It’s day 3 for Judge Sotomayor. As the Senate Judiciary Committee continues grilling President Obama’s choice to be the nation’s next Supreme Court Justice what’s your impression?

YOU DECIDE: Should Judge Sonia Sotomayor be confirmed as our country’s next Supreme Court Justice? Share your thoughts. First, vote in our poll, then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This is not a scientific poll.

Share This

Bad law is the worst sort of tyranny. Edmond Burke

The U.S. Senate hearings on Judge Sonia Sotomayor are going to focus in part on Ricci v DeStefano, a case in which Sotomayor was reversed by the Supreme Court.  The case involved the city of New Haven, Connecticut throwing out the results of a fireman’s exam after no black candidates qualified for promotion after taking it.

A plethora of partially prepared pundits have offered their opinion that the case was about racism against white people, and since a ruling by Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is reversed, it raises the issue that perhaps she does a little Caucasian hatin’ herself.

I’m certain those pundits who say so have not taken the time to actually read the 87 page Slip Opinion issued by the Supreme Court.  If they read it, they would know the demon we face is not racism, it’s bad law writing by Congress, who tries to cure the social ill of racism (real or perceived) by social engineering.

What Congress ends up writing is horrifically vague laws no one can follow, that cause more problems than they solve, leaving towns like New Haven Connecticut to do no more than choose which race of people will eventually sue them.

Pretend you were involved in this case to see if the issue is as clear as some pundits say, or if it even has anything to do with race.  Tell me what you would do.

Let’s say you are the Mayor of New Haven, Connecticut.  You want to have a fair test to see which firefighters are the best so you can promote them to lieutenant and captain.  You hold a test, and 17 white people and 2 Latinos score high enough for immediate promotion, while no black people who took the test qualify.

So, Mr. or Ms. Mayor of New Haven, should you go ahead and certify the test results so you can make the promotions?  You want to follow the law, so you ask the City Attorney for an opinion.

The City Attorney tells you Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits intentional acts of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin.  It is known as the “disparate treatment” rule, and it basically means you can’t treat people differently based upon race.  That includes white people.

The answer is therefore easy.  You can’t discriminate against the white people who passed the test, so you pull out your ceremonial pen with the feathers on it to certify the test results and make the promotions.

“Not so fast, Mayor” says the City Attorney.  “Title VII has ANOTHER section to it.  It is against the law for New Haven to have this: ‘…a policy or practice that, although NOT INTENDED to discriminate, has a disproportionately adverse effect on minorities.’  It is known has the disparate impact rule.  Since the score here was white people 17, black people 0, the test seems to have had a ‘disparate impact’ on black people even if New Haven didn’t intend it.”

So you the Mayor say to the attorney, “But the test was fair, about firefighting, and not race based.  Shouldn’t that alone be enough to allow me to certify the results?”  “Actually you’re on to something, Mayor,” says the attorney. “Title VII does say that if the test is ‘job related for the position in question and consistent with business necessity’ then you can certify the results.”

“OK, then it’s settled,” you as the Mayor say.  “I’m certifying the test results and making the promotions.”   “Not so fast again,” says the attorney.  “Title VII has YET ANOTHER SECTION that says even if you show the test was neutral and a business necessity, the black test takers can still win a lawsuit if they show that you refuse to adopt ‘an alternative practice that has a less disparate impact’ which still serves New Haven’s needs.  Whatever that means! (chuckling)”

Looking for clarity in this morass of laws, you say, “Now wait just a doggone minute there, counselor. Are you telling me if I don’t certify the test I get sued by the white people under the “disparate treatment” rule, but if I do certify the test I get sued by the black people under the ‘disparate impact’ rule?”

“That’s right,” says the attorney.  “Well what should I do?” pleads you the Mayor.  The attorney replies, “My job is to show you the fork in the road, not choose for you which way to travel.  Other than that, I’m just on this job to pad my pension and get the dental coverage offered by the city.”

Wow! Thanks to the bad law writing Congress did in Title VII, all a city like New Haven can do is pick a winner knowing the loser is going to sue.  The Supreme Court did nothing in the Ricci case to fix that. Their ruling says that a town like New Haven should only throw out the test results if  “…the employer [has] a strong basis in evidence to believe it will be subject to disparate-impact liability if it fails to take the race-conscious, discriminatory action [of throwing out the test].”

What does that mean for New Haven and every other town in America?  Buy a magic 8-ball, shake it, and ask it if the city will win or lose when the black firefighters sue.  If it says lose, throw out the test; if it says win, promote the white guys.

The sad and under-reported fact in this case is that this test was taken back in 2003.  Frank Ricci and the other successful test takers have waited 6 years to get their promotions, and have had to wind through a judicial processes with a bad law whose legalese is so vague the supposedly 9 smartest lawyers in the country who sit on the Supreme Court are still split 5 to 4 on what it all means.   That means it’s a bad law.

There were no racists in this story –- not the city of New Haven, the firefighters, the test makers and not Sonia Sotomayor.  There is a bad law here; bad because it is so complicated no one can follow it.

This is what happens when the federal government thinks it can create utopia by solving every real and make-believe problem by taking the decision-making authority away from local officials and putting it in a statute. Unfortunately, we now have an administration in Washington, D.C. hell-bent on writing more such laws that allow the federal government to control our lives.

Good grief.

Read more Tommy De Seno at www.JustifiedRight.com

Share This

“He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.” – Sun Tzu

As the confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor begin Monday, Americans on both sides of the aisle are eager to see how Republicans will treat President Obama’s first Supreme Court nominee.

Folks on the right are wondering if the GOP will show any backbone and give Sotomayor the type of grilling former President Bush’s picks received from Democrats, or continue with the courteous and respectful treatment they accorded former President Clinton’s appointees the previous decade.

Those on the left, likely caring far less about the judge’s qualifications than her gender and ethnicity –- as well as wanting another win for Obama, of course(!) –- are getting ready to toss out the race and sex card at the slightest provocation.

To be sure, the baggage associated with Sotomayor’s deplorable comments about Latina women making better judgments than white men, and the recent Supreme Court decision concerning the New Haven firefighters, give Republicans ammunition if they choose to oppose the judge.

However, now that comedian Al Franken has been officially seated in the Senate, why should the GOP start a fight it can’t win? After all, it seems a metaphysical certitude Sotomayor is going to be confirmed.

With this in mind, Republicans shouldn’t waste a penny of their dwindling political capital on this battle.

Given the media’s affection for the judge, let alone for Obama, any contest mounted will be reported as purely sexist and racist irrespective of the grounds. From a public opinion perspective, fighting this nomination is a lose-lose situation

By contrast, given Obama’s declining poll numbers, and the appearance that the public is growing weary of all this spending and debt creation as unemployment continues to rise, an unexpectedly peaceful confirmation process could be a win-win for the right.

When one considers the recent data finding a growing conservative shift in the nation, in particular on key issues such as abortion and gun rights, it seems clear that with the pendulum possibly having reversed direction, what Republicans don’t need is a highly-publicized battle over a female minority member, especially given the poor odds of success.

Factor in Democratic Party and media depictions of the GOP as the Party of “No,” and a smooth confirmation process this week — lacking any of the expected confrontation members of the press live for– could be quite disarming to the left as well as dispel the myth Republicans are just acting as minority obstructionists.

With the American Clean Energy and Security Act – aka cap and tax! – moving to the Senate, and a health care battle looming, the GOP needs to focus its attention on these disgusting initiatives that will cost the nation dearly for decades to come if implemented, and do so with as much public support as possible.

Since a victorious Sotomayor likely won’t vote much differently than her predecessor — or virtually anyone Obama would nominate for that matter! — conservatives aren’t going to lose much with her on the bench despite her shortcomings.

But, if a failed attempt to block her somehow halted the pendulum’s apparent rightward shift, and therefore increased public support for cap and tax and healthcare, Republicans would have made a horrible strategic decision we’ll all regret for a very, very long time.

Since David Souter is likely just the first of several Supreme Court retirements Obama will have to deal with — either John Paul Stevens or Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be next — it seems wiser for the GOP to currently focus their munitions on what’s going on in Congress, and keep their powder dry for the next judiciary incursion.

As Sun Tzu wrote, “He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.”

Noel Sheppard is Associate Editor of the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org. He welcomes feedback at nsheppard@newsbusters.org.

Share This

Confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor began on Monday before the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Judge Sotomayor has been criticized by some for her stance on affirmative action and other liberal viewpoints.

YOU DECIDE: Is Judge Sotomayor out of step with mainstream America? Share your thoughts. First, vote in our poll, then click 0n “Leave a Comment” below.

This is not a scientific poll

Share This

The recent revelation of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford’s marital infidelities is tragic and it reveals something about the character of our country. Each political party has its “who’s who” of moral and ethical failures. Each scandal is quickly seized upon for political gain yet the greater story is found in matters of the heart. To be a public success but a private failure is to place image above character. One often neglects to measure the ripple affects of moral and ethical trespasses. The following are 10 tragic consequences for a public figure’s private failure:

1. The shattered heart of a spouse.

2. The vulnerability of the children.

3. The sense of betrayal in a staff.

4. The loss of moral authority.

5. The jeopardizing of a future.

6. The message sent out to the next generation.

7. The damage done to a constituency.

8. The embarrassment to a political party.

9. The undermining of trust in one’s future decisions.

10. The inability to reconcile public convictions with private actions.

Where Governor Sanford is concerned, healing and hope will begin with repentance and reprioritization. Family values are not at the mercy of any public official. The lesson learned is that failure is not found in having values but in failing to honor the same. It can be said that the greatest failure can be found, not in those who hold values and fail, but in those who embrace no values and succeed.

Bill Shuler is pastor of the Capital Life Church in Arlington, Virginia.

Share This

Cash-strapped states have used federal stimulus dollars to close short-term budget gaps and avert major tax increases but generally have not directed the money toward long-term expansion, according to a new report released on Wednesday. For more on this story, click here.

YOU DECIDE:  Is the stimulus working? Share your thoughts, first vote in our poll and then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This is not a scientific poll.

Share This

The public bids farewell to Michael Jackson today with a star-studded service at the Staples Center in Los Angeles. As the world remembers the “King of Pop” FOX News Channel will offer LIVE, special coverage throughout the day.

YOU DECIDE: What are your thoughts on the Michael Jackson Memorial Service? Share your thoughts, click on “Leave a Comment.”

Share This

A New York congressman says Michael Jackson was a “pervert” and calls on society to stop “glorifying” the late entertainer in a YouTube video.

Rep. Peter King said Jackson — whom he called a “low-life” — is being glorified in the days after his death while society ignores the efforts, of teachers, police officers, firefighters and veterans. In the two-minute video, King claims the “day in and day out” coverage of Jackson’s death is “too politically correct.”

“Let’s knock out the psychobabble,” King said in the video taped outside an American Legion Hall on New York’s Long Island. “He was a pervert, a child molester; he was a pedophile. And to be giving this much coverage to him, day in and day out, what does it say about us as a country? I just think we’re too politically correct.” For more on this story, click here.

YOU DECIDE: Is Rep. Peter King right or wrong. Share your thoughts. First, vote in our poll and then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This  is not a scientific poll.

Share This

On July 3 Alaska Governor Sarah Palin announced that she will step down from her post later this month.

YOU DECIDE: Did Mrs. Palin make a smart move or a bad decision? Share your thoughts — first vote in our poll and then click on “Leave a Comment” below.

This is not a scientific poll.

Share This

The print ad for the “BK Super Seven Incher” — a limited time promotion in Singapore, a society known around the world for its strict government controls of social conduct — shows the “mind-blowing” sandwich near the open mouth of a wide-eyed, red-lipsticked woman accompanied by the suggestive tagline: “It’ll blow your mind away.”

“Fill your desire for something long, juicy and flame-grilled,” the ad continues. For more on this story, click here.

YOU DECIDE: Is the new Burger King ad over the line or just for fun? Share your thoughts. Click on “Leave a Comment” below.

Share This