Justin Case: This'n'That; May 28th[Fluffy;Sotomayor]

ACORN CHOOSES....

Well, ACORN has finally come to a decision and instructed Fluffy obama to announce that Sonya Sotomayor will be the choice to replace Justice David Souter. Justice Souter has announced plans to retire from the bench when the current session ends. As for Ms Sotomayor, everyone knows the hardscrabble upbringing she endoured in the Bronx; but the media mushmouths won't tell you any of the important or derogatory aspects of her rise in status or her less-than-stellar job performance. Please recall the period of her positive and negative accomplishments; the mid-eighties to the current-under two republican and one democRAT president.

That being said, one has to consider Sotomayor's grasp of the law and the successes and failures with that law. Her opinions, although competent, are viewed by former prosecutors as not especially clean or tight, and sometimes miss the forest for the trees.

It's customary, for example, for Second Circuit judges to circulate their draft opinions to invite a robust exchange of views. Sotomayor rankled her colleagues by sending long memos that didn't distinguish between substantive and trivial points, with petty editing suggestions--fixing typos and the like--rather than focusing on the core analytical issues.

In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel's opinion that contained "no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case." The Ricci case is likely to increase that percentage of reversals as most court watchers expect the Supreme Court to right the terrible wrong Sotomayor did the firefighters.

The case is just one more indication that Sotomayor is not fit to sit on the court where many of her opinions have been tossed aside.

Stephen Dinan, writing in the Washington Times, thinks that the reversal rate may be potent for the opposition: With Judge Sonia Sotomayor already facing questions over her 60 percent reversal rate, the Supreme Court could dump another problem into her lap next month if, as many legal analysts predict, the court overturns one of her rulings upholding a race-based employment decision. Three of the five majority opinions written by Judge Sotomayor for the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and reviewed by the Supreme Court were reversed, providing a potent line of attack. "Her high reversal rate alone should be enough for us to pause and take a good look at her record. Frankly, it is the Senates duty to do so," said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America. The American people should be shown just what our president thinks of the Supreme Court to nominate such a candidate to sit in judgment on the most vital cases involving our principles and rights.

....and Der Fluffmeister REALLY thinks....[an excerpt of a TV interview with a Chicago FM radio station in 2001]: FLUFFY OBAMA: "If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I'd be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."

....and MORE socialist views....: FLUFFY OBAMA: "As radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution at least as its been interpreted and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted. I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that."

....and STILL more Fluffy [socialist] views....: FLUFFY OBAMA: I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and -- and -- and that the framers had that same blind spot. I -- I don't think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day [he is of course, referring to slavery].

....a Limbaugh comment on the interview.... : The Constitution proscribes government on a lot of things that are for the benefit of the American people. But what this means to Obama is, when he says that the Constitution doesn't say what the federal government can do on your behalf, means it doesn't say that it can tax the rich at a higher rate and give the money to the poor. It doesn't say that he can redistribute -- in fact, the Constitution does not have Marxism in it. The Constitution doesn't have socialism in it. And as such, Obama is constrained. The civil rights movement did not get as far as it shoulda gotten because it was so focused on the court rather than community organizing. Well, okay. Now the community organizer's in the Oval Office and the community organizer is going to see to it that the court does his bidding. Hello, Sonia Sotomayor. This isn't worth opposing simply 'cause she's guaranteed? There's going to be other Supreme Court nominations. There are going to be future elections. Are we going to just throw in the towel on those, too? Are we just going to assume that opposing anything Obama does because he's a minority is going to anger voters and we're cooked? Final sound bite. Obama and the Constitution as reflecting America's fundamental flaw.

....and a "Justin Case-ism....": Here is NOT the cool, calm and collected politician the media portrays, but an cold, angry, calculating guy with a chip on his shoulder!! He DID HEAR what Jeremiah Wright said for 20 years while "churching" in Chicago. He did hear what Bill Ayers says about America. So now it's time to change all that, and Fluffy'll be changing it by desecrating the very Constitution he swore to "preserve, protect and defend!!" The Sotomayer assension to "the Supremes" will further advance the socialist, Marxist and statist views of the "Era of Fluff!!"