Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Justice for All?

President Obama has nominated his first Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. When he spoke of selecting a Supreme Court justice, he said he wanted to choose a woman or a minority. Sonia Sotomayor is both a woman and Hispanic. This limited idea of what sex or race from which to choose bothers me. Should he not simply choose the best person for the job instead of choosing the best from a certain group? Is the United States not worthy of the best? If a Hispanic woman happens to be the best then that is great. Good for her. However, I do not think that Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.


Judge Sotomayor has stated that "a court of appeals is where policy is made." Really? Perhaps someone should let the legislature know that their services are no longer needed because I'm pretty sure that is why they are working. The legislature makes the laws. We do not need legislating from the bench. A court's job is to interpret the law and decide cases brought before it.


“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is a statement made by Sotomayor! How does that sound to you? What about this? I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. I suggest that if a white male judge made this statement he would be lambasted with criticism and not given a chance at advancement and rightly so. Justice is to be blind. The law is to be enforced fairly without favoritism to one sex, race, or ideology. If her race, sex, and experiences trump the Constitution and federal laws then she should not be a Supreme Court Justice. According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:


"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."


Regarding the preborn, Senator Jim DeMint stated "When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it. This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings." I would expect someone who has made decisions about abortion to have considered all the facts instead of simply dismissing that there is another human life to consider in a case.


As she testifies before the Senate judicial committee this week she is not getting great reviews.


In response to Senator Coburn on the use of foreign law, Sotomayor says, “There’s a public misunderstanding of the word ‘use.’" Really? Please don't insult Americans by telling us we don't know the meaning of simple words.


When asked if a person has the right to self-defense, she wavers. She starts talking about if she were to go home and get her gun... Um, excuse me, even most crime show watchers know that is not self-defense but revenge. Maybe someone should buy Judge Sonia a dictionary. Certainly I'm not the only one who wonders why she feels as though she must cloud questions and answers with political non-sense.


Republican senators are being criticized for the questions they are asking. Should they go easy on her because she is a woman? I thought women wanted equality. When you are considering someone for such an important job that is a lifetime appointment, you would be negligent not to determine how that person will perform that job. I find it ironic that a person can be chosen for a position based on their sex or race and then criticism of that person's policies is called racist.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Iran and Freedom

I've been "watching" the news of Iran on Twitter. All you can get are short snippets and links to video, pictures, or articles. The news in Iran is state run so the people are circumventing regular channels in order to let the world know what is happening. All the while, I've been praying for the people of Iran. Like all souls, they long for freedom. What began as an election protest is escalating into a revolution. When people are discounted, silenced, and oppressed something has got to give. The call of every heart is FREEDOM. I do not know what the outcome will be but I know the longing has been loosed and the sparks are spreading.


There are several great editorials about what is happening in Iran: One by Peggy Nonoon, one by Paul Wolfowitz, and another by Charles Krauthammer. The protesters are trying hard to get their message out to the world and their government is trying just as hard to silence them. This week the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution in support of the Iranian citizens. The resolution states:

Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace
the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for
other purposes.
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of
freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the
importance of democratic and fair elections.

Will President Obama support hope and change in Iran? Will he take a stand against tyranny? I hope so.

Perhaps their struggle for freedom will remind us that freedom is not something we should take for granted. Freedom lost is hard to regain. As we stand in spirit with Iranians, let us not give up our freedoms here. Let us be free to speak, free to disagree, free to give input, free to compete, free to pray, and free to worship. Let FREEDOM ring. In Iran. And in America.

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Don't Allow Hate to Beget Hate

In the wake of these recent shootings, I hear people claiming this one is a right-wing extremist and this one is a left-wing extremist. When I hear these outrageous claims, I think that people are trying to paint with the same brush anyone who has any commonalities as these men who had allowed themselves to be filled with bitterness and who fed on their anger. These men are hateful extremists, period. I don't believe either side of the spectrum would claim them as their own.

We don't need to polarize each other. Everyone has different views and should be free to express them without the fear of being clumped in the same category as a murderer. I am pro-life but I do not condone the murder of an abortion provider. Another person is anti-war but doesn't condone the murder of a U.S. soldier. And racism is just plain stupid. To quote Prince of Thieves, "God likes variety."

Let's not demonize each other. I suggest the proper reaction is to convey our sympathy and grief to those families that have lost a loved one and allow no root of bitterness and hate to take hold of us. The more people hate each other, the more damage is done to our souls and we become that which we don't want to be. Angry. Hateful. Bitter.

"I would have lost heart, unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the Lord in the land of the living. Wait on the Lord; Be of good courage, And He shall strengthen your heart; Wait, I say, on the Lord!" Psalm 27:13-14

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Red Envelopes

Today is Red Envelope Day and people around the country are sending their red envelopes to President Barack Obama.

The message is simple: This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

50 million babies have died in abortion and were not given the choice to live. Numbers are hard to "see." As these envelopes make their way to the White House, perhaps we'll have a better picture of how many lives have been lost and mothers have been used, misinformed, and wounded.

There are so many people longing for babies ...


Irony

Isn't it ironic that our "pro-choice" president wants to remove the federal regulations known as "conscience protections" which protect medical/health care professionals' freedom of choice? The only choice he seems to want to promote is abortion.

These regulations are in place to prevent doctors, nurses and other health care providers from being discriminated against, persecuted, fired or denied promotions based on their refusal to perform actions which violate their conscience. Forcing people to choose between their conscience and their occupational success doesn't sound like freedom to me.

James Madison wrote, "Conscience is the most sacred of all property..."

There is still time to let your opinion be known. You can read more and comment here.

Friday, March 20, 2009

Should I Get That in Writing?

When my husband first mentioned to me that Congress wanted to pass a law taking away 90% of the bonuses paid by AIG, "I thought that won't happen, it's not legal."

Apparently, the majority of the House of Representatives doesn't care about legality. Yesterday, they trampled the constitution by passing legislation taxing 90% of this group of people's income. This is government taking aim at a group of people they don't like and confiscating their money, the income they had contractually earned.

These bonuses were no surprise. The payout of these AIG bonuses were even provided for by Chris Dodd inserting a loophole for "contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009" in the stimulus package. The outrage by Congress is a sham. Now it is evident that contracts and words spoken mean absolutely nothing to Congress and Timothy Geithner.

Who will be the next target of Congress? Who else will be targeted because the government doesn't like them, their income, their job, their political beliefs, their religion? Will you only say something if the target is you? Just because you don't like someone doesn't mean you can punish them at will.

So much for private property and the pursuit of happiness.