Archive for the ‘Supreme Court’ Category


Another Radical Judge

November 12, 2009

If you love liberty, help stop this ill-equipped “judge” from going any further.


Another Radical Judge

IBD: 11 Nov. 2009

11 11 09

Federal Bench: Yet another judicial nominee seeks to impose the “empathy” standard on the courts. He thinks judges should base rulings on a plaintiff’s status, legislate from the bench and amend the Constitution.

Indiana federal judge David Hamilton stands poised to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate to assume a seat on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals serving Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. He’s a former fundraiser for Acorn and a former leader of the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

He is also another in a series of activist judges who believe the U.S. Constitution is not etched in stone but made of clay, ready to be molded into anything they want. He shares the beliefs of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Edward Chen, nominee for the Northern District of California, that laws can be made from the bench and that empathy, not original intent, should be a judge’s guide.

“Part of our job here as judges is to write a series of footnotes to the Constitution,” Hamilton says. “We all do that every year in cases large and small.”  [He doesn’t know the Constitution]

And that’s precisely the problem. The law should be applied equally and evenly irrespective of who the plaintiffs or defendants might be. Otherwise, equal protection under the law goes out the window.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hamilton said that “empathy” was “important” in fulfilling a judge’s role. “Empathy is the ability to understand the world from another person’s point of view,” he said.

But the only “point of view” a federal judge needs to understand is that of the Founding Fathers.

According to Hamilton, “A judge needs to empathize with all parties in the case — plaintiff and defendant, crime victim and accused defendant — so that the judge can better understand how the parties came to be before the court and how legal rules affect those parties and others in similar situations.”

And here we thought justice should be blind and not wear its heart on its judicial robes.

Hamilton, who was nominated to the district court bench by President Clinton even though he had no judicial experience and was rated as “not qualified” by the ABA, has a history of overturned rulings and admonishments by colleagues and superiors about exceeding his authority.

After Hamilton blocked the enforcement of Indiana’s informed consent abortion law, the Seventh Circuit disagreed, saying: “No court anywhere in the country … has held any similar law invalid in the years since (the Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood vs.) Casey. Indiana is entitled to put the law into effect and have that law judged by its own consequences.”

Judge Frank Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit scolded Hamilton, noting he was the only judge in the country who had blocked enforcement of a law “materially identical” to laws that the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit and the Fifth Circuit had held constitutional. Under Hamilton’s version of the “living Constitution,” even Supreme Court precedent is irrelevant.

As Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., has pointed out in a letter to colleagues, Hamilton also has a problem with any expression of religion in the public square — however innocuous — but not with all religion.

Hamilton’s ruling in the 2005 case, Hinrichs v. Bosma, “prohibited prayers in the Indiana House of Representatives that expressly mentioned Jesus Christ … yet he allowed prayers which mentioned Allah,” Sessions also noted. We wonder if Hamilton has a problem with “God save the United States and this Honorable Court,” being uttered as the U.S. Supreme Court enters the courtroom to hear arguments.

Judges such as Hamilton, Chen and Sotomayor believe the courts should be used as instruments of social justice and not to discern the intent of those who wrote the U.S. Constitution. They believe their “life experience” should be the final arbiter of justice.

We don’t believe Hamilton deserves a promotion any more than Chen does or Sotomayor did.



September 4, 2009

Do you feel as if America has become a helpless victim of everyone in the world who believes we are unable to defend ourselves?

Our Constitution is being torn asunder by our President, our Congress and our Senate.   NONE of which can be trusted.

U.S. Constitution. Article 3 Section 3- “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.  No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forgeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.



Nurse Forced to Assist in Abortion

August 25, 2009

National Right to Life: Print July/August 2009

Nurse Forced to Assist in Abortion

Claiming that supervisors threatened to fire her if she did not assist in an abortion, Brooklyn nurse Catherina Lorena Cenzon-DeCarlo is suing Mout Sinai Hospital for violating her right to refuse to participate in abortion because of her religious beliefs.

“After I was forced to assist this abortion against my religious objection, I felt violated and betrayed, like I had been raped,” DeCarlo said in a statement.  “I couldn’t believe that this could happen in the United States, where freedom is held sacred.”

DeCalo claimed in the lawsuit, filed in late July, that she made her beliefs known to her employers both verbally and in writing soon after she began working at Mount Sinai in 2004, according to the New York Post.  She was never asked to participate in an abortion until May 24, 2009.

That day, supervisors assigned her to assist in aborting a 22-week-old-unborn baby.  DeCarlo alleged that after she refused and asked them to assign the task to a nurse who did not object, they threatened to end her career by charging her with “insubordination and patient abandonment,” The Washington Times reported.

Capitulating to the threats, DeCarlo described the horrors of witnessing the abortion, as she was “forced to watch the doctor remove the bloody arms and legs of the child from its mother’s body with forceps.  It felt like a horror film unfolding,” she claimed in the statement, according to the Times.

In the lawsuit DeCarlo, who still works at Mount Sinai, is seeking the assurance that her beliefs will be respected, monetary damages, and a return to her normal overtime shifts, which DeCarlo asserted were cut back after the incident, the Post reported.

“I hope that Mount Sinai will obey the law and allow health-care workers not to assist in abortion against their beliefs,” DeCarlo said in the statement. “I believe lots of nurses and doctors throughout the country are being pressured to assist abortion, and I want them to know they are not alone, and they should speak up for their rights of conscience.”


Alexander the Great: “Change your behavior or change your name.”

Remember the soldiers who went absent without leave (AWOL) – His commander Alexander asked the soldiers name.  When he heard his name – he instructed him to “change your name or change your behavior.”

MOUNT SINAI: The location Moses received the Ten Commandments.

Exodus 31:18 And when He had made an end of speaking with him on Mount Sinai, He gave Moses two tablets of the Testimony, tablets of stone, written with the finger of God.

Exodus 34:4 So he cut two tablets of stone like the first ones. Then Moses rose early in the morning and went up Mount Sinai, as the LORD had commanded him; and he took in his hand the two tablets of stone.

Exodus 34:29 Now it was so, when Moses came down from Mount Sinai (and the two tablets of the Testimony were in Moses’ hand when he came down from the mountain), that Moses did not know that the skin of his face shone while he talked with Him.

Exodus 19:18 Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the LORD descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain[a] quaked greatly.

Exodus 19:20 Then the LORD came down upon Mount Sinai, on the top of the mountain. And the LORD called Moses to the top of the mountain, and Moses went up.

Exodus 24:16 Now the glory of the LORD rested on Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days. And on the seventh day He called to Moses out of the midst of the cloud.

Lev. 7:38 which the LORD commanded Moses on Mount Sinai, on the day when He commanded the children of Israel to offer their offerings to the LORD in the Wilderness of Sinai.

Lev. 26:46 These are the statutes and judgments and laws which the LORD made between Himself and the children of Israel on Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses.

Lev. 27:34 These are the commandments which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai.

Deuter. 33:2 The LORD came from Sinai,
And dawned on them from Seir;
He shone forth from Mount Paran,
And He came with ten thousands of saints;
From His right hand
Came a fiery law for them.

Judges 5:5 The mountains gushed before the LORD,
This Sinai, before the LORD God of Israel.

Nehemiah 9:13 You came down also on Mount Sinai,
And spoke with them from heaven,
And gave them just ordinances and true laws,
Good statutes and commandments.

Gal 4:24 which things are symbolic. For these are the two covenants: the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar—


This Minority Will Be Vindicated

August 12, 2009

IBD     10 Aug 09

Supreme Court: The 31 senators who voted against Justice Sonia Sotomayor may get grief now, but time is on their side. Their reservations will be proved to be right on the money.

Saturday will be forever marked as the historic day on which the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice was sworn in. The Senate on Thursday voted 68-31 to confirm President Obama’s first pick for the high court.

In the coming months and years, however, we are likely to see something else historic unfold, bringing into question the integrity of our system of checks and balances.

The new justice’s record of past statements and rulings virtually guarantees that the Sonia Sotomayor who appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, who promised always to judge, never to legislate, will not be the person we find writing opinions from the bench.

When this happens, the 31 senators now depicted by Democrats as bigots will be proved right. Those lawmakers’ opposition, which has nothing to do with race, boils down to a single, inescapable conclusion: The woman with the compelling life story who appeared before them was profoundly and intentionally misleading them.

The nine Republican senators who voted for her, on the other hand, such as South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, Indiana’s Richard Lugar, and Missouri’s Kit Bond, may well end up being viewed by their constituents as having let themselves be bamboozled by the rhetorical flourishes of a street-smart New Yorker.

A new University of Tennessee analysis scrutinized Sotomayor’s record using a statistical model based on the records of 31 Supreme Court justices. It concluded what we have been warning of in these pages for months now: Sotomayor is going to be the single most liberal of the nine high-court members.

The study warns that she will lean to the left on 67% of the cases during her first term. By contrast, Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas cast liberal votes less than 40% of the time over three terms, while Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg voted on the liberal side 61% — significantly less than the prediction for their newest colleague.

But it really doesn’t take a study to know what kind of justice Obama’s choice will be; it just takes a common-sense look at what she has written and said over the years.

This is a judge who has joked about appellate courts being where policy and laws get made. She has said that asking federal judges not to consider foreign law on cases that are supposed to be guided by the U.S. Constitution is asking them to “close their minds” because “ideas have no boundaries.”

The new justice also provided some insight into her infamous “wise Latina” remark in an early-1990s TV interview for the Practising Law Institute.

Asked if she found women lawyers before her court more guilty of “histrionics,” Sotomayor replied that actually “I have found that to be the case in reverse with older men toward me. And that may be more a paternal attitude than anything else. So I have received lectures from older male attorneys.”

Does her overturned ruling in the New Haven Fire Department reverse discrimination case, in addition to many other reversed decisions, reveal a robe-clad radical, eager to shake up what she views as America’s white, male, paternalistic society?

It seems clear that her ideology is that of the high court’s past radicalism, manifested in its unanimous 1971 Swann ruling in favor of busing, its 1972 Furman decision banning the death penalty, and 1973’s Roe v. Wade case, nullifying the abortion laws of all 50 states.

If this is the kind of justice Sotomayor turns out to be, not only will those 31 senators be fully and forever vindicated; the Senate confirmation process — allowing judges to rise to power after conducting a con game under oath — will be exposed as severely broken.


It Comes Down To Sotomayor Or Constitution

August 12, 2009

IBD   5 Aug 09

Judge Sonia Sotomayor appears bound for a seat on the Supreme Court. Even so, Republicans should use her nomination to educate the American people about the dangers of politicizing the judiciary.

Sotomayor is a competent jurist who symbolizes hard work, personal achievement and ethnic diversity. However, as Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., argued during the hearing on John Roberts, “the burden of proof for a Supreme Court justice is on the nominee.” She has not met that burden.

Judge Sotomayor’s advocates have emphasized her moderate record on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. But in several decisions she has summarily dismissed protection of fundamental liberties. Moreover, Circuit Court judges remain constrained by the possibility of Supreme Court review — and the hope of advancing to the high court.

How would Justice Sotomayor act? She’s been involved in ethnic identity activism throughout her college and professional life. She spent 12 years as a board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which promoted the usual ethnic and liberal agenda.

Her judicial vision is extreme. Perhaps her most famous comment was 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.”

Six years ago she declared: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences … gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

She returned to this theme many times: “My experiences will affect the facts that I choose to see as a judge.” Moreover, “there is no objective stance, but only a series of perspectives — no neutrality.” Indeed, “our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that.”

She also believes judges are to change the law: “The public expects the law to be static and unpredictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances.”

In fact, “Our society would be straitjacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law and adapting it to the realities of ever-changing social, industrial, and political conditions.”

Thus, “a given judge (or judges) may develop a novel approach to a specific set of facts or legal framework that pushes the law in a new direction.” After all, she contends, “Change — sometimes radical change — can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes.”

One need not have an idealized vision of the law to find these sentiments profoundly disturbing. Empathy is a dubious guide to statutory and constitutional interpretation. Diversity has value, but Sotomayor’s claim that her ethnicity and gender make her a better decision-maker is bizarre.

Moreover, her stereotypes are seriously misleading. Nine white men outlawed racial segregation in Brown v. Board of Education. A Hispanic firefighter challenged New Haven’s “pro-minority” employment policy in Ricci v. DeStefano.

No one would disagree that as society changes, so must laws and practices. But the Constitution leaves that job up to the legislative and executive branches. Turning a group of nine jurists into a continuing constitutional convention puts all liberties at risk.

Another issue of concern is the use of international law to interpret the U.S. Constitution and law. Thoughtful legislators should consider foreign experiences in assessing social problems and deciding how to resolve them.

But Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation has detailed how Sotomayor argues that foreign cases should be used by judges — and justices — to shape U.S. law.

Early this year she said: “International law and foreign law will be very important in the discussion of how to think about the unsettled issues in our legal system.” She also said “unless American courts are more open to discussing the ideas raised by foreign cases, by international cases, that we are going to lose influence in the world.”

Why should the judiciary worry about America’s international influence?

In 2007, Judge Sotomayor wrote: “The question of how much we have to learn from foreign law and the international community when interpreting the Constitution is … worth posing.”

Why should foreign cases have any role in interpreting the Constitution?

Sonia Sotomayor is a decent person and capable jurist. But her radical ideas suggest she would be a less-measured justice than judge. The rule of law, and thus the original constitutional system based on individual liberty and limited government, would suffer. Judge Sotomayor has not met Sen. Durbin’s burden of proof. The Senate should vote no on her appointment.

• Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a graduate of Stanford Law School and a member of the California and District of Columbia bars.


Cartoon: Sotomayor, Judicial Activism

July 29, 2009


Connecting Sotomayor to Flight 800

July 22, 2009

Sotomayor Squashed Journalist’s First Amendment Rights

Jack Cashill – June 18, 2009 –

What no one can question about the investigation into the mysterious July 1996 crash of TWA Flight 800 off the coast of Long Island is that the government came down hard on serious journalists, and on no journalist harder than investigative reporter, James Sanders.

A key player in that government machinery was none other than District Court judge, Sonia Sotomayor.

In May 2000, she and two colleagues ruled against James Sanders and his wife, Elizabeth, in a civil suit the pair brought against the government agencies that had pursued and arrested them.

True, Sotomayor acknowledged, the government’s “aggressive investigation commenced immediately following publication of the newspaper article,” and yes the article in question did point to criminal conduct on the part of senior Justice Department and FBI officials.

No matter, ruled the judges, “It does not follow that [the Sanders] were punished because they may have drawn blood.”

From the beginning, the story of TWA Flight 800, the one that James Sanders chronicled, has been a story of humanity betrayed – none more so than the families of the 230 good souls aboard that doomed plane.

Fifty-three of the dead were TWA employees. A TWA trainer, Elizabeth Sanders had worked with many of the attendants on the doomed flight and knew several of the pilots.

Their deaths wounded Elizabeth deeply. In the weeks afterward, she and her TWA colleagues passed numbly from one memorial service to another, their grief matched only by their growing anger at the obvious misdirection of the investigation.

Elizabeth introduced one of those colleagues, 747 pilot and manager Terry Stacey, to her husband, and he would become Sanders’ best source within that investigation.

That introduction would get the sweet, vulnerable Elizabeth arrested and convicted of conspiracy.

The harassment of Sanders can be traced to March 10, 1997, when California’s Riverside Press-Enterprise headlined its front page with an article titled, “New Data Show Missile May Have Nailed TWA 800.”

The story identified James Sanders as an “investigative reporter,” provided information on his previous non-fiction books, and described his inquiry into the Flight 800 investigation over the preceding months.

This story created a significant problem for the Justice Department. The article’s text confirmed that Sanders was on the trail of potential criminal activity by certain investigators.

As those charged with containing the investigation realized, their worst nightmare had come to pass. Forensic evidence had left the hangar.

(Above: James Sanders explains in his own words)

Some unknown person within the investigation had removed a pinch of material from the plane as telling and potentially damaging as Monica’s famed “blue dress.”

That person was Terrel Stacey. He had removed it of his own volition and sent it to Sanders FedEx.

This piece of seat back was laced with the DNA of the crash, a reddish-orange residue trail that streaked across a narrow section of the plane’s interior.

The FBI had lifted samples in early September 1996, then refused to share the test results with Stacey and others working with the NTSB. For the record, those tests today remain classified under the guise of national security.

The Clinton Justice Department began to defame the Sanders the day after the article appeared, March 11, publicly and falsely claiming that the reddish-orange residue was glue.

If the residue were nothing but glue, it is hard to explain why the FBI launched a major investigation that resulted in the arrest of Stacey, James Sanders, and Elizabeth Sanders.

The law in question had been enacted in the 1960s to discourage souvenir hunters from carting away wreckage at a crash scene before authorities arrived.

What Stacey had taken was much more precious, namely information. Had he managed to scrape off the residue, as he tried to do, he could not have been prosecuted under the scavenger law.

In the Sanders’ trial, the jurors were not allowed to know that James was a reporter. For all they knew, he and Elizabeth were rogue junk dealers. Both were convicted.

Sotomayor and colleagues fully ignored the suppression of Sanders’ First Amendment rights in their ruling.

“The government,” they claimed, “was motivated by a legitimate desire to identify and eliminate a patent security breach in the official investigation, rather than by an illegitimate desire to silence an objectionable viewpoint.”

If this were true, it is hard to understand why in1997 the FBI’s New York office Internet site headlined the story of the Sanders’ arrest, “Conspiracy theorist and wife charged with theft of parts from airplane.”

The use of the word “conspiracy theorist” would seem to suggest that the FBI arrested Sanders precisely because he held an “objectionable viewpoint.”

Having ignored the obvious, the judges concluded, “Absent any evidence that the prosecution was brought to punish the defendants or to retaliate against them for exercising their rights, the defendants were not entitled to discovery on the issue of actual vindictiveness.”

As Sanders observes, discovery would have revealed that the FBI and CIA had changed the testimony of key witnesses, fully fabricated some witness statements, altered the debris field, reshaped recovered airplane parts, and concealed or corrupted a wide range of additional salient evidence to fit their cover story.

Sanders, who has lived this case for the last twelve years, does not mince words in describing the Supreme Court nominee: “The evidence clearly established probable cause to believe Sotomayor entered the conspiracy and aided and abetted the conspiracy.”

What gives legs to Sanders’ conspiracy charge is that during that same year Sotomayor ruled against him, she ruled in favor of TWA and Boeing.

Despite her famed Latina compassion, Sotomayor was the sole dissenting vote in denying compensation to the victims’ families.

Sanders is not alone in his belief that TWA and Boeing had been coerced into accepting the government position on the crash in return for the administration’s help in weathering its consequences.

All Sanders asks for now is a little of Sotomayor’s superior justice and Obama’s equally superior transparency.

Jack Cashill