Wednesday, May 27, 2009


Okay. This Sotomayor deal is all abuzz right now, so I guess I'll weigh in.

She's a woman. Big deal. I think anybody born since about 1900 probably feels like a woman in the Supreme Court isn't going to stop Earth's rotation.

She's Latina. Yawn. Shameless political pandering, and altogether typical.

I will simply say this: there were probably hundreds, if not thousands, of white judges and male judges and even white male judges who were at least as qualified as she. If this were not so, I feel certain that she could simply stand on her own merits. The panderers wouldn't have to be reminding us 24 hours each day that she "has had a rough time" and "was raised in a Bronx housing project" and "knows about the typical American struggle". We aren't picking the most interesting people here. We are picking a person who should be the most qualified to be a Justice of the SCOTUS. Give the sob stories a rest, already. Maybe it made her a strong person. Maybe it made her a really great person. I see strong and great people as patients every day who have overcome obstacles as well. That doesn't qualify them for a position as a Supreme Court Justice.

The only important thing that's been said about Judge Sotomayor is that she tends to lean toward judicial activism. That is simply unacceptable. The SCOTUS is not where laws are made. It is where the only law that matters - the Constitution of the United States - is interpreted to decide matters between parties. It's not a platform from which social engineering is to take place. Activism has no place there. That's why Justice is supposed to be blind. Justice doesn't care if you are gay or straight, male or female, white or black or hispanic. If she plans to use her position as a Justice to make laws, then she is a lousy choice.

As long as your Princeton and Yale education has prepared you to read the words in the Constitution, Judge Sotomayor, and as long as you are prepared to use that document alone - not your vast wealth of personal experiences you speak about ad nauseum - to make your judgments, then you're okay with me.

Somehow I suspect you'll be unable to live up to that simple job description.

Healthcare-NOW: Cowards

I checked the Healthcare-NOW! website to see if anybody had responded to my comments on the unvarnished lies contained in a recent propaganda piece written by Dr. Marcia Angell. Not surprisingly, they had simply deleted my comments.

Apparently, they are terrified to have counterpoints placed on their website. These are the people who have been continuously whining and moaning about having 8 of their members arrested for disrupting a recent Congressional meeting to protest not having a seat at the table to discuss their particular plan for ruining American medicine.

I think it is ironically entertaining that they find it so unfair to have their point of view squelched, but then turn around and do the same to me.

And I find it absolutely delicious that the government they claim will be so responsive to our concerns when they control our life-and-death health care decisions is so unresponsive to them.

You see, this is one of the main problems with government-run health care. If you aren't happy with it, what can you do? The bureaucracy is impenetrable. It's not like you can carry a complaint up the chain. At least now if you hate Blue Cross and think the coverage is lousy, you can choose Aetna or someone else. We won't have the same latitude when the feds are involved. We can't simply fire our government.

You want to see what changing our health care will be like if Healthcare-NOW! gets their way? Look no further than what happened to the self-proclaimed "Baucus Eight".

Well done, liberals. You are like a self-contained humor factory.