Saturday, May 30, 2009

Obama's Supreme Court Nominee

Is she worthy of the office?

She has had four cases ruled on in the Supreme Court of the USA. Three times she was overturned on Constitutional grounds. One time she was upheld. She has a new case that should be brought before the Supreme Court in the upcoming term concerning the fire fighters. That will make it her 5th case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court of the USA.

I have issues with her rulings and the basis for those rulings. I don't want case law enshrined for moral reasons ala Roe v Wade. It appears to me that she is a type of Justice who has a personal agenda large enough to edge her towards convolution of case law to make something she agrees with to be Constitutionally valid. We don't nee another justice on the court who will willingly engage in the style of legal sophistry that brings forth asinine rulings like Roe v Wade that most people- regardless of what you think about abortion- find to be a fundamentally flawed ruling that has had the unintended effect of conflating Abortion into one of the single most divissive political issues.

So yeah its 5, she has some problems, and I really don't agree that she is qualified in terms of her judicial ruling accumen or her ability to look at precedent, settled case law, and the legal constitutional basis compared to what the appelants want to settle.

I don't think she is qualified to do it based upon her track record, her racist remarks, her advocacy for a group whose members frequently demonstrate in the street calling for amnesty & reclamation of USA territory, and I find it insulting to a large degree that she thinks just because she has personally been discriminated against she is so sensitive to such abuse that she sees no problem in inflicting reverse discrimination by way of judicial rulings and vacating.

So yeah I got real issues with her legal competency.

0 comments: