SUPREME COURT TO HEAR 2ND AMENDMENT CHALLENGE - AGAIN

Well, the lefties are at it again, and given the recent spate of mindless shootings I could have predicted as much. This is the "ammunition" they needed to launch another attack upon our Constitutional right to "keep and bear arms". It seems to me that a similar challenge was dismissed by "the Supremes" earlier this year, but... that was a pre- anti-gun Sotomayor challenge. Sonia Sotomayor is an Obama appointee, and she is every bit as far to the left as he and the rest of his cadre of liberal loonies. The court is scheduled to hear opening arguments in early March of 2010, but no decision is expected until late June or early July of 2010. EXPECT THE UNEXPECTED. The left has been fast-tracking our country's ruination since January 20th.


When will "We the People" tell this corrupt and incompetent administration that we have had enough? Keep in mind that without the 2nd Amendment all our other Constitutional guarantees are in jeopardy. The 2nd Amendment protects not only our right to keep and bear arms, but our entire Constitution!

Almost daily Obama moves us closer to the European model of liberal socialist government dependency that he so loves, and dependency in this case means control. It is so much easier to control an unarmed populus than it is to control those who have the means - and the motivation - to resist that control.

At last count, thirty-three states had re-emphasized their Constitutional sovereignty under the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (I hope you don't live in one of the other 17 gutless states). Those actions should give Obama a clue that the people are not happy with bigger and more intrusive government.

As for me... I'm doing what I feel is necessary to cope with the potential events of the foreseeable future. Perhaps you should do the same... everybody should have a contingency plan.

Court Rules For White Firefighters Over Promotions - Sotomayor Overturned AGAIN!

This is a followup to my posting "Rewarding Failure," 5/27/09 - MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer, today reported the following:

"WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge. New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion exam because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results, the court said Monday in a 5-4 decision. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities."

The sad part is, that Sotomayor appears to be the best Supreme Court nominee that Obama could come up with! Does he not know anybody with the correct talents for the jobs to which he desires them to be appointed?

Sotomayor successfully retains her title as the "most overturned Federal Appeals Court judge" in the country. Perhaps she should go back to law school... for a refresher course.

Here's what the left side of the SCOTUS had to say - "In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." But, justice actually triumphed over emotion and the improper and abusive application of law.

The majority opinion, rendered by Justice Anthony Kennedy , who was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, declared "Fear of litigation alone cannot justify an employer's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotions."

Those who put forth the legitimate effort in time, on-the-job experience, and study necessary to further their careers have been vindicated by the highest court in the land. Unfortunately, it never should have come to this point. Justice should be served at all levels of the court system - not just at the highest level. Justice is never served by punishing those who are successful!

I supposed that in some perverse parallel universe I could be wrong about the way I see this issue...

Being The First Choice Does Not Necessarily Make One The BEST Choice

"President Barack Obama named federal appeals judge Sonia Sotomayor as the nation's first Hispanic Supreme Court justice on Tuesday." Thus read the headline... isn't that an oddly worded sentence from a "professional journalist". Will Sotomayor ultimately be appointed to the (apparently) newly-established "Hispanic Supreme Court"? And will this Hispanic Supreme Court only hear Hispanic cases? (History recorded the last Hispanic Supreme Court in the 1400's. It was led by a man named Tomas de Torquemada, Grand Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition.) Will the oral arguments before this court be presented in Hisp, instead of English?

Commenting upon her official nomination this morning, "My heart today is bursting with gratitude," Sotomayor said from the White House podium moments after being introduced by Obama.

Personally, I would have said something more like "My heart is bursting with pride." I checked Wal-Mart and Safeway to see what the per pound cost of Political Plums was today. Everlasting "gratitude" (and implied support) seemed to be the going price. The less competent the recipient of the Political Plum, the more gratitude was expected as payment. And we should certainly focus that political "blind eye" on the fact that Sotomayor is one of, if not the, most overturned federal judges by the Supreme Court.

As for the impartiality that one would expect from a justice of SCOTUS, here's what Sotomayor had to say about that a few years go: “Our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor [Martha] Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” [U.C. Berkeley School of Law, 10/26/2001]

Sometimes it's a shame that we are a "nation of laws" instead of a nation of JUSTICE, as we once were... before the laws were made horrifically more complex by "learned and scholarly men". Men whose primary objective was to insure that, in time of legal difficulties, it would be necessary to retain the services of their associates!

Yeah... I could be wrong about this, but I seriously doubt it.