Here is an 7/31/09 excerpt from a Joe Klein op-ed in Time magazine, the same magazine that has only put President Obama on its cover 12 times in the past year. This one paragraph is loaded with premises which are peddled by the left and for far too long have been accepted by shallow-thinkers. They are entilted to their opinion but there is only one truth.
"There are only two sorts of legislation that seem to pass these days: things that have to pass, like budgets - and cotton-candy giveaways, like tax cuts or the wildly irresponsible, unfunded Medicare drug bill that George W. Bush enacted. Occasionally, responsible actions take place in the budget process. Bill Clinton spent most of his political capital on deficit reduction, which helped fuel the economic boom of the 1990s. Obama has just managed to kill the F-22, an anachronistic fighter jet. Very, very occasionally a special interest will take it on the chin - as the teachers' unions did when Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated a testing regimen the teachers didn't like. But the passage of landmark legislation like the health-industry reforms that Obama is seeking has become about as common as politicians who refuse to run television ads. It just doesn't seem to happen anymore."
1. Cotton-candy giveaways - Since when is letting the people, yes even the rich, keep more of their own money (i.e. property) called a giveaway? The left assumes that the government is giving us something that belongs to them first and foremost. No. A tax cut is simply the government taking less money from us.
2. Wildly irresponsible and unfunded Medicare drug bill - Why is it wildly irresponsible? Aren't we supposed to take care of our nation's elderly? Isn't that what a compassionate society does? Wasn't the drug bill just an extension of the 35 year old Medicare program which was the hallmark of the Great Society programs of the Democrat-controlled Congress and White House? Maybe it's because GWB enacted it and the GOP is not supposed to be compassionate. And why is it unfunded? Is the Medicare trust fund depleted? No, but it's on its way with over $36 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Are senior citizens not paying their premiums, or are we workers not paying our +/-1% Medicare withholdings? Not unless we want to go to jail. Since someone else is perceived to be paying the bill, seniors won't look for the best deals and costs will rise.
3. 1990's deficit reduction - Who was responsible for deficit reduction? Would Clinton have even had a balanced budget if the GOP-controlled House not given him one to sign? And did it really lead to an economic boom? Despite Clinton presiding over a tax increase early in his first term, taxes were still much lower than they were before one of the greatest executives, Ronald Reagan, promoted and presided over the largest tax cuts ever seen since income taxes became constitutional.
4. No Child Left Behind - So what if teachers' union "took it on the chin". The name of the bill was "No Child Left Behind" not "No Teacher Union Left Behind". Aren't our great public schools in place for the benefit of our children? I certainly agree that teachers need to be compensated for their work as long as it's commensurate with their students' better or improved test scores, reading and math levels, etc.
5. Landmark legislation - Why lament the slow to no passage of landmark legislation? Why lament the process of debate within each chamber of Congress and out here in the heartland? I for one do not want fast passage of landmark legislation especially on something as big, far-reaching and personal as health care reform. Our system of government was established for just such slow to no passage of legislation.
As we question the news, so we must also question their opinions which sometimes look the same.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Mandatory healthcare?
Maryland Senator Ben Cardin hosted a townhall meeting recently and fielded this question from audience member Robert Broadus.
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
"I decided not to get the health insurance. That's working out for me because I'm able to save that extra money and give it to my family members and use it on myself. Senator Cardin, I want to know are you going to tell me an individual...that I have to buy health care or else you're going to fine me $2,500 every year I don't get it? Our founding fathers assured us we have a Bill of Rights and I want to see you uphold that," Broadus said in an increasingly emotional voice and to scattered applause.
Cardin responded by asking Broadus what would happen if he became sick, broke a bone, had a car accident and ended up in an emergency room. "You don't pay. You are part of the population that shifts its costs over to a person who does pay, and they're paying for you," Cardin said.
Explaining how hospitals have often to absorb those costs, Cardin said many hospitals would chose simply to leave the community. "I just think the overriding public interest is to require you and everyone in this country to have health insurance," Cardin said.
First of all, the senator assumes that this man will not pay his medical bills. Didn't this man just say that he has chosen to forgo insurance so that he can spend his money elsewhere like perhaps on an HSA or simply some other "rainy day" fund for medical mishaps? Why can't this man choose to spend his money how he wants? Doesn't the senator enjoy this right?
Secondly, why are those costs shifted over to people who do pay? Because it's federal law that hospitals cannot refuse emergency care of any kind. Simply show up and be treated. It sounds like utopia. Well, if it's "free", or if someone else is paying for it, why wouldn't people take advantage of it? I think everyone understands that when prices drop, demand and usage increases. If there wasn't a law requiring emergency care, meaning hospitals would be able to collect some payment upon service, people would be more particular with their use of it and would set aside money for that inevitable "rainy day". However, because demand for healthcare has increased, its cost has increased.
Thirdly, if the senator thinks there is cost shifting now, how much more will there be under this new entitlement program with all of its regulations and bureaucracy not to mention this $2500 per year fine! More regulations usually mean higher costs.
Finally, if you think the use of healthcare is excessive now with only a majority of the population being insured and thinking healthcare is free or low cost, what happens when everyone has health insurance? Having insurance gives people the impression that someone else is paying for their healthcare therefore they use it more often. Actually, more people paying directly for their own healthcare will lower its costs, as the government says it desires, without sacrificing quality.
The U.S. Constitution is silent on the issue of healthcare which means it is left to the states or the people to debate and decide. The only "overriding public" interests with which he and his 534 colleagues need to concern themselves are enumerated in the Constitution, primarily defense, immigration, bankruptcy, military governance, war declaration, money supply, commerce between states and other countries and patents.
I recently read a blog post by someone claiming that our fundamental right to life includes healthcare. Does it also include food, clothing and shelter? Are these not more basic than healthcare? After healthcare, are these next on the list of things our compassionate federal government will ensure that we have? Who will pay for them? Who will define how much and what kind of each are appropriate and "necessary" for each individual?
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Judge Sotomayor & Abortion
In questioning Judge Sotomayor on Wednesday July 15th, TX Senator Cornyn asked her to explain the following words from a 1996 speech: "change, sometimes radical change, can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes" and "a given judge or judges may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction".
Judge Sotomayor responded to this question by saying in part, "I also spoke about the fact that society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts."
Can we conclude from her statement, made under oath, that, based on advancements in technology and developments in medicine presumably, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which asserted a woman's consitutional right to abortion at any time during her pregnancy since the fetus is not yet a person, could be seriously challenged and possibly overturned due to "a new set of facts"?
Consider this advice and rhetorical question from OK Senator Coburn, OB-GYN, who pressed her quite a bit on the abortion issue. "And—which bring(s) me back to the technology again. As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues—is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those. And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb, to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate—or inaccurate's an improper term— inconsistent in terms of our application of logic."
Now I understand that if a state's law defines death but not life, then she would, or should, be bound by that law and not by her feelings. However, suppose a state's law defines both death and life, as the good doctor does; technology now exists to prove it. Also suppose that a woman in that state has an abortion. Would the Roe vs. Wade precedent give her and/or the aborting doctor a pass, or would they have violated that state's law as well as the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?
Which party has more protection under the 14th amendment...the woman and her doctor or the baby? Shouldn't they have the same since it guarantees "equal protection of the law." If the baby is aborted after state law says it's alive, then it was deprived of life without due process.
She claims the interpretation of laws can and will change as "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments." Thanks to the free market, our society and its technology have evolved to confirm that viable life exists much earlier in a pregnancy that once thought. If heartbeat and brainwaves aren't indicative of life, what is? Would this be enough for her and a majority of her fellow justices to overturn the most contentious court decision of our day?
Judge Sotomayor responded to this question by saying in part, "I also spoke about the fact that society evolves in terms of technology and other developments, and so the law is being applied to a new set of facts."
Can we conclude from her statement, made under oath, that, based on advancements in technology and developments in medicine presumably, the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which asserted a woman's consitutional right to abortion at any time during her pregnancy since the fetus is not yet a person, could be seriously challenged and possibly overturned due to "a new set of facts"?
Consider this advice and rhetorical question from OK Senator Coburn, OB-GYN, who pressed her quite a bit on the abortion issue. "And—which bring(s) me back to the technology again. As recently as six months ago, we now record fetal heartbeats at 14 days post-conception. We record fetal brainwaves at 39 days post-conception. And I don't expect you to answer this, but I do expect you to pay attention to it as you contemplate these big issues—is we have this schizophrenic rule of the law where we have defined death as the absence of those, but we refuse to define life as the presence of those. And all of us are dependent at different levels on other people during all stages of our development from the very early in the womb, outside of the womb, to the very late. And it concerns me that we are so inaccurate—or inaccurate's an improper term— inconsistent in terms of our application of logic."
Now I understand that if a state's law defines death but not life, then she would, or should, be bound by that law and not by her feelings. However, suppose a state's law defines both death and life, as the good doctor does; technology now exists to prove it. Also suppose that a woman in that state has an abortion. Would the Roe vs. Wade precedent give her and/or the aborting doctor a pass, or would they have violated that state's law as well as the due process clause of the 5th and 14th amendments?
Which party has more protection under the 14th amendment...the woman and her doctor or the baby? Shouldn't they have the same since it guarantees "equal protection of the law." If the baby is aborted after state law says it's alive, then it was deprived of life without due process.
She claims the interpretation of laws can and will change as "society evolves in terms of technology and other developments." Thanks to the free market, our society and its technology have evolved to confirm that viable life exists much earlier in a pregnancy that once thought. If heartbeat and brainwaves aren't indicative of life, what is? Would this be enough for her and a majority of her fellow justices to overturn the most contentious court decision of our day?
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Going green or saving green?
Does every hotel now have one of those "Save the planet" tags in the room? I'm wrapping up a 10 day vacation, and every hotel room we've used has had one. The latest one reads the following:
Save Our Planet
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of gallons of water and a lot of detergent.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night, and would prefer to have your sheets changed, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will reuse today."
Do people really think that by having their hotel bedsheets washed every day that they are destroying the planet? Are we human beings really that powerful? Is it the planet or its animals we are destroying?
Do people think they are doing their good deed for the day by not having their sheets washed? Does this exempt us from serving our fellow man who is infinitely more valuable than the earth?
If we are just another evolving species fighting for survival, then why can't we pursue cleanliness everywhere every time at all costs? Aren't all detergents "environmentally friendly" thanks to capitalism? Can't dirty water be cleaned again thanks to capitalism? We as an advanced society do have that power.
Do you wash your bedsheets everyday? I assume the answer is no. For us single guys, especially during college, we may wash them once a quarter or as I did once a semester. (I know...gross.) For us married guys, we may wash them a little more often like once a week thanks to our wives. Why don't we wash them everyday though? Well, it takes some of your time, and it uses water and electricity. At home, the later two affect the bottom line. In the hotel business, all three do so especially the labor. So aren't hotels really asking us to help them save money which may in turn be passed onto us hotel guests?
Would it be that earth-shattering to ask guests the following:
Save Your Money
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of dollars of your money in the form of labor, clean water and electricity.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night and would prefer to have your sheets changed and have a cleaning fee added to your final bill, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will save money today."
Save the planet if you want, but I prefer to save me or someone else some green. Not doing laundry everyday will just save me more time and money to serve my fellow man.
Save Our Planet
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of gallons of water and a lot of detergent.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night, and would prefer to have your sheets changed, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will reuse today."
Do people really think that by having their hotel bedsheets washed every day that they are destroying the planet? Are we human beings really that powerful? Is it the planet or its animals we are destroying?
Do people think they are doing their good deed for the day by not having their sheets washed? Does this exempt us from serving our fellow man who is infinitely more valuable than the earth?
If we are just another evolving species fighting for survival, then why can't we pursue cleanliness everywhere every time at all costs? Aren't all detergents "environmentally friendly" thanks to capitalism? Can't dirty water be cleaned again thanks to capitalism? We as an advanced society do have that power.
Do you wash your bedsheets everyday? I assume the answer is no. For us single guys, especially during college, we may wash them once a quarter or as I did once a semester. (I know...gross.) For us married guys, we may wash them a little more often like once a week thanks to our wives. Why don't we wash them everyday though? Well, it takes some of your time, and it uses water and electricity. At home, the later two affect the bottom line. In the hotel business, all three do so especially the labor. So aren't hotels really asking us to help them save money which may in turn be passed onto us hotel guests?
Would it be that earth-shattering to ask guests the following:
Save Your Money
Dear Guests:
Bed sheets that are washed daily in thousands of hotels around the world use millions of dollars of your money in the form of labor, clean water and electricity.
You Make The Choice:
If you are staying more than one night and would prefer to have your sheets changed and have a cleaning fee added to your final bill, please place this card on the bed each morning. No card on the bed means "I will save money today."
Save the planet if you want, but I prefer to save me or someone else some green. Not doing laundry everyday will just save me more time and money to serve my fellow man.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
News vs. Opinion
When I read a news story, I want only the facts, not opinion. Everyone has an opinion and can form one, but not everyone has the facts. This blog is an editorial. I comment and interject my opinion on news stories. I have noticed more so over the years though that even news stories are full of opinion sometimes in a subtle manner.
Consider the following excerpt from a July 29 Reuters story on the recent climate change bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The bill has also split the religious community -- an important constituency in many states.
While some religious groups have banded together to lobby for the legislation, some conservative religious activists are mobilizing against it."
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation termed "conservative" and "activists" but religious groups who support this legislation termed "groups" and not termed "liberal" and "activists"? Are those who support it normal while those who oppose it out of the mainstream?
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation cast as "mobilizing against it" but religious groups who support this legislation cast as banding "together to lobby for" this legislation? Are those who support it peaceful, community-minded and doing it for the public good while those who oppose it violent and gearing up to fight it as for war?
Watch out for the adjectives used in news stories. They can change the entire tone of the "news".
Consider the following excerpt from a July 29 Reuters story on the recent climate change bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.
"The bill has also split the religious community -- an important constituency in many states.
While some religious groups have banded together to lobby for the legislation, some conservative religious activists are mobilizing against it."
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation termed "conservative" and "activists" but religious groups who support this legislation termed "groups" and not termed "liberal" and "activists"? Are those who support it normal while those who oppose it out of the mainstream?
Why are religious groups who oppose this legislation cast as "mobilizing against it" but religious groups who support this legislation cast as banding "together to lobby for" this legislation? Are those who support it peaceful, community-minded and doing it for the public good while those who oppose it violent and gearing up to fight it as for war?
Watch out for the adjectives used in news stories. They can change the entire tone of the "news".
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Public option
Last night from the White House, ABC News aired a townhall-type meeting entitled "Questions for the President: Prescription for America." It was intended to be a forum for doctors, patients and health care experts to ask President Obama challenging questions on his health care proposals.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky led off the questioning by asking the President if he would sacrifice the health of his own family by putting them in a government plan, the so-called "public option". He responded, “If it’s my family member, it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here’s the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.” It sounds like he has little confidence in the current private health care system. Note that he did not explicitly answer whether he and his family would ever live under such a public plan.
I contend that the answer lies not in his words, or lack thereof, but in his actions. Consider where he and his wife decided to send their two girls. Do they attend a D.C. public school? Nope. They attend Sidwell Friends, a private school. Here's a little more background on that issue from a 11/21/08 NYT story...
The Obama family had considered two other private institutions, Georgetown Day School and Maret School, for their girls, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. But Sidwell has long been described by some as the Harvard of Washington’s private schools. Its tuition runs as high as $29,442 a year.
“A number of great schools were considered,” said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama. “In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now.” Mayor Adrian M. Fenty of Washington strongly lobbied the Obamas to consider a public school, but that was apparently never an option.
What was wrong with the education "public option", a.k.a. public schools, Mr. President? One Forbes survey conducted two years ago ranked D.C.'s public schools 95th out of 97 school districts in terms of "bang for the buck". That may be one reason it was never an option for the Obama's, but is it even an option for the lower to middle class population? Hasn't this "public option" been forced on lower to middle class people who can't afford both the property taxes paying for those often underperforming public schools and the tuition at often excelling private schools? (See a previous blog on DCOSP.)
Who really believes that the President will subject himself and his family to the health care "public option"? Who really believes that this "public option" will always be an option for us? Who believes that this "public option" will always provide quality service?
He and the elites do; I don't.
Dr. Orrin Devinsky led off the questioning by asking the President if he would sacrifice the health of his own family by putting them in a government plan, the so-called "public option". He responded, “If it’s my family member, it’s my wife, if it’s my children, if it’s my grandmother, I always want them to get the very best care. But here’s the problem that we have in our current health care system, is that there is a whole bunch of care that’s being provided that every study, every bit of evidence that we have indicates may not be making us healthier.” It sounds like he has little confidence in the current private health care system. Note that he did not explicitly answer whether he and his family would ever live under such a public plan.
I contend that the answer lies not in his words, or lack thereof, but in his actions. Consider where he and his wife decided to send their two girls. Do they attend a D.C. public school? Nope. They attend Sidwell Friends, a private school. Here's a little more background on that issue from a 11/21/08 NYT story...
The Obama family had considered two other private institutions, Georgetown Day School and Maret School, for their girls, Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. But Sidwell has long been described by some as the Harvard of Washington’s private schools. Its tuition runs as high as $29,442 a year.
“A number of great schools were considered,” said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Obama. “In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now.” Mayor Adrian M. Fenty of Washington strongly lobbied the Obamas to consider a public school, but that was apparently never an option.
What was wrong with the education "public option", a.k.a. public schools, Mr. President? One Forbes survey conducted two years ago ranked D.C.'s public schools 95th out of 97 school districts in terms of "bang for the buck". That may be one reason it was never an option for the Obama's, but is it even an option for the lower to middle class population? Hasn't this "public option" been forced on lower to middle class people who can't afford both the property taxes paying for those often underperforming public schools and the tuition at often excelling private schools? (See a previous blog on DCOSP.)
Who really believes that the President will subject himself and his family to the health care "public option"? Who really believes that this "public option" will always be an option for us? Who believes that this "public option" will always provide quality service?
He and the elites do; I don't.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Questioning Judge Sotomayor
The GOP is feeling pressure to "keep the gloves on" so to speak during the Supreme Court confirmation hearing of Judge Sotomayor. Why the pressure...and from whom?
An few excerpts from a June 24th AP news story speak volumes.
"The Republican messaging from now through the confirmation hearings beginning July 13 includes issues popular among conservatives: Sotomayor's commitment to Second Amendment gun rights, her opinions on whether the Fifth Amendment protects against public takings without just compensation and on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."
"The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee even questioned whether Sotomayor sufficiently opposes terrorism..."
"Republicans said they have clarified their strategy in recent days by documents Sotomayor has turned over to the Judiciary Committee in advance of her confirmation hearings. But it was clear that with only seven Republicans on the 18-member panel and Hispanics and women already wary of the GOP, the party needs to tread carefully with any outright criticism of the first Latina nominated to the high court."
The first question is why? Because they (named below) don't want an honest debate on core, easy-for-the-public-to-grasp Constitutional issues. In cases related to the 2nd (arms), 5th (private property) & 14th (equal protection) amendments, she has at least joined opinions ruling against these basic civil rights. These very recent cases are Maloney v. Cuomo, Didden v. Village of Port Chester and Ricci v. DeStefano, respectively. In the case of terrorism, she had done extensive work for a group formerly named the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism," GOP Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said. Sessions said the group, now called Latino Justice PRLDEF, in 1990 came to the defense of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.
The second question is from whom? The very tone of the last included AP excerpt indicates the press for one along with those the press cites, namely Hispanics and women. Do you remember any pressure on Democrats to "keep the gloves on" during confirmation hearings for the black D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas nominated by GOP President George H.W. Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How about the black, female California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown or the latino Assistant U.S. attorney and Assistant Solicitor General Miguel Estrada nominated by GOP President George W. Bush to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? Was there any fear of a backlash from blacks, women or Hispanics by fighting these upstanding nominees? Absolutely not. I remember Thomas' hearing; I agree with his assessment of it as a "high-tech lynching". Brown waited 22 months to be confirmed. Estrada waited 28 months before withdrawing his name. The latter two were filibustered which in my opinion was unconstitutional.
When someone tells you that you're wasting your time asking tough but legitimate questions of a Supreme Court nominee who may make decisions of national consequence for a generation or, in general, doing what is in your heart, that's the time to move full steam ahead. Who believes that the GOP has any chance of currying favor with women or Hispanics if they stand down? Not all women and Hispanics will be offended by tough questions of this latina because some if not most of them do not see themselves first as women or Hispanics but as U.S. citizens. Our government officials are obligated to uphold the Constitution no matter which constituencies might be offended. If they want to change it, there is a process to do so.
An few excerpts from a June 24th AP news story speak volumes.
"The Republican messaging from now through the confirmation hearings beginning July 13 includes issues popular among conservatives: Sotomayor's commitment to Second Amendment gun rights, her opinions on whether the Fifth Amendment protects against public takings without just compensation and on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment."
"The senior Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee even questioned whether Sotomayor sufficiently opposes terrorism..."
"Republicans said they have clarified their strategy in recent days by documents Sotomayor has turned over to the Judiciary Committee in advance of her confirmation hearings. But it was clear that with only seven Republicans on the 18-member panel and Hispanics and women already wary of the GOP, the party needs to tread carefully with any outright criticism of the first Latina nominated to the high court."
The first question is why? Because they (named below) don't want an honest debate on core, easy-for-the-public-to-grasp Constitutional issues. In cases related to the 2nd (arms), 5th (private property) & 14th (equal protection) amendments, she has at least joined opinions ruling against these basic civil rights. These very recent cases are Maloney v. Cuomo, Didden v. Village of Port Chester and Ricci v. DeStefano, respectively. In the case of terrorism, she had done extensive work for a group formerly named the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. "This is a group that has taken some very shocking positions with respect to terrorism," GOP Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama said. Sessions said the group, now called Latino Justice PRLDEF, in 1990 came to the defense of Puerto Rican nationalists who 36 years earlier had wounded five lawmakers during an attack on the House while it was in session.
The second question is from whom? The very tone of the last included AP excerpt indicates the press for one along with those the press cites, namely Hispanics and women. Do you remember any pressure on Democrats to "keep the gloves on" during confirmation hearings for the black D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Clarence Thomas nominated by GOP President George H.W. Bush to sit on the Supreme Court? How about the black, female California Supreme Court Judge Janice Rogers Brown or the latino Assistant U.S. attorney and Assistant Solicitor General Miguel Estrada nominated by GOP President George W. Bush to sit on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals? Was there any fear of a backlash from blacks, women or Hispanics by fighting these upstanding nominees? Absolutely not. I remember Thomas' hearing; I agree with his assessment of it as a "high-tech lynching". Brown waited 22 months to be confirmed. Estrada waited 28 months before withdrawing his name. The latter two were filibustered which in my opinion was unconstitutional.
When someone tells you that you're wasting your time asking tough but legitimate questions of a Supreme Court nominee who may make decisions of national consequence for a generation or, in general, doing what is in your heart, that's the time to move full steam ahead. Who believes that the GOP has any chance of currying favor with women or Hispanics if they stand down? Not all women and Hispanics will be offended by tough questions of this latina because some if not most of them do not see themselves first as women or Hispanics but as U.S. citizens. Our government officials are obligated to uphold the Constitution no matter which constituencies might be offended. If they want to change it, there is a process to do so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)