Remember liberal hippy: during the “past eight years” year dissension was “patriotic.” Suck it.
Is Sonia Sotomayor gay? If so, this is a good reason to reject her Supreme Court nomination. If she can use her self-proclaimed Latina experiences to make decisions that crackers like me can’t make, you can bet your sweet fur burger that she can also use her Lesbian experiences in the same manner.
Riddle me this: If a Latina can make decisions influenced by her personal view of the world and/or her “empathy” (Obama’s apparent litmus test) where men cannot, why should I trust her judgment? After all, I am a minority: I live in a city that is 58% Hispanic. Where is MY representation? I thought that Obama was the great uniter! Help! Help! I’m being oppressed! Sotomayor is telling us that Mr. Honky isn’t necessarily the right judge for the job in cases involving race.
Sotomayor has already admitted that courts like hers are where policies are made, not enforced. Her words, not mine. Team Obama has hyped up her Latina heritage and the press is chugging the kool-ade yet again. She is a political activist, an example of how the courts are ruining America. Sotomayor sees her upbringing and culture as an advantage that gives her perspective and the ability to make tough decisions.
This makes me wonder: Since we can be sure that Roe v. Wade will certainly be reviewed by an Obama Supreme Court, how can Sotomayor possibly make a rational decision about the right to life if she has never created life before? How can she craft her legal opinions on such an important case if she has no cultural experience with the topic? She has no idea what it is like to live with another life inside of her. She has never experienced the miracle of birth. Will she take the side of teens “burdened” by pregnancy? Will she take the side of illegal aliens that enter our country to deliver an anchor baby? After all, she is a Latina, she understands these things, right? Based on her own perspectives on the roll of judges, she should respectfully withdraw her nomination.
But seriously, a judge is supposed to be an impartial arbitrator. A judge is not supposed to consider how the plaintiff or defendant was “feeling” at the time a crime was committed. A courtroom is no place to showcase your empathy. When you do, you get results like the initial OJ Simpson verdict. A judge should not put him or herself in the shoes of those she is judging. They are supposed to rule based on the letter of the law. If you were involved in a court case, would you enjoy the burden of worrying whether the judge was going to side with you or the other side? Or, would you prefer to sit in confidence knowing that the judge was not biased or full of empathy?
(note: Justice Souter is also gay. Sotomayor’s gayness is not the issue, if you read this correctly. I’m writing about the hypocrisy of her statements – conflict her words and beliefs have with the responsibilities that her potential new job carry.)
Carrie Prejean, a.k.a. Miss California 20o9, is being blasted by the left for her polite on-the-spot answer saying that she believes marriage is between a man and a woman. Perez Hilton, the flamboyantly gay Miss USA judge that asked this entirely inappropriate question and started the firestorm, called Prejean a “dumb bitch” in his video blog tirade after the pageant and has yet to receive any negative press. Miss CA may lose her title over expressing her opinion.
Funny thing: her opinion on this issue is the same as that of President Obama. Why didn’t the left explode over the issue then? Because they are nothing but a bunch of hypocritical jack-asses that care more about hearing their own heads rattle than they do about the issues. The double-standard and wanton hypocrisy is mind boggling.
Remember when Liberals cared about Free Speech? Isnt this supposed to be the inclusive party of diverse thought (according to Nancy Pelosi)? Why isn’t the ACLU defending Ms. Pregean’s constitutional right to free speech? Why isn’t her public humiliation by the left-leaning media justification for a hate crime? After all, she is being lambasted for stating her opinion, one that the gay community disagrees with. (again, forget about the fact that most politicians and most of America for that matter are against gay marriage).
Those that are screaming about this are doing more damage to their cause than their tiny, bigotted little brains can comprehend. I welcome their political vapaidity with open arms and encourage them to continue this gay parade of false rage. If news like this continues to saturate the airwaves 2010 will be a conservative landslide.
As usual the press is running with the wrong side of a story. Senator Craig (Republican from Idaho) was arrested last month for solicitation while at the Minneapolis airport. Liberals are whining that he is being persecuted for being gay. Others are saying that Craig was the victim of a hateful Idaho newspaper editor. Once again the concept of personal responsibility has slipped into some other plane of reality that most Americans can’t perceive. Craig was arrested for solicitation, as in asking for sex, in a public place. Where’s the ambiguity?
Look at it this way. Would the left be supporting Craig if he got busted soliciting a prostitute while in office? Would they support him if he was a woman soliciting another woman in a restroom? (does that even happen?) Craig’s sexual preference has nothing to do with the issue; his lack of judgment is the problem. A sitting Senator was caught trying to engage in sex in a public restroom. At least Bill Clinton had the nerve to do so in a private, albeit publicly funded room of an oval shape.
Here’s a quick history lesson for the younger crowd: This ain’t the first time… Craig was accused of this behavior in 1982. (I wonder how many bathroom forays he’s had over the past two-and-a-half decades?)
A former governor has weighed in on this issue and offers prayers for Craig and his family. While pontificating on the shame and suffering of growing up gay and how his sexual desires ruined his political career, former New Jersey governor James McGreevey closes his article with the following quote: “I pray that the tide of American history continues to sweep toward the inevitable expansion of freedom that recognizes the worth and dignity of every individual — and that mine is the last generation that is required to choose between affairs of the heart and elected office.”
Again, being gay is not the issue. Soliciting in public restrooms is the issue. Show me the article or news clip that suggests that Craig step down for being gay. Hey James, we’d be happy with a generation of politicians able to focus on their jobs instead of finding an anonymous quickie.
Libs will quickly chime in “But what about Senator Vitter…” Well, I can think of two things that make his calls to a prostitution house different than Craig’s bathroom escapades.
- Vitter’s behavior occurred before he was a senator. Shame on the Louisiana press for not finding out about this before he was elected. Then again, what do you expect from the state the brought us Katrina victims Ray Nagan and Kathleen Blanco?
- Vitter fully admitted to his actions and took responsibility for them. It only took senator Craig 19 seconds to try and deflect the blame to the police officer interviewing him. Craig said “you solicited me.” He knew what he was doing. He knew the implications. Do you really want someone with such horrible judgment making important political decisions?
I’m all for forgiveness. If Craig had admitted to his mistake, and if it was an isolated event I believe the public would be willing to let him remain in office. But his arrest is the end of an apparently very long history of discreet sexual activity, and his reactions on tape and his public denial were the final nails in his political coffin.
