More important than the fact that Obama Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s appellate ruling simply was overturned yesterday was that her ruling was that she treated the meritorious (and ultimately victorious) claims of the New Haven fire fighters so dismissively.
It seems that in Sotomayor’s world race-neutral, merit-based promotion systems are scarcely even worthy of consideration as legal and legitimate. For her, a subjective standard of judicial “empathy” trumps not only basic fairness but also the need to give basic fairness any serious consideration.
Below the fold is a video response from the Colorado Judicial Network: (more…)
With his usual eloquence and wit, the venerable Mark Steyn on National Review Online makes a terrific point about the connection between centralized state spending & power and bizarre behavior by politicians:
The real bubble is a consequence of big government. The more the citizenry expect from the state, the more our political class will depend on ever more swollen Gulf Emir–sized retinues of staffers hovering at the elbow to steer you from one corner of the fishbowl to another 24/7. “Why are politicians so weird?” a reader asked me after the Sanford press conference. But the majority of people willing to live like this will, almost by definition, be deeply weird. So big government more or less guarantees rule by creeps and misfits. It’s just a question of how well they disguise it. Writing about Michael Jackson a few years ago, I suggested that today’s A-list celebs were the equivalent of Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria or the loopier Ottoman sultans, the ones it wasn’t safe to leave alone with sharp implements. But, as Christopher Hitchens says, politics is showbusiness for ugly people. And a celebrified political culture will inevitably throw up its share of tatty karaoke versions of Britney and Jacko.
After this past week, it’s easy to be reminded that Americans have gotten a raw deal, one they unfortunately all too often continue to enable. I like Steyn’s solution: “Burst the Bubble” of big government.
Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the United Nations, declared last week that the Obama administration is looking for ways to ratify the UNCRC (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child).
The Obama administration’s operational strategy is to appeal to peer pressure. We are embarrassed to be the only nation besides Somalia that hasn’t ratified the treaty, aren’t we? No.
The mistaken focus is on the means, rather than the end. If there are facts about how American and Somalian children are poorly treated due to the countries not ratifying this treaty, please come out with them. Otherwise, this argument doesn’t explain why we should ratify this treaty. (And by the way, ParentalRights.org explains that Somalia doesn’t really have a formal government that can ratify the treaty anyway).
Why should we ratify? Has the treaty made a difference elsewhere? (more…)
Update, 6/4: Thanks to a comment left by Politically Correct Death author Francis Beckwith, I refer you to his newer and more relevant book Defending Life. I’ll have to check it out myself very soon.
Update, 9:30 PM: My final thought (for now) on the matter, from Doug Wilson: “The question is whether you would be willing to reduce a society to anarchy for the sake of saving that kid, when you (should) know that the anarchy you introduce is going to be responsible for the deaths of far more children than you managed to save.” And for further edification, I will commend the thoughts of Dr. Albert Mohler as being squarely right on the matter.
Thanks to one of the more thoughtful liberals I know, David Thielen, a link to this morning’s post about Dr. George Tiller and Private William Long was added in a ColoradoPols diary. Here are some of the more colorful comments it generated, along with my replies. (more…)
No two events are perfectly parallel, but seldom are two such similar and terrible stories juxtaposed for our edification. Within 24 hours and within 500 miles from each other, two notable murders occurred — both evil acts perpetrated in public by two different men, but both for apparent ideological reasons, both sudden and horribly unexpected events for the families and loved ones of the victims, both suspects quickly brought into custody.
That’s where the parallels end. What’s most informative is some of the prominent responses to the two incidents: (more…)
Here’s a good bit of important advice to candidates for major political office that apparently isn’t self-evident to all — Don’t go posting comments online under a false identity:
Cleve Tidwell was posing as someone named “Craig Platon” and posting about how “he gave me and everyone else that waited in line all the time we needed and seemed only interested in what I had to say.” He also describes himself as a “warm individual.” This is a little narcissistic even for a would-be politician.
It is troubling to say the least that a candidate for United States Senate has no apparent ethical qualms with posting as imaginary people supporting himself. Simply posting under a psuedonym [sic] and dropping a comment saying something positive about himself would be bad enough, but posting this elaborate backstory is downright bizarre. [link added]
(more…)
Yesterday’s news of the murder of Kansas abortionist Dr. George Tiller hit me hard. John Andrews at Backbone America captured my sentiments remarkably well:
Dr. George Tiller’s murder in cold blood at a Wichita church today should shock the conscience and grieve the heart of every thinking person — especially persons of faith, and above all, those of us who defend the right to life. Wichita Eagle story here.
This evil and lawless act deserves absolute condemnation. It is in no way excusable, regardless of the slain man’s inexcusable career as an abortionist.
I hope you will join me in praying for Dr. Tiller, for his family and loved ones, for his killer, and for the quelling of passions on all sides that would threaten peace and order in our land.
I would also add this biblical admonition from the Apostle Paul:
Romans 12:17-21
Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, “VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY,” says the Lord. “BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FREED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS UPON HIS HEAD.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
The other day I highlighted Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s indefensible statement and the need for repudiation. But more serious than a statement at Berkeley is Sotomayor’s actual judicial record.
It certainly is interesting to see serious criticism directed at Barack Obama’s nominee from outside the center-right political spectrum — and not because she is insufficiently liberal. Take the Denver Post’s Chuck Plunkett, for example:
You’re supposed to say out-there stuff at Berkeley. Otherwise everyone thinks you’re dull and boorish.
But while wearing the robes of justice you’re supposed to be fair. And the Ricci v. New Haven decision Sotomayor was involved in looks just terrible – even to some prominent Democrats. [link added]
(more…)
Great piece by Vince Carroll in today’s Denver Post on Barack Obama’s Supreme Court appointment:
If racial and gender bigotry truly have no place in American public life today, then Judge Sonia Sotomayor, during her confirmation hearing for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, needs to utterly repudiate her 2001 assertion that “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.”
Putting that statement “in context” or explaining what she “really meant” will not do. Nor can Judge Sotomayor credibly argue that her assertion was an ill-considered mistake, since it was part of a prepared speech at the Berkeley school of law. No, she needs to reject it as the expression of bigotry that it was.
Vince Carroll is correct. (more…)
A hate crimes bill has passed through the US House (H.R. 1913) and is now before the Senate (S. 909). Basically, a hate crimes bill makes not only actions done against others criminal, but also the motives behind the actions.
The bill in question would make it an extra crime to commit crimes against people due to a hatred of their sexual orientation (includes homosexuality, pedophilia, being normally married, etc.), or a number of other things (such as race and religion). I would like to suggest two basic problems with hate crimes legislation:
1. The hate crimes bill/concept breaks one of the fundamental principles of our country, equal intrinsic human value:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (more…)
If there is anyone currently in the U.S. Senate of whom I would consider myself a fan, Jim DeMint of South Carolina would be on that short list. I understood where he was coming from but found it a little disconcerting when he said: “I would rather have 30 Republicans in the Senate who really believe in principles of limited government, free markets, free people, than to have 60 that don’t have a set of beliefs.”
What a great relief then to see Senator DeMint’s excellent column in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal — what I consider an opportunity to revise and extend his remark. His rhetoric is blunt, and his analysis is clear: (more…)
As promised in the closing moments of this week’s edition of Rocky Mountain Alliance Blog Talk Radio, here is information on this Saturday’s event “Conservatism Is Not a Dirty Word” (PDF), co-sponsored by the Denver University College Republicans and Denver Women’s Republican Club.
- When? Saturday, May 9, 10 AM to noon
- Where? Lindsay Auditorium, Sturm Hall, University of Denver
- What? Panel discussion, followed by Q & A
- Who? The panel features Republican National Committeeman and former state senator Mark Hillman, Aurora city councilman and likely U.S. Senate candidate Ryan Frazier, talk radio host and assertiveness trainer Karen Kataline, past chairman of the Colorado Republican Business Coalition Jim Noon, Step 13 founder Bob Cote, and yours truly
For more information, contact: Jan Bonnett, DWRC 303-815-8950 or jan@janbonnett.net; Kevin Poyner, DU College Republicans 719-337-3026 or kpoyner@du.edu. Hope to see you there!
I will not deny that the Republican Party (nationally and locally) has had its share of problems and dysfunctions in the recent past. My purpose here is not to write an in-depth treatise analyzing the causes, suffice it to say that a gross lack of fiscal responsibility and a glaring absence of fealty to other mainstream conservative ideas played major roles.
But let’s be honest: the Party deserves little if any of the blame for the Arlen Specter defection. The man is far less principled than the average member of Congress, and that’s saying a lot. Specter’s party switch (and his ham-handed, self-serving approach in doing so) showed a lack of respect to the voters of Pennsylvania, and to the intelligence of the average American.
That being said, the GOP does have its share of problems. (more…)
No day, week, or month passes that isn’t officially commemorated for some reason. Take April, the month we’re in for a few more days: What have you done the last 27 days to honor National Poetry Month, Stress Awareness Month, or even Fresh Florida Tomato Month? That’s what I thought …
In the meantime, there are important causes that definitely deserve greater awareness, like this one: Limited Government Week. If you can get down to Colorado Springs anytime in the next few days, you may find one or more valuable events to attend. The highlight is a Tuesday dinner with keynote speaker Amity Shlaes, author of The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression (an excellent book). For more details on the week’s activities, go here.
Why limited government? As James Madison succinctly wrote in Federalist #51:
But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.
An honest assessment and understanding of human nature makes the case. As much as the more devout elements of the hopey-changey crowd might believe otherwise, Barack Obama is not an angel. Since we are not governed by angels, we need limited government.
If you can’t make any of the Colorado Springs events, I at least hope your awareness of Limited Government has been raised — as well as your desire to stand up for this important principle.
A quick-hit double-link in the form of two recent essays I recommend as timely and relevant reading for thoughtful lovers of liberty:
- “The Welfare State and the Meaning of Life” by Greg Forster, whose work I have come to know through his excellent research and analysis of school choice issues, but in this case makes a strong moral case against socialism
- “Ron Paul’s Secession Lies on Video” by libertarian lawyer and thinker Tim Sandefur, a college classmate of mine who delivers a remedial lesson in United States history and the Constitution to the Congressman and former presidential candidate … It’s one thing to speak up loudly against federal overreaches and for a renewed respect of the 10th Amendment, it’s quite another to call for unilateral secession from the Union (There is one sentence in Sandefur’s essay that I must disparage: Find it, and earn yourself a few bonus points)
Lovers of liberty need to be articulate and discerning, especially in these critical times.
I couldn’t resist commenting on this one – from the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web:
“What if it was ‘Oh, the gay one,’ or ‘Oh, the Asian kid?’ ” asks Maggie Kwok, head of the Penn State Veterans Organization in an interview with the Daily Collegian, PSU’s student newspaper. She is referring to a “training video,” prepared by the university’s Counseling and Psychological Services office, depicting “worrisome student behavior.”
The office swiftly removed the video when it prompted a kerfuffle, but the PSU College Republicans preserved it on YouTube. It’s a fascinating documentation of academic prejudice.
Why bring this one up? I find the video not only bizarrely condescending in the generic sense, and for all the cogent reasons James Taranto elaborates on if you read the whole piece.
But there’s also the personal connection. For two years I worked as a teaching assistant at none other than (you guessed it) Penn State. (more…)
Blogging for the Heritage Foundation, Conn Carroll points readers to a clear litmus test between the Left and the Right.
If you followed that link and said, “Hey, that’s not a bad idea, why didn’t I think of that?” — it’s pretty safe to say you’re on the Left. On the other hand, if you laughed out loud and/or your stomach turned upon reading it, you must be on the Right.
But here’s my thought: If we’re going to be showing our gratitude for painful certainties that show no sign of abating, why not a campaign to get people to say Thanks for this?
