Sotomayor Confirmed

Following all the curiosity, publicity, genuine questions, right wing race baiting and xenophobia, confirmation hearings, and political debate; Justice Sonia Sotomayor was approved to fill the post of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court vacated by retiring Justice David Souter.

Sotomayor is now only the third female jurist to serve on the U.S Supreme Court and the first Hispanic. At about 3:00 PM Eastern time she was officially approved by the U.S Senate by a margin of 68-31. Senator Edward M Kennedy (D-MA) was absent and not voting due to illness, but has expressed support for approving Sotomayor. Sotomayor won unanimous approval from the 59 Democrats voting as well as the Senate’s two independent Democratic leading Senators and nine Republican Senators.

Republican Senators: Alexander (R-TN), Bond (MO), Collins (R-ME), Graham (R-SC), Gregg (R- NH), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), Snowe (R-ME), Voinivich (R-OH), dissented and voted to confirm her.

So after all the screeds and the pressure exerted by religious and racial special interest groups to placate the prejudices of conservative elements in society and and overwhelming Democratic majority in that chamber, conservative Republicans who have railed against her need to look at and question what the logical point of their caterwauling has been. Granted there are always legitimate questions about the record and decisions rendered by a Judaical nominee, but during the conformation hearings questions about her decisions seemed in short supply.

The most raucous voices against her stoking flames of prejudice on the waves of talk radio and in the arena must realize that after all their diatribes they likely still have their resentment smoldering within themselves and have gained little else. All that talk that sought to infer that because she is an Hispanic woman and is said to have empathy for parties involved in a decision, she must hate whites and only have empathy for non-whites; brings out the most base and ignorant sentiments of elements of America that refuse to advance to a more civilized and ideal nation.

The Right to Bare Arms

And right to bare everything else can now be severely restricted by officials in California beaches; according to a court ruling and Mother Jones Magazine (via Current tv).

Yesterday, a state appeals court ruled that California parks officials can prohibit nudity on any state beach. The state’s laissez faire nudity policy had been challenged last year when Parks Director Ruth Coleman imposed a booty ban at Southern California’s popular Onofre beach. Now of course, Onofre bathers will be using a little less suntan lotion.

Good news is the ban doesn’t apply to National parks. More good news the only thing I am wearing while blogging this is a smile on my face.

Little Hitler?

In Germany there is now an investigation of an artist to determine whether a garden gnome whose right hand is being held out in a Nazi salute violates German law. Could it be that Bernie Eccelstone is into lawn ornaments?

Texting

Well we have all heard of the hazards of texting while driving. Now here is a victim of TWW, texting while walking. A 15 year old girl is now suing New York City, after she fell into an open manhole as she was walking and texting. OMG, LOL. I am telling you, excessive texting will be the death of both us, and proper spelling.

Obama and Indefinite Detention

So much for change and the pre- Bush rule of law. A Defense Department attorney now states that even if detainees are found not guilty, they can still be imprisoned indefinably. So that is our new system, if your found guilty, you are to be kept in prison, but if you are found not guilty you are kept in prison. How can that possibly be troubling?

Defense Department General Counsel Jeh Johnson moved the Obama administration into new territory from a civil liberties perspective. Asked by Sen. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.) the politically difficult but entirely fair question about whether terrorism detainees acquitted in courts could be released in the United States, Johnson said that “as a matter of legal authority,” the administration’s powers to detain someone under the law of war don’t expire for a detainee after he’s acquitted in court. “If you have authority under the law of war to detain someone” under the Supreme Court’s Hamdi ruling, “that is true irrespective of what happens on the prosecution side.”

Martinez looked surprised. “So the prosecution is moot?” he asked.

“No, no, not in my judgment,” Johnson said. But the scenario he outlined strongly suggested it is. If an administration review panel “determines this person is a security threat” and “for some reason is not convicted of a lengthy prison sentence, I think we have the authority to continue to detain someone” under “law of war authority” as granted by the September 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force, Johnson said. And beyond that source of authority “we have the authority in the first place.”

And people wonder why Obama’s approval ratings are going down (but still remain at a relatively robust 56%). The American people cast a ballot in November for change, but not change in this direction in terms of the government and not the courts or judiciary being the arbiters of who is guilty and who is not in the form of sole judge, jury, and detainer.

The Seven Month Minnesota Nightmare is Over

This afternoon it became official. In one of the longest and most drawn out contest in American political history ex-Senator Norm Coleman (R-MN) has ceded his challenge to ex-SNL star and comic turned Democratic Senate Candidate Al Franken, following a legal tangle.

The state Supreme Court had ruled unanimously today, in favor of Franken, following legal challenges since Franken’s narrow victory in November. The court stated Franken was entitled to have his election certified and to be officially seated, a process that requires the signature of Governor and 2012 prospective Republican Presidential contender Tim Pawlenty (R-MN). This now officially gives U.S Senate Democrats what is officially a filibuster proof majority if all Senators vote the party line.

Politico:

Republican Norm Coleman has conceded to Democrat Al Franken in the Minnesota Senate race, ending one of the longest Senate races in American history and clearing the way for Democrats to hold a 60-seat supermajority in the Senate.

Coleman’s concession, given from the front of his St. Paul home, came just a few hours after the Minnesota Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled Franken the winner of last November’s Senate race. In a unanimous 5-0 decision, the court upheld a three-judge panel’s April 14 ruling that Franken defeated Coleman in the race by 312 votes out of 2.9 million cast. The 32-page opinion was remarkably decisive, picking apart and rejecting one Coleman legal claim after another.

In its final line of the ruling, the state Supreme Court said Franken is “entitled” under Minnesota law to “receive the certificate election as United States senator from the state of Minnesota.”

“The Supreme Court of Minnesota has spoken and I respect its decision and will abide by the result,” Coleman said. “It’s time for Minnesota to come together under the leaders it has chosen and move forward. I join all Minnesotans in congratulating our newest United States Senator – Al Franken

Adultury Against the Law in South Carolina?

Gov. Mark Sanford (R-SC) may not have only disgraced himself and his family, committed political suicide, and likely committed ethics violations by using public funds for his wild week in Argentina, but embedded in Chapter 15 of the South Carolina state code is one of those esoteric laws that those on the religious right must love. According to these codes adultery is illegal, though since it happened it Buenos Aries I don’t know if it means both parties have to be committing adultery in the state.

SECTION 16-15-60. Adultery or fornication.

Any man or woman who shall be guilty of the crime of adultery or fornication shall be liable to indictment and, on conviction, shall be severally punished by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars or imprisonment for not less than six months nor more than one year or by both fine and imprisonment, at the discretion of the court.

SECTION 16-15-70. “Adultery” defined.

“Adultery” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman when either is lawfully married to some other person.

SECTION 16-15-80. “Fornication” defined.

“Fornication” is the living together and carnal intercourse with each other or habitual carnal intercourse with each other without living together of a man and woman, both being unmarried.

Yeah, the hiking the Appalachian trail on National Hike Naked Day sounds pretty good right about now, huh?

Meet the New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

Now fighting to keep White House logs secret was so last administration (and was rejected by a federal Judge). Nonetheless the same tactic the Bush/Cheney administration used, the Obama administration seems to be using.

The Obama administration is arguing that the White House visitor logs are presidential records — not Secret Service agency records, which would be subject to the Freedom of Information Act. The administration ought to be able to hold secret meetings in the White House, “such as an elected official interviewing for an administration position or an ambassador coming for a discussion on issues that would affect international negotiations,” said Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt.

These same arguments, made by the Bush administration, were rejected twice by a federal judge. The visitor logs are created by the Secret Service and maintained by the Secret Service, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ruled in 2007 and again this January. CREW had requested records of visits to the Bush White House, as well as the residence of Vice President Dick Cheney, by leaders of Religious Right organizations.

Where is the change that I can believe in regarding this policy? Barack Obama ran a campaign that galvanized the American people by promising an era where the U.S moral position in the world would be improved and that government would be more transparent. Now we learn that between and John Yoo in a torture lawsuit, and now this, their is little hope and no audacity.

Gingrich the Voice of the Sotomayor Conservative Opposition

It appears that former House Speaker and possible 2012 Presidential Candidate Newt Gingrich (R-GA) is spear heading the anti-Sotomayor opposition.

Just days after a brief twitter message by Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of racism for a part of a 2001 lecture as well as a statement that her view as a Latina Woman help her reach a better conclusion then a white man, despite the urging of NRSC Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) to cease with such attacks on the Supreme Court Nominee and the consensus that she will be confirmed, Gingrich appears to be holding onto the belief that she can be stopped.

According to Swampland and TPM,. here is a letter from Gingrich who starts off by asserting that we are a nation of “law and order”.

There are only two options for how we govern ourselves – by laws, or by the will of those in power. The rule of law represents objective, dispassionate knowable standards that are applied and enforced equally to all citizens regardless of their background.

Thats weird, Gingrich seemed to shy away from the rule of law view regarding investigations of those in the Bush/Cheney administration and the Bush/Cheney era Justice Department for the use of torture or so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” that violated provisions of the Geneva Conventions as well as the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

But here Gingrich continues, branding Sotomayor “Un-American”:

“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.”

You read that right — Judge Sotomayor said that her experience as a person of a particular sex and ethnic background will make her a better judge than a person of another sex and a different ethnic background!

When did that view become acceptable?

If Civil War, suffrage, and Civil Rights are to mean anything, we cannot accept that conclusion. It is simply un-American. There is no room on the bench of the United States Supreme Court for this worldview.

Now I don’t know that much on Sotomayor, her work as a Jurist, nor the field of law to really make any determination on the quality of her work or really the soundness of her rulings, however thwarting the Sotomayor confirmation appears to be a futile task. The Democrats (with maybe the possible exception of Ben Nelson (D-NE)) seem united and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) also appears to be enthusastic about the nomination.

If Gingrich views the Sotomayor nomination as something to bring his party and the conservative movement back from a state of ruins and humiliation, or reserect his political career that ended in disgrace a decade ago, he would at least at this stage be swimming against a mammoth tidal wave. The only people Gingrich seems to be effectively rallying are the angry elderly Church going white heterosexual southerners or George Wallace “angry white man” crowd that are a constituency the Republican Party and the Conservative movement already had, and as the past two elections demonstrate that will not get you to a winning 51%.

Conservatives would be wise to keep their powder dry for a battle they could actually win and persuade the American people on, or argue on her judicial philosophy, rather then a series of desperate character attacks that will only increase her stature, which according to recent polls is already fairly high.

Inhofe on Sotomayor

All over the internet is the reaction of conservatives and liberals alike to the nomination of U.S 2nd Circut Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor by President Obama.

Now the chance of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) supporting Sotomayor’s nomination to the highest court in the land is about as likely as seeing snow fall in the deserts of the Sahara, after all he was one of only about two dozen Senator’s to oppose her previously.

Here is a piece of the statement released by his office:

“Of primary concern to me is whether or not Judge Sotomayor follows the proper role of judges and refrains from legislating from the bench. Some of her recent comments on this matter have given me cause for great concern. In the months ahead, it will be important for those of us in the U.S. Senate to weigh her qualifications and character as well as her ability to rule fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.”

One thing everyone should ask Inhofe in reaction to this statement. Has James Inhofe as a white male ever come under “undue influence” from his own personal race or gender?