Conservatives Concerned With Sotomayor’s Nomination
May 29, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
President Obama’s nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice fulfills two expectations that have been under speculation: that he would choose a woman, and/or a minority (Ms. Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice). Conservatives are uneasy with Sotomayor’s nomination for several reasons. First, there are not many cases that can clearly illustrate her views on issues such as abortion, and it is difficult to guess what she might rule, especially with a secure lifetime appointment:
In addition, some conservatives privately concede that Obama’s selection of Sotomayor, whose judicial ruling rarely have touched on divisive social issues, will make it harder to galvanize the grass roots and put pressure on the Senate…
Obama’s list of finalists did have other candidates, including Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit in Chicago, with more defining records on the sort of social issues that could transformed into political attacks…
The National Right to Life Committee issued a statement Tuesday that acknowledged her record “so far sheds little light on her views” regarding abortion issues.
But, it adds, “pro-life concerns are reinforced by the knowledge that Judge Sotomayor has been nominated to the Supreme Court by a president who himself criticized the Supreme Court majority for upholding the ban on partial-birth abortion.”
Second, conservatives are concerned about some statements and court decisions she has made that hint at the possibility of racism and sexism being part of her views, which would be very dangerous in a Supreme Court justice.
Here is a court case that points to that possibility:
The primary court case conservatives will try to use to derail Sotomayor is a discrimination case brought by white firefighters from New Haven, Conn., who claimed a promotion test was improperly tossed out because minorities performed poorly on it.
Sotomayor participated in a three-judge panel that supported the city’s decision to not to certify the test results. The case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Here is an account referring to a statement she made as part of a 2001 speech at Berkeley Law School at UC (emphasis mine):
[Sotomayor] said, “Our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions.”
In discussing discrimination cases, Sotomayor also referred to a remark at times attributed to former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion” and said that she didn’t necessarily agree.
“First, as Professor Martha Minow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise,” Sotomayor said. “Second, 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.”
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., suggested Sotomayor was a racist, writing in a blog posting: “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ Wouldn’t they have to withdraw? New racism is no better than old racism. A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.”
One other reason many conservatives are concerned with her nomination to Supreme Court Justice is that President Obama has stated that he believes Sotomayor takes the same views on the constitution as himself, and as the most liberal president that the country has ever had, that is a great cause for concern. Here is an article from the Associated Press on this subject:
The White House says President Barack Obama is “very comfortable” that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor shares his philosophy about the Constitution, including rights not specifically spelled out in the document.
Presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said Obama did not specifically ask Sotomayor about the right to privacy. The debate over that right has come up in the context of several matters involving the court, including abortion rights.
As a candidate for president, Obama promised that he would not appoint anyone who doesn’t believe in the right to privacy.
Pressed on the matter, Gibbs would only answer broadly, saying Obama was very comfortable with her interpretation of the Constitution being similar to his.
The ambiguity of Sotomayor’s positions may dissolve into a disturbingly activist stance once she no longer has to worry about being elected, having been appointed to a lifetime position. The course of action that conservatives are going to take to oppose her appointment has not yet been decided.
New Surveys Show Centrism, Pro-Life Stance on the Rise
May 24, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General
We are living in a country led by the most liberal president in U.S. history, who also has many supporters in the Congress. However, surveys have shown that most of the country does not share in the liberal views of its current leaders. A Pew Research Survey has shown that the number of voters who identify themselves as independents has grown, leading to a large number of people with diverse views that will not always agree with the issues Obama is pushing. Here is an article that details some of the results of the survey:
Barack Obama‘s presidency has ushered in an era of centrism, with the country experiencing such a boost in independent voters that they now make up the largest proportion of the electorate in 70 years.
This fickle group doesn’t have uniform opinions, so its dominance carries potential risks for emboldened Democrats and opportunities for out-of-power Republicans.
A new, expansive Pew Research Center survey that contained those details also found that the nation’s values haven’t fundamentally changed. The country hasn’t become more ideologically liberal or conservative despite sweeping Democratic victories at all levels of government last fall and shrinking GOP ranks.
Broadly, the findings indicate that it’s politically dangerous for the new president and his fellow Democrats who control Congress to move too far to the left on domestic and foreign issues, lest they turn off middle-of-the-road voters whose support was critical in 2008 and will be important in upcoming elections.
The results also suggest that the public recently has rejected the GOP for poor performance, not because it disagrees with the party’s positions on key issues…
Because of its viewpoint diversity, analysts say the growing independent sector could slip from the Democrats’ grasp as Obama pushes an ambitious agenda that’s different from his predecessor’s.
“We’ve moved from a less activist government to a more activist government, and the two-mindedness in the reaction of independents, I think, to some extent is response to that,” Kohut said.
That said, Kohut added: “Obama’s doing very well with independents. But they have some reservations … about growing government and about growing debt.” He called those issues “red flags” for the party.
In addition, a Gallup Poll published recently has shown that for the first time since 1995, more Americans identify themselves as pro-life than pro-choice.  This offers a slight contrast (or addition) to the information obtained in the Pew Poll that said that there was essentially no difference in the makeup of conservative or liberal views in the nation, despite the large shift to centrism. Here are excerpts from the study and their conclusions:
A new Gallup Poll, conducted May 7-10, finds 51% of Americans calling themselves “pro-life” on the issue of abortion and 42% “pro-choice.”…
The new results, obtained from Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, represent a significant shift from a year ago, when 50% were pro-choice and 44% pro-life. Prior to now, the highest percentage identifying as pro-life was 46%, in both August 2001 and May 2002.
The May 2009 survey documents comparable changes in public views about the legality of abortion. In answer to a question providing three options for the extent to which abortion should be legal, about as many Americans now say the procedure should be illegal in all circumstances (23%) as say it should be legal under any circumstances (22%). This contrasts with the last four years, when Gallup found a strong tilt of public attitudes in favor of unrestricted abortion…
With the first pro-choice president in eight years already making changes to the nation’s policies on funding abortion overseas, expressing his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, and moving toward rescinding federal job protections for medical workers who refuse to participate in abortion procedures, Americans — and, in particular, Republicans — seem to be taking a step back from the pro-choice position. However, the retreat is evident among political moderates as well as conservatives.
It is possible that, through his abortion policies, Obama has pushed the public’s understanding of what it means to be “pro-choice” slightly to the left, politically. While Democrats may support that, as they generally support everything Obama is doing as president, it may be driving others in the opposite direction.
It seems that having a liberal president will perhaps have the long-term effect of polarizing the country’s political views, and ultimately turning the tide in favor of conservative views on the controversial views facing the country. Obama and the Democrats would be wise to take notice of these changes, and discontinue their campaign for far-left legislation.
Exposing Pelosi’s Knowledge of Waterboarding
May 23, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, Politics
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has become known for her disparaging remarks about former President Bush and Republicans in general. When she began calling for an investigation into the use of waterboarding and bringing accusations against the Bush administration and the Republican party, it laid the stage for her to have her previous knowledge of this interrogation technique exposed; not only did she know about waterboarding long before she had acknowledged it, she also did nothing to stop or even protest its use. This calls into question many of the statements that she has made regarding Republicans, and means she is culpable in the business, as well.
Here is some of what a top Pelosi aide has said about her knowledge of the subject:
A source close to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi now confirms that Pelosi was told in February 2003 by her intelligence aide, Michael Sheehy, that waterboarding was actually used on CIA detainee Abu Zubaydah.
This appears to contradict Pelosi’s account that she was never told waterboarding actually happened, only that the administration was considering using it.
Sheehy attended a briefing in which waterboarding was discussed in February 2003, with Rep. Jane Harman, D-California, who took over Pelosi’s spot as the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee.
This source says Pelosi didn’t object when she learned that waterboarding was being used because she had not been personally briefed about it — only her aide had been told.
The source said Pelosi supported a letter that Harman sent to the administration at the time raising concerns. The source asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of matters discussed in classified intelligence briefings.
Pelosi’s response to this information is as follows:
“We were not — I repeat — were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used. What they did tell us is that they had some . . . Office of [Legal] Counsel opinions, that they could be used, but not that they would,” she told reporters on April 23.
A top aide reiterated that position yesterday. “The speaker was briefed only once, in September 2002,” said spokesman Brendan Daly. “The briefers described these techniques, said they were legal, but said that waterboarding had not yet been used.”
It seems that Pelosi is trying to hide behind carefully phrased political rhetoric in saying that she “was not told” about waterboarding being used. If her top intelligence aide was invited to the briefing, and thus informed her of the use of waterboarding before she acknowledged it, what is the difference between her aide and herself? It seems clear that she would have been meant and expected to know about the information communicated during the briefing, and nothing short of hypocrisy to be accusing others of hiding what she was fully aware of herself.
Guantanamo: Not Closing Yet
May 22, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under General, International, Politics
President Obama faces a major setback in his plans and promises of change, as the Senate has disallowed all funding for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay military prison. This marks the first real opposition to Obama’s agenda by Majority Democrats, who are largely responsible for blocking the funds for closing the prison.
Here is some of what has occurred lately in the Senate over this issue:
Democrats had been hammered by Republicans, many of whom don’t want Guantanamo shuttered at all, over the possibility that detainees could be sent to live in the United States — in prisons or otherwise.
… It’s unclear what Democrats would be okay with approving in a closure plan. The party has been a state of disarray over the issue recently.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., nearly had it both ways on Tuesday.
He first said, emphatically, that Democrats “will never allow terrorists to be released in the United States,” and then said Democrats also don’t want detainees to be transferred to U.S. prisons.
The suggestion was that the United States should not taken [sic] any prisoners under any circumstances, raising questions about where the Democratic leadership wants detainees to go should the closure plan be executed.
But Reid’s spokesman walked back his statement, saying the leader went too far and would actually be open to putting them in American prisons, if the administration puts forward a plan to do so.
The discord between Reid’s own words was emblematic of the clash among Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va, said on a Sunday talk show that he opposes the release into the United States of 17 Chinese Uighurs who were captured in Afghanistan after Sept. 11, 2001. The prisoners, de-listed as enemy combatants by a federal court that deemed them not a danger to the U.S., are eligible for release.
The administration is considering releasing them in Northern Virginia, something Webb vehemently opposes. Webb’s language left the door open to an even broader opposition to any Gitmo detainees being released in the United States.
Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus, both Montana Democrats, have said emphatically that no detainees will be brought to their state. The same goes for Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb.
FBI Director Robert Mueller told the House Judiciary Committee Wednesday that he’s concerned some detainees could support terrorism if sent to the United States, either through financial support to terror networks, radicalization of others or taking part in attacks.
Still, Inouye left the door open to bringing the prisoners to the U.S. eventually, refusing to rule out any opportunity to incarcerate detainees on U.S. soil.
Reid’s No. 2, Dick Durbin of Illinois, told FOX News that while Democrats were very concerned about taking a vote defending moving prisoners to the United States, he is not opposed to it, adding that American prison facilities can hold these prisoners safely.
Durbin took on Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying that while it’s true no prisoner has ever escaped from the Guantanamo, “it’s also true that no terrorists have ever escaped from U.S. supermax prisons.”
The outcry in the U.S. over the issue of closing the prison and where to house the prisoners has also caused some problems with foreign relations, and presented no solutions to the Obama administration:
Both Democrats and Republicans have been retreating from an uproar in their districts over the possibility that terror suspects would be housed in local prisons.
That’s a fairly empty sales pitch for administration officials who are trying to persuade European and Muslim allies to take some of the detainees.
And they got no help Wednesday when FBI Director Robert Mueller told Congress that bringing Guantanamo detainees to the United States could pose a number of risks, even if they were kept in maximum-security prisons.
Gibbs and Attorney General Eric Holder both quickly responded that Obama would never do anything to endanger Americans.
Obama has named senior diplomat Daniel Fried as special envoy on the issue. So far he’s had little success in garnering commitments abroad and his task only grows more onerous with the votes in Congress to deny money to close the prison.
While France has accepted one prisoner, fulfilling a promise made when Obama attended a NATO summit in April, other European allies have refused or given nonspecific commitments.
It seems that though Obama may be passionate about closing this prison, he has very little support from people in this country or others in how to practically make that happen. The people and leaders are justifiably concerned about the safety of their countries and/or states with the possibility that some of the most dangerous terrorists (and now possibly with more cause to hate the U.S. than ever) would be released or transferred to places where they could pose a greater threat than they ever had before.
Obama’s Avoidance of Discussing the Abortion Issue May Be Derailed
May 18, 2009 by Guest Writer 1
Filed under Civil Rights, General
Throughout his campaign and since he entered office, Mr. Obama has done his best to distract abortion opponents from his real views through his rhetoric while passing many pro-abortion bills or reversing former President Bush’s pro-life regulations. The issue is coming back to the forefront of public debate, however, due to two events: the famous Catholic University of Notre Dame has engaged President Obama to give the graduation speech at their commencement this spring, and Supreme Court Judge David Souter’s retirement, which leaves the President with the opportunity to select a lifetime judge.
Obama’s goal thus far seems to have been to keep the eyes of the nation focused on the economy and other issues as he has pushed quickly but quietly for pro-choice legislation, to avoid having to confront his actual stand on the issue. He has verbally painted himself as more moderate on the issues, while his actions continue to indicate his true far-left views on abortion issues, as the New York Times points out (emphasis mine):
Mr. Obama frames his position on abortion as a nuanced one — he calls it a “a moral and ethical issue” best left to women and doctors — and he envisions himself forging consensus around causes like reducing unintended pregnancies and promoting adoption. As president, Mr. Obama, who during the campaign answered a question about when human life begins by saying it was “above my pay grade,” has tried to straddle the abortion divide. He has done so partly by reaching out to religious conservatives, partly by avoiding the most contentious legislative battles and partly by reversing the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush, a faithful ally of abortion opponents, in piecemeal fashion — all while the nation has been consumed by the economic crisis.
He has named abortion rights advocates to top jobs; Dawn Johnsen, a former legal director of Naral Pro-Choice America, is his pick to run the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. He has repealed the so-called Mexico City rule, which prohibited tax dollars from going to organizations that provide abortions overseas; lifted Mr. Bush’s limits on embryonic stem cell research; stripped financing for abstinence-only sex education; and is seeking to undo a last-minute Bush regulation giving broad protections to health providers who refuse to take part in abortions.
Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said she told allies that their movement was emerging from “eight years in the wilderness.”
Clearly, Ms. Richards has no illusions about where Obama’s loyalty truly lies, but Obama has heretofore attempted to skirt the issue when confronted.  Being asked to give a commencement speech at a prominent Catholic University, however, has refocused the attention of the nation on his views on the issue. Protests are being organized at the university that target the issues of abortion and Obama’s stance on it, and outrage that Notre Dame even extended the invitation to the President in light of his decisions on the matter. Some of the President’s advisors have suggested that he address the issue in part of his commencement speech, but it is likely that all we will see is more of his “Moderate rhetoric, hard-left policies,” as Kansas senator Sam Brownback puts it, rather than honesty.
