At the bottom of this story is a link to a story claiming that the Chinese government wants the United States to move forward with climite change legislation, some form of cap & trade, in spite of the science not being settled on whether humans actually cause global warming.
While it may be surprising that the Chinese, who build coal-fired power plants seemingly every day, want the United States to act, it should not be. The Chinese economy has been growing by leaps and bounds in the last several years and certainly the Chinese see an opportunity to catch up with the US economically. This assumption, that the Chinese hope to compete with the US economically, is the key to understanding why they hope the US will curb its carbon emissions.
Carbon based fuels produce the vast majority of energy in the US and the US economy relies on a steady stream of energy to sustain itself and to grow. Any legislation that attempts to slow carbon emissions will also slow economic growth. Green energy, whatever that may consist of, is certainly not reliaible or plentiful enough to pick up the slack that would surely result from legislation that cripples carbon based energy.
The Chinese realize that this is the case, which is why they support the US crippling its own economy for the sake of the Earth. Obviously the Chinese don't care about global warming. If they did, they would slow down the proliferation of carbon based energy in their nation. What the Chinese care about is slowing the US economy to make it easier for China to catch up.
Democrats want to pass cap & trade legislation to help "save the Earth." China wants the Democrats to pass cap & trade, even though the science isn't settled according to the Chinese, to cripple the US economy. Politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows...
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/TOE6290AL.htm
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Sunday, February 28, 2010
The Seismic Political Shift that is Health Care
According to the Daily Caller, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has urged her rank and file Democrats to walk the electoral plank for the health care bill when it arrives on the floor for a vote. Many have suspected that Speaker Pelosi might be willing to compromise her majority to obtain passage of landmark health care legislation.
Carefully considered, the apparent plan appears to be reasonable with the all-but assured impending defeat of a number of House Democrats in November. Rarely does the President's party pick up seats in his 1st midterm elections and rarely will a majority as large as the Democrats current on grow, especially in a year with such political tumult.
Speaker Pelosi is risking further losses but, in my estimation, feels that passage of health care reform is much more important than the additional seats her majority may lose. The question is whether this gamble will still be as appealing if the House is ruled by Speaker Boehner in 2011.
Another question one must ask is why health care legislation is so important to the Democrats. Given the benefit of the doubt, Democrats can set forth an image of doing what is right in the long run at the expense of their political majority - a noble image if I've ever witnessed one. However, the cynical side of me understands that the health care legislation currently being considered will alter the political discourse of America forever. Such tight government regulation of a private industry promises that the debate of health care in the future will take place on Democrats' terms. Arguments over who regulates industry better and who provides better government services is inheretly a battle of who is better at big government - conservatives don't will these battles.
Speaker Pelosi is willing to compromise her current majority for the sake of altering the political discourse in America to the point that one of the nations largest issues will always be debated on Democrats' terms, promising a political advantage for liberals far into the future.
All of these considerations are in addition to the even more cynical notion that health care legislation is so important to liberal Democrats because they are power hungry. Again, health care is a game changer because once the government is in control of your health care, government can usurp control over other parts of your life with the guise of saving money. "No, we cannot allow you to eat foods with trans fat, or smoke as much as you like or drink as much as you like because it's unhealthy and we, the government, cannot afford to pay for your treatment. We must control your habits to save you, the taxpayer, money."
It is for these reasons, the seismic political shift that liberal health care legislation will insure, that the current plans for health reform must be defeated. At state is our health and our liberty. Health care legislation must be argued predominently on philosophical terms. Democrats will pull at our collective heart-strings if we argue the finer points of policy but cannot defend their philosophical position of more government power over the lives of individuals and less liberty.
The American people understand the most fundamental of concepts, liberty and tyranny, and it it is only the American people that can stop liberal Democrat health care legislation. When Democrats make their final push in an attempt to shove health care down our throats, we must show these elitists who is in charge.
Carefully considered, the apparent plan appears to be reasonable with the all-but assured impending defeat of a number of House Democrats in November. Rarely does the President's party pick up seats in his 1st midterm elections and rarely will a majority as large as the Democrats current on grow, especially in a year with such political tumult.
Speaker Pelosi is risking further losses but, in my estimation, feels that passage of health care reform is much more important than the additional seats her majority may lose. The question is whether this gamble will still be as appealing if the House is ruled by Speaker Boehner in 2011.
Another question one must ask is why health care legislation is so important to the Democrats. Given the benefit of the doubt, Democrats can set forth an image of doing what is right in the long run at the expense of their political majority - a noble image if I've ever witnessed one. However, the cynical side of me understands that the health care legislation currently being considered will alter the political discourse of America forever. Such tight government regulation of a private industry promises that the debate of health care in the future will take place on Democrats' terms. Arguments over who regulates industry better and who provides better government services is inheretly a battle of who is better at big government - conservatives don't will these battles.
Speaker Pelosi is willing to compromise her current majority for the sake of altering the political discourse in America to the point that one of the nations largest issues will always be debated on Democrats' terms, promising a political advantage for liberals far into the future.
All of these considerations are in addition to the even more cynical notion that health care legislation is so important to liberal Democrats because they are power hungry. Again, health care is a game changer because once the government is in control of your health care, government can usurp control over other parts of your life with the guise of saving money. "No, we cannot allow you to eat foods with trans fat, or smoke as much as you like or drink as much as you like because it's unhealthy and we, the government, cannot afford to pay for your treatment. We must control your habits to save you, the taxpayer, money."
It is for these reasons, the seismic political shift that liberal health care legislation will insure, that the current plans for health reform must be defeated. At state is our health and our liberty. Health care legislation must be argued predominently on philosophical terms. Democrats will pull at our collective heart-strings if we argue the finer points of policy but cannot defend their philosophical position of more government power over the lives of individuals and less liberty.
The American people understand the most fundamental of concepts, liberty and tyranny, and it it is only the American people that can stop liberal Democrat health care legislation. When Democrats make their final push in an attempt to shove health care down our throats, we must show these elitists who is in charge.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Gay Marriage Cannot Exist!
A common complaint against social conservatives is that they try to control your life in the bedroom. Some people may want to control your life in the bedroom but this is an archaic notion that does not apply to conservatives today. In fact, a true conservative who believes in the notions of individual rights and liberty simply cannot believe it is the right of the government on any level to interfere with the sexual preferences of anyone.
As a social conservative myself I believe that what you do in your bedroom is your own business. I cannot and do not intend to try to stop homosexuals from doing anything - except get married. Marriage is a special case because the marital union is based on Judeo-Christian principles which define marriage as between a man and a woman and is thus a religious institution.
Civil unions on the other hand, which are unions that afford homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, is acceptable. It is not the business of the state to erode the sanctity of marriage. The state is concerned with the legal aspects of marriage and should allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals through civil unions. Conservatives should remain staunch defenders of the sacred institution of marriage but ought to realize the inherent legal inequalities that exists when homosexual couples are not allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Yes, I know, marriage is a legal institution and if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married then they do not have equal rights. That is why marriage should no longer be any business of the state. Civil unions ought to apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals while marriage should remain solely under the jurisdiction of the church. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals would have access to the same legal rights under the institution of civil unions. However, heterosexual couples who have entered into civil unions ought to only qualify their union as marriage if their union is recognized by their church. The key to legal equality is to do as the Bible teaches us when it says "give to God what is God's and give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Marriage belongs to God and civil unions to Caesar.
As a social conservative myself I believe that what you do in your bedroom is your own business. I cannot and do not intend to try to stop homosexuals from doing anything - except get married. Marriage is a special case because the marital union is based on Judeo-Christian principles which define marriage as between a man and a woman and is thus a religious institution.
Civil unions on the other hand, which are unions that afford homosexual couples the same legal rights as married couples, is acceptable. It is not the business of the state to erode the sanctity of marriage. The state is concerned with the legal aspects of marriage and should allow homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals through civil unions. Conservatives should remain staunch defenders of the sacred institution of marriage but ought to realize the inherent legal inequalities that exists when homosexual couples are not allowed the same legal rights as heterosexuals.
Yes, I know, marriage is a legal institution and if homosexuals aren't allowed to be married then they do not have equal rights. That is why marriage should no longer be any business of the state. Civil unions ought to apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals while marriage should remain solely under the jurisdiction of the church. In other words, heterosexuals and homosexuals would have access to the same legal rights under the institution of civil unions. However, heterosexual couples who have entered into civil unions ought to only qualify their union as marriage if their union is recognized by their church. The key to legal equality is to do as the Bible teaches us when it says "give to God what is God's and give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Marriage belongs to God and civil unions to Caesar.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Libertarians & Abortion
I cannot understand the pro-choice stance of libertarians on the issue of abortion. What does a libertarian believe in more than individual rights? The pursuit of happiness and the ability to makes ones own decisions is at the core of their belief structure. To be left alone is their desire for all people.
It is the desire of all pro-lifers as well as the unborn (I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf) that the unborn be left alone. What individual right does an unborn child have if that childs life can be taken at the whim of its mother? Certainly not the right to life, which the Constitution claims is endowed to us all by our Creator and is unalienable. The rights of the mother are subjugated to the rights of the unborn child because the unborn child is defenseless. To disagree is to say that a mentally retarded child, because it is dependent on someone else to sustain its life, should only live if the person that the child is dependent upon desires. Being pro-choice simply because you believe in individual rights is a logical fallacy.
The central question of the abortion issue is this: at what point does life begin? If life begins when the sperm meets the egg, then abortion at any point post-conception is murder because it terminates a life - a life that has no choice in the matter. Any self-respecting libertarian should be pro-life if he believes that life begins at conception. There is nothing inherent about libertarianism that argues that life begins at any point after conception; being pro-choice is not inherent to being a libertarian.
I once heard someone say that abortion has the highest mortality rate of any medical procedure because half of the people involved die. The weight of such a statement ought to be more than any moral human being can stand. Many pro-choice Americans lament genocide across the globe and yet do not understand that they are in full support of perhaps the most egregious genocide of all, the American Genocide, which has claimed more than 50 million American lives since 1973.
It is the desire of all pro-lifers as well as the unborn (I feel comfortable speaking on their behalf) that the unborn be left alone. What individual right does an unborn child have if that childs life can be taken at the whim of its mother? Certainly not the right to life, which the Constitution claims is endowed to us all by our Creator and is unalienable. The rights of the mother are subjugated to the rights of the unborn child because the unborn child is defenseless. To disagree is to say that a mentally retarded child, because it is dependent on someone else to sustain its life, should only live if the person that the child is dependent upon desires. Being pro-choice simply because you believe in individual rights is a logical fallacy.
The central question of the abortion issue is this: at what point does life begin? If life begins when the sperm meets the egg, then abortion at any point post-conception is murder because it terminates a life - a life that has no choice in the matter. Any self-respecting libertarian should be pro-life if he believes that life begins at conception. There is nothing inherent about libertarianism that argues that life begins at any point after conception; being pro-choice is not inherent to being a libertarian.
I once heard someone say that abortion has the highest mortality rate of any medical procedure because half of the people involved die. The weight of such a statement ought to be more than any moral human being can stand. Many pro-choice Americans lament genocide across the globe and yet do not understand that they are in full support of perhaps the most egregious genocide of all, the American Genocide, which has claimed more than 50 million American lives since 1973.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Competing Ideological Continuums
Currently, I have found that there are two different political ideology continuums that people use. Unfortunately, one of them casts the right in a negative light while the true political continuum reveals the truth.
For many, and indeed most, the perception is that the political continuum has communism on the left flank and fascism on the right flank. Intense nationalism, to those who ascribe to this continuum, is a phenomenon of the right. Hitler, for example, was a right winger in this context. On the left of this continuum, one would find people who believe that the state should exert control over the economy and society. Leaders like Mao and Stalin are considered leftists.
There is an obvious problem with the political continuum being defined that way. Hitler sought to control society and to use the state to manipulate the economy. The only difference is that people of the left do not try to manipulate the economy, they try to run it. Hitler’s “right wing” fascism and Stalin’s “left wing” communism are both examples of authoritarianism. Mussolini for example, widely considered a fascist, was first and foremost a socialist. The ideas are not competing, they are complimentary because they are both about control.
A true political continuum realizes that fascism and communism are, in fact, very similar in that they attempt to exert control over society. Authoritarian forms of government are on the left; both fascism and communism are left wing. On the right is anarchy, the antithesis of absolute authoritarianism.
Certainly, the Republican Party today is likely a bit to the right of the Democrat Party but the fact remains that both are sliding to the left. Unfortunately, conservatism, a true right wing ideology that stands for freedom and liberty, is being alienated by both political parties. I feel that the American people are further to the right than either party is currently; we want liberty and less government. A majority of Americans are conservative and are awaiting Republicans or Democrats, most likely Republicans, to represent their interests again. It is my belief that the rise in registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is the result of both political parties shifting further left than the average American.
For many, and indeed most, the perception is that the political continuum has communism on the left flank and fascism on the right flank. Intense nationalism, to those who ascribe to this continuum, is a phenomenon of the right. Hitler, for example, was a right winger in this context. On the left of this continuum, one would find people who believe that the state should exert control over the economy and society. Leaders like Mao and Stalin are considered leftists.
There is an obvious problem with the political continuum being defined that way. Hitler sought to control society and to use the state to manipulate the economy. The only difference is that people of the left do not try to manipulate the economy, they try to run it. Hitler’s “right wing” fascism and Stalin’s “left wing” communism are both examples of authoritarianism. Mussolini for example, widely considered a fascist, was first and foremost a socialist. The ideas are not competing, they are complimentary because they are both about control.
A true political continuum realizes that fascism and communism are, in fact, very similar in that they attempt to exert control over society. Authoritarian forms of government are on the left; both fascism and communism are left wing. On the right is anarchy, the antithesis of absolute authoritarianism.
Certainly, the Republican Party today is likely a bit to the right of the Democrat Party but the fact remains that both are sliding to the left. Unfortunately, conservatism, a true right wing ideology that stands for freedom and liberty, is being alienated by both political parties. I feel that the American people are further to the right than either party is currently; we want liberty and less government. A majority of Americans are conservative and are awaiting Republicans or Democrats, most likely Republicans, to represent their interests again. It is my belief that the rise in registered Independents or unaffiliated voters is the result of both political parties shifting further left than the average American.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Europe Trending Right
Per several news outlets, the right (a relative term in European Politics) has scored impressive victories in elections across Europe for the European Parliament. I continue to be confused which side of the Atlantic I am on.
The United States has not only turned, it has veered to the left under the guidance of President Obama. Chrysler and General Motors, two manufacturing giants, have effectively been nationalized. A Keynesian spending economic stimulus plan of unprecedented proportions, not tax cuts, has been tabbed as the solution to our economic woes. To top it off, the nation’s largest financial firms are taking funds, as well as orders, from the government.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, right-leaning parties appear to be on the rise in European Union elections as well as in the polls for national elections in Europe. The leaders of Germany and France, Merkel and Sarkozy respectively, have requested that the American President restrain spending. Chancellor Merkel has criticized the Federal Reserve for its extremely loose monetary policy and resisted President Obama’s calls for more Keynesian stimulus spending in Germany.
The United States is busily turning leftward while it appears that Europeans are asking for a rightward shift and warning President Obama to restrain himself. Conservatives in America hopefully understand that what the people want is a government run by sustainable conservative principles. Even Europe is asking for a turn to the right.
The United States has not only turned, it has veered to the left under the guidance of President Obama. Chrysler and General Motors, two manufacturing giants, have effectively been nationalized. A Keynesian spending economic stimulus plan of unprecedented proportions, not tax cuts, has been tabbed as the solution to our economic woes. To top it off, the nation’s largest financial firms are taking funds, as well as orders, from the government.
Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, right-leaning parties appear to be on the rise in European Union elections as well as in the polls for national elections in Europe. The leaders of Germany and France, Merkel and Sarkozy respectively, have requested that the American President restrain spending. Chancellor Merkel has criticized the Federal Reserve for its extremely loose monetary policy and resisted President Obama’s calls for more Keynesian stimulus spending in Germany.
The United States is busily turning leftward while it appears that Europeans are asking for a rightward shift and warning President Obama to restrain himself. Conservatives in America hopefully understand that what the people want is a government run by sustainable conservative principles. Even Europe is asking for a turn to the right.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
American Tyranny
Everyone knows that President Obama hopes that the Supreme Court will have empathy. We all know that empathy, in regards to judicial decisions, is contrary to the rule of law. Using the federal bench as a means for the government to empathize with the American people will further erode the rule of law, one of the foundational pillars of our great country.
Empathy is favoritism when used to decide disputes. The greatness of our society, the reason that America is a beacon of hope throughout the world, is due in no small part to the fact that justice is administered equally, without respect to race, gender or ethnicity, and is based on reason. Using empathy, the Supreme Court will be picking winners and losers in society based not on logical reasoning and the law but on sentiments and feelings. The rule of law, and not the rule of empathy, is what ensures that we are free from the whims of our political leaders (i.e. tyranny).
In addition to tossing aside the rule of law, President Obama has tossed aside the free market by tampering with General Motors and Chrysler. The actions of the Obama Administration are tyrannical because they have subjected the American society to empathy from the government. A misguided attempt by the Obama Administration, a process which began under the Bush Administration, to empathize with the workers of GM and Chrysler has distorted the market and subjected our economic system to the whims of politicians. These actions are tyranny, plain and simple, albeit tyranny with a gentle touch.
In both the judiciary and the economy, President Obama has taken actions that are revealing a pattern of behavior that should clue us in on his core beliefs. If he truly believes that it is the role of the government to empathize with the American people, and his actions suggest that he does, his core principles are contrary to those of our founders and those principles outlined in our sacred founding documents.
Empathy is favoritism when used to decide disputes. The greatness of our society, the reason that America is a beacon of hope throughout the world, is due in no small part to the fact that justice is administered equally, without respect to race, gender or ethnicity, and is based on reason. Using empathy, the Supreme Court will be picking winners and losers in society based not on logical reasoning and the law but on sentiments and feelings. The rule of law, and not the rule of empathy, is what ensures that we are free from the whims of our political leaders (i.e. tyranny).
In addition to tossing aside the rule of law, President Obama has tossed aside the free market by tampering with General Motors and Chrysler. The actions of the Obama Administration are tyrannical because they have subjected the American society to empathy from the government. A misguided attempt by the Obama Administration, a process which began under the Bush Administration, to empathize with the workers of GM and Chrysler has distorted the market and subjected our economic system to the whims of politicians. These actions are tyranny, plain and simple, albeit tyranny with a gentle touch.
In both the judiciary and the economy, President Obama has taken actions that are revealing a pattern of behavior that should clue us in on his core beliefs. If he truly believes that it is the role of the government to empathize with the American people, and his actions suggest that he does, his core principles are contrary to those of our founders and those principles outlined in our sacred founding documents.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
United States Government Refuses to Accept Free Market Solution
I just heard a spokesman from General Motors on a radio show say that he was grateful for the government stepping in to save the company. He outlined why he felt that way and his explanation for why he is appreciative of government intervention is precisely why I believe that the company should have failed.
According to the spokesman, General Motors’ bankruptcy process allows the company to shed its bad assets and sell the viable assets to a new company. The new company will be the new General Motors that will consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. During the process, Hummer, Saab and Saturn will be put up for sale while Pontiac will be shut down completely. Saturn has already been purchased.
It was necessary for the government to be involved, according to the spokesman, because if General Motors had filed for bankruptcy without assurance that the government would purchase at least a major part of the viable assets, then there would very likely have been no one to buy the viable assets. At the very least, there would have been no single venture capitalist, hedge fund or other capital entity that would have taken a chance on the new General Motors. The government was the only option.
What the spokesman explained was the process of the free market shedding weaknesses. If General Motors files for bankruptcy and there is no one willing to purchase its assets, then the market has dictated that the company is a failure and that none of the assets were actually viable. The market should have been left to do its work instead of the government stepping in and keeping a failed company on life support. Capital invested in General Motors should have been liquidated so that it could be reinvested into stronger companies. That is how capitalism perpetuates.
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that some financier would not have taken a chance on Chevrolet or Cadillac, and likely even GMC or Buick, because they are distinctly American brands that likely could be restructured into lean and efficient automobile brands. Bondholders, shareholders, the unions and whoever else that owned the “old” General Motors certainly would have negotiated and accepted a reasonable offer from someone willing to step in.
But, if no one was willing to purchase any of the apparently viable assets, then the company should have been left to die. Instead, the government defied the free market and did not allow its mechanisms to take their toll. Failure is inherent in capitalism, but in no other system can success run so rampant.
The governments’ actions show that our political leaders do not have the faith in the free market that is necessary. If they did, General Motors would be on its own to push through the bankruptcy process. Not only does government intervention show a lack of faith the free market but it shows that the government has too much faith in itself, believing that intervention was best for the country. A faith in government that runs that deep is contrary to the American Way. What has happened to our country?
According to the spokesman, General Motors’ bankruptcy process allows the company to shed its bad assets and sell the viable assets to a new company. The new company will be the new General Motors that will consist of Chevrolet, Cadillac, Buick and GMC. During the process, Hummer, Saab and Saturn will be put up for sale while Pontiac will be shut down completely. Saturn has already been purchased.
It was necessary for the government to be involved, according to the spokesman, because if General Motors had filed for bankruptcy without assurance that the government would purchase at least a major part of the viable assets, then there would very likely have been no one to buy the viable assets. At the very least, there would have been no single venture capitalist, hedge fund or other capital entity that would have taken a chance on the new General Motors. The government was the only option.
What the spokesman explained was the process of the free market shedding weaknesses. If General Motors files for bankruptcy and there is no one willing to purchase its assets, then the market has dictated that the company is a failure and that none of the assets were actually viable. The market should have been left to do its work instead of the government stepping in and keeping a failed company on life support. Capital invested in General Motors should have been liquidated so that it could be reinvested into stronger companies. That is how capitalism perpetuates.
Honestly, I find it difficult to believe that some financier would not have taken a chance on Chevrolet or Cadillac, and likely even GMC or Buick, because they are distinctly American brands that likely could be restructured into lean and efficient automobile brands. Bondholders, shareholders, the unions and whoever else that owned the “old” General Motors certainly would have negotiated and accepted a reasonable offer from someone willing to step in.
But, if no one was willing to purchase any of the apparently viable assets, then the company should have been left to die. Instead, the government defied the free market and did not allow its mechanisms to take their toll. Failure is inherent in capitalism, but in no other system can success run so rampant.
The governments’ actions show that our political leaders do not have the faith in the free market that is necessary. If they did, General Motors would be on its own to push through the bankruptcy process. Not only does government intervention show a lack of faith the free market but it shows that the government has too much faith in itself, believing that intervention was best for the country. A faith in government that runs that deep is contrary to the American Way. What has happened to our country?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Breaking the Oath
According to uspolitics.about.com, the following is the oath of office that Supreme Court Justices must take:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The oath is pretty simple, justice is meant to be administered without respect to persons or socioeconomic status. Judgment is to be rendered in an impartial manner with respect only to the laws and Constitution of the United States. In other words, justice is blind to everything except the law. That is the definition of a society that is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a fair legal system.
When President Obama uses words like “empathy” and “compassion” to describe his ideal pick for Supreme Court Justice, he is paying no mind to the rule of law. Nowhere in the oath of office can I find where a justice is to use compassion or empathy to decide a case. A justice is supposed to make a reasoned and logical decision based on the law, not the color of a person’s skin, not their ethnicity and not their social or financial situation.
Sonia Sotomayor, according to President Obama, will be compassionate and empathetic. The President would not have chosen Judge Sotomayor if he did not believe that she would live up to his standards. What I do not understand is how Justice Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, or any justice for that matter, will be able to keep their oath and be compassionate and/or empathetic. The oath leaves no room for compromise; decisions are to be made without regard to compassion or empathy.
Essentially, President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor and will be displeased with her performance if she adheres solely to her oath of office. He will be satisfied only if she breaks her oath and considers the human aspect of a case with empathy and compassion before making a decision. President Obama expects all of his Supreme Court nominees to break their oath of office and disregard the rule of law, perhaps not in all cases, but in some. I hope that someone will be able to explain to me how the same President who refuses to compromise on morality willingly accepts that justices on the highest court in the land ought to compromise the rule of law.
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
The oath is pretty simple, justice is meant to be administered without respect to persons or socioeconomic status. Judgment is to be rendered in an impartial manner with respect only to the laws and Constitution of the United States. In other words, justice is blind to everything except the law. That is the definition of a society that is governed by the rule of law. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a fair legal system.
When President Obama uses words like “empathy” and “compassion” to describe his ideal pick for Supreme Court Justice, he is paying no mind to the rule of law. Nowhere in the oath of office can I find where a justice is to use compassion or empathy to decide a case. A justice is supposed to make a reasoned and logical decision based on the law, not the color of a person’s skin, not their ethnicity and not their social or financial situation.
Sonia Sotomayor, according to President Obama, will be compassionate and empathetic. The President would not have chosen Judge Sotomayor if he did not believe that she would live up to his standards. What I do not understand is how Justice Sotomayor, should she be confirmed, or any justice for that matter, will be able to keep their oath and be compassionate and/or empathetic. The oath leaves no room for compromise; decisions are to be made without regard to compassion or empathy.
Essentially, President Obama has nominated Judge Sotomayor and will be displeased with her performance if she adheres solely to her oath of office. He will be satisfied only if she breaks her oath and considers the human aspect of a case with empathy and compassion before making a decision. President Obama expects all of his Supreme Court nominees to break their oath of office and disregard the rule of law, perhaps not in all cases, but in some. I hope that someone will be able to explain to me how the same President who refuses to compromise on morality willingly accepts that justices on the highest court in the land ought to compromise the rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)