On a Needed Laugh

No matter of ones political persuasion, many of us have been anxiously watching and waiting the debt ceiling situation. Depending on the individual’s perspective, emotions and opinions range from A to Z and then some.

As of this writing on Sunday evening, still no deal – although the Breaking News is saying a vote will be on tomorrow. The opening of the Japanese market is nearing, so that could deliver an important sign of things to come. Who knows what we will awaken to in the morning.

Meanwhile, readers here need their Monday Morning Entertainment. We need smile and/or a giggle to break our mood.To me, this one fits the situation more ways than one, so I will let you make your own take. Enjoy, and have a good week.

On an Early Take about the Court Nominee

Earlier this week, President Obama nominated US Solicitor General Elena Kagan as the next justice for the highest court in the land. One thing for sure, the process will again demonstrate the continual pathetic nature of our lawmakers and the dollars funding their respective parties.

Let’s start with the talking heads – the ones who speak for people who can’t think for themselves.

This is a great opportunity to find out about this woman’s mind. That’s what we need to find out, what is in her mind? And due to exhaustive research that I have personally conducted today on this, I think I can give you a pretty good idea what is in her mind. She is a pure academic elitist radical! She comes from the faculty lounge. She is a utopian theoretician! – Rush Limbaugh

Many Republicans will say she lacks judicial experience on the bench – but the same people did not/would not complain about Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s lack of experience prior to the court.

Many Republicans will complain about her lack of direct answers – just as the Democrats did in hearing during the Bush administration

Many Democrats will defend her lack of direct answers by focusing on her strengths – just as the Republicans did with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito.

Many Republicans will vote against her nomination simply because a president from the other party was the nominator – just as many Democrats did to President Bush nominees.

I have already seen my first special interest TV ad favoring her nomination, thus await the negative ads from the other side. Both are as pathetic as the people they represent.

Let’s just hope, regardless of the nominee and eventual confirmed justice, that our Supreme Court Justices continue to have more integrity than the lawmakers. Did I just set too low bar? And the Washington establishment wonders why many have become jaded toward the party-first attitude of politicians.

On Sotomayor’s Delay

Republican senators have very interesting during the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy. Many were against her within hours of the nomination, whereas some on the committee proclaimed being against her in their opening statements. They had a chance to ask questions, and now they are asking for a 1-week extension. In the words of Artie Johnson and Jackie Gleason, “Very interesting you numbskulls!

As some Republican senators claim rulings through bias, these partisans have yet to provide evidence of biased past rulings by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. They seem to be hanging their hat on the overturning of the New Haven fire fighters case in which the nominee was 1 vote of 13 on the appellate court’s 7-6 vote. Maybe that’s why they wanted a 1-week extension. Gotta dig dig dig … you betcha.

Of course Senator Sessions (R-AL) definitely isn’t biased.

From Jeffrey Toobin

There was something distasteful about Sotomayor’s being lectured on civil rights by the likes of Senator Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, whose own retrograde views on race back in 1986 led to his being rejected for a federal judgeship by the very committee on which he now serves.

Or is Senator Sessions still bitterly biased because of the 1986 hearing?

From Kathleen Parker

Senators also hammered Sotomayor about her ethnic identification and whether she could rule fairly without undue influence from her gender or political preferences. Wait, let me guess, you’re White Guys! Are we to infer that males of European descent are never unduly influenced by their own ethnicity, gender or political preferences? Can anyone affirm this assertion with a straight face?

When your party looks like a Wonder Bread convention during flu season, picking on ethnic identity and sex seems an un-brilliant way to proceed. Yet, these same gentlemen don’t understand how Sotomayor could have expressed the thought that she, as a Latina, might be able to reach a wiser decision than a white male?

From the Hearing

Sen. John Kyl: Do you agree with him (President Obama) that the law only takes you the first 25 miles of the marathon and that that last mile has to be decided by what’s in the judge’s heart?

No, sir. That’s — I don’t — I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does. He has to explain what he meant by judging. I can only explain what I think judges should do, which is judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the laws. The job of a judge is to apply the law.

Of course Sen Kyl (R-AZ) is opposing Sotomayor because “I remain unconvinced that Judge Sotomayor believes judges should set aside biases, including those based on race and gender, and render the law impartially and neutrally.” Once again, he provides no judicial ruling to support his claim.

Senator Kyl goes on to say, “Her answers answered nothing.” Senator, I hate to tell you but nominees have been giving soft answers ever since Justice Bork – including those you support.

Why haven’t we heard concerns about another Roman Catholic justice, thus potentially creating a religious bias on the court? On no, if she doesn’t proceed to overturn Roe v Wade, the church will be threatening to withhold communion and possible excommunication. But certainly voting with preset religious conditions isn’t bias.

As I have said many times, there is a difference between agree v. disagree and right v. wrong. Just because one disagrees, doesn’t mean wrong. Translation into numbskull means, “You’ve done your job, move on and vote.

On the Upcoming Circus

Starting Today – Live under the Big Top – Senate Hearings on Sonia Sotomayor’s Supreme Court Nomination!

Although the legislative process starts in the House, the Senate chamber is the other ring under the Capitol Big Top. Before your very own eyes, watch Democrats soft-toss questions and watch Republicans ask irrelevant questions.

Tune in and watch the special interests of each party and individual grandstanding at work; and if you watch and listen very closely, you may hear a good judicially-based question that lacks political bias.

Let’s not forget the all-important camera time. Watch senators work to impress both their party and the home folks for continued support because they don’t want to lose the gravy train. You betcha – gotta look good and smart!

But wait … there’s more – the firefighters case! Republicans want to bring firefighter Frank Ricci to the hearing. Three cheers for more grandstanding! The Supreme Court overruled the appellate court; therefore she’s not a reliable jurist? So I wonder – is it possible that she ruled in accordance to the law and the high court changed or limited the law through the ruling? If so, I say this – Damn activist judges!

The confirmation process will confirm that the hearing is about special interests, arrogant pompous senators and the parties they represent – thus certainly not about public citizens or even the nominee’s judicial philosophy or ability. I’m not a fan of Justice Clarence Thomas, but nobody should have to go through that BS.

By the way, regardless of the political spin, she’s qualified. Besides, this country has more pressing issues on its plate. So to the committee members: Back to grandstanding, partisanship, fiddling, and don’t mind us burning.

On Sotomayor: The First Wave

This isn’t what I had planned for today, but it just had to be done.

This past Tuesday morning President Obama publically nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor for a position on the highest court in the land. Since then, the political pundits on both sides have set the stage for the battle that could be.

Personally, Rush’s quick negative decree acts more as an endorsement. Newt chimes in, and then I get a phone call from a pro-life activist group. As many conservatives proclaim the appointment of an activist judge as act of the Devil, yet their acts of seeking to overturn Roe v. Wade isn’t activism? Sorry RNC, I don’t buy into your code word.

Whether our senators reinforce why the public has low respect for politicians and why Congress has a low approval rating is yet to be seen, Judge Sotomayor should be vetted and not rubberstamped – but not as a political football.

I submit these readings.

  • Ed Rollins, a senior political contributor for CNN, plus an experienced, well-respected Republican, writes this meaningful column.
  • As part of his segment, CNN’s Jack Cafferty asked a question about the effect of quick-to-react critics as Gingrich and Limbaugh on the GOP. Reading the comments from people is interesting.
  • Although not solely about the recent nomination, Kelly at the Eclectic Quill has an outstanding post about the Christian Right, a group that has hijacked the Republican Party to fund and promote its agenda.
  • American Heartland Bar and Grill provides links to several worthwhile articles.