Nemo me impune lacessit

No one provokes me with impunity

____________________________________

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Article 1, Section 9, Constitution of the United States

If this is the law of the land...why in a republic (little r) and as republicans, do we allow mere POLITICIANS to the right to use a "title of office" for the rest of their lives as if it were de facto a patent of nobility. Because, as republicans, this should NOT be the case...just saying...

The Vail Spot's Amazon Store

Chris Muir's Day by Day

Tuesday, May 11, 2010

Obama's Supreme Court Pick

I've not yet commented on Mr. Obama's choice for the US Supreme Court.  He has chosen the dean of Harvard Law school.  While my admiration for ivy league schools is immense, I believe it's well past time to choose people from different backgrounds.  Democrats are keen on "diversity", yet all of the women who will be sitting on the Supreme Court will have been born within a 50  mile radius (The Bronx, Brooklyn and Manhattan), and have gone to very nearly the same universities...that's not diversity at all...that's elitism at it's worst.

I would oppose pretty much anyone he chose, because I think that most liberal justices have lost sight of what the Constitution means, both historically as well as traditionally.  I think this woman is the equivalent of George Bush's choice of Harriet Myers...and thus unfit to serve on the highest court in this country.

If I had to pick one reason to oppose her nomination above all others...I'd choose Democratic Hypocrisy as the one. 
The White House Monday said that Supreme Court nominee won’t follow her own advice from 1995 in answering questions on specific legal cases or issues, supporting Kagan’s flip flop on the issue that she first made a year ago. Kagan wrote in 1995 that the confirmation process had become a “charade” because nominees were not answering direct questions, and said they should have to do so.  But during a briefing with reporters in the White House, Ron Klain, a top legal adviser to Vice President Joe Biden who played a key role in helping President Obama choose Kagan, said that she no longer holds this opinion.
That was then, this is now...why, after all, should ANYONE being chosen to high office in this country actually answer any questions at all?  Why?  Well, because then you're on record as actually supporting or opposing something...this way, by not answering substantive questions, you can hem and haw all you want. 
“I wrote that when I was in the position of sitting where the staff is now sitting, and feeling a little bit frustrated that I really wasn’t understanding completely what the judicial nominee in front of me meant and what she thought,” Kagan said,

Bullshit, now you don't think you should have to answer anything at all.  Just be confirmed...I don't think so.  This woman's own words show that she's unfit for high office.  If you wanted people to asnwer specific questions then, you should do so now.  The hypocritical "good for thee, but not for me" attitude is a perfect symptom of what is wrong with our political class.   We have an administration, many of whom's appointees evaded taxes until they were selected for high office...

My 2nd main reason to oppose her appointment is that she blocked the US Military from recruiting at Harvard Law School...thus extending the Liberal Left's disdain of those who defend their freedoms.  Personally, I've come to the conclusion that the Constitution should be amended to say the the President and Vice President of this country should have served in the US military as a precondition to holding those office.  After all, if you're not willing to defend this country why on earth should you be permitted to lead it?

No comments: