
"JohnHuang2", a Latino
A very large portion of American security is having secure borders. If you think this champion of woman and latin causes is going to ever vote it ok to secure borders against the poor uneducated and unwashed from latin America you b crazy.
May 26, 2009, “In College Thesis, Sotomayor Appeared to Support Puerto Rican Independence”
do you think total independence for Puerto Rico is a bad thing?
Why do you ask?
IMO, if Puerto Rico can self sustain, economically, no. However, strategically, the US would have to retain some territory militarily, e.g., Ft Buchanan & the high ground.
This would mean, however, that Puerto Ricans would have to survive without US aid/money. I don’t know what that economy would look like there, or, the working situation. Barrios after dark are their own experience.
I will say that I don’t like most of the hotels. They’re a garish and boring contrast to the way the people live. Also, the cruise ships in town remind me of the Navy being in port.
Why do I ask?
Because my wife ran a Deli for Albertsons for thirty years and hired many from Puerto Rico. I was in the Army and worked alongside many and they too were proud Americans.
Good people mostly but I do not know enough about the issue of independence to make any educated talk so I ask for info from some who may know more.
You sounded like you have a clue.
I go to Key West and have asked them folks there about the cruise port and they say that it is the cheapest way to go on vacation. You eat and drink on the ship and go ashore only to get a t shirt or hat or some crap trinket and they mostly are a waste.