Blog @ MoreWhat.com

FDR signed his Social Security Act in 1935. In 1939 he made the following statements in a message to Congress.

The health of the people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of suffering, economic loss, and dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of the Nation.

Health needs were studied by the Committee on Economic Security which I appointed in 1934 and certain basic steps were taken by the Congress in the Social Security Act. It was recognized at that time that a comprehensive health program was required as an essential link in our national defenses against individual and social insecurity. Further study, however, seemed necessary at that time to determine ways and means of providing this protection most effectively.

Apparently FDR, the Congress, the federal government, etc.,etc., decided the time had come to provide government health care for the nation. FDR had a commission which recommended a grant program between the federal government and states to provide health care services. But Medicare and Medicaid were not established until 1965 under LBJ’s Great Society agenda. Let’s see, in the thirties a Democratic President determined we needed government provided health care. But nothing happened until the sixties. In the sixties, LBJ must have determined he solved the problem with Medicare and Medicaid. But in the nineties a third Democratic party President determined we still did not have a government provided health care program and had his wife spearhead his agenda on health care. That would be the Clintons. Nothing happened.

Now, a fourth Democratic party President, Barack Obama, has determined that we absolutely, positively need to provide government health care for everyone.

FDR established Social Security as we know it today. It is by most appraisals a system that cannot survive indefinitely. Medicare and Medicaid are similar in nature and feasibility. They probably cannot survive indefinitely either. Government funded, aka, taxpayer funded health care is not an effective means for solving health care issues. Yet in the thirties, sixties, nineties and now the new millennium we are regularly pitched that government health care is absolutely necessary. And none of the programs implemented to date have been effective. They are all fatally flawed. And yet again we are being expected to believe the government can solve the problem.

If after eighty years of fantasy that the government can, with taxpayer dollars, provide all the health care necessary for the nation in a cost effective and efficient manner has not been shown to be exactly that, a fantasy, then the American public deserves exactly what it gets from government funded health care…….nothing. Nothing but an ever increasing expense for ever diminishing results.

You are once again urged to contact your elected representative and reject the eighty year old fantasy that the government can provide health care for everyone. Hell, they cannot even get it done for those who are on the public health care dime now.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Nothing like a Washington political story with confusion, controversy and contradiction just when the Middle East is heating up again. Some earlier reports suggested Dennis Ross had been fired from his job as an Iran Envoy at State while later reports suggest he has been moved from State to the NSC. But it appears as of this posting that Ross is being moved from the State Dept to the White House. But the controversy doesn’t stop there.

He’s been around during the administrations of Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, Bush 43 and now Obama. You could say he is hawkish on the Iraq War but disagrees with some aspects of it. According to Wiki, he was raised in a non-religious environment but became very Jewish later in life and even co-founded a synagogue in Maryland. So what you say?

While he may have much knowledge of and experience in matters of Middle East diplomacy it is not like he will be viewed as a disinterested third party. There is support and opposition from outside opinions on all sides of the debate.

To read more, some references are listed below with links as well as the Wiki highlighted link above. Just another one of those interesting stories from Washington.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Ross leaving State for White House?
msnbc.com -
State Department officials and sources close to Dennis Ross say the diplomat is expected to leave the State Department soon for a position in the White …

Dennis Ross’s Future On The Iran Desk
Atlantic Online -
1. Ross, a veteran diplomat, was never envoy to Iran. He was a “special adviser” with responsibility for providing advice about the entire Middle East …

Dennis Ross Transferred to White House
Arutz Sheva -
(IsraelNN.com) The US administration said Monday that State Department official Dennis Ross would be transferred to the White House and receive an expanded …

Dennis Ross, Out As Special Envoy To Iran; Was He Ousted Because …
New Republic - Jun 15, 2009
Dennis Ross, Out As Special Envoy To Iran; Was He Ousted Because He’s A Jew Or A Bit Hawkish On Nukes? The news that Dennis Ross, long time State Department …

Iran Aftermath: Will Obama Replace Special Envoy Dennis Ross?
CQPolitics.com -
By Adriel Bettelheim | June 15, 2009 12:39 PM

While a little late to the party gathering information on the story about Gerald Walpin being fired by the White House as Inspector General of Americorps turns up some other interesting tidbits.

Without looking for more, two pieces written by Walpin, one at the NY Daily News and one at the Wall Street Journal illuminate what may be something of a thing for Walpin. Apparently he finds it very distasteful that military recruiters are not that welcome on some school campuses. That is said since both pieces are on the same subject and written several years apart, one in 2005, the other in 2008.

Another accidental find shows 2008 campaign contributions for Walpin to the war chests of former Senator Dole, former GOP Senator Specter and Presidential candidates Giuliani and McCain.

The other noticeable trend is aside from the Washington Examiner and ABC News there does not seem to be much attention being paid by the remainder of the MSM on this story. That is not a big surprise.

So we have a guy who went to Yale Law School in the fifties who expresses principles in two reviewed articles, appears to be politically aligned with the right, defends the military’s right to recruit on campus and gets fired for exposing waste or corruption in the federal government which happens to be his job as an Inspector General.

It seems reasonable to assume that if one looks further based on this little bit of information more interesting facts and figures could be gleaned about Gerald Walpin. But what is of more importance of course is the original story. What waste or corruption did Gerald Walpin uncover or expose? Why was he fired? Who else is involved in the story?

Walpin had finished a report on a probe in Sacramento and one involving City University of New York. He was being fired by Norm Eisen, Special Counsel to the President for Ethics and Government Reform. Both probes feature the ‘extensive’ misuse of Americorps funds.

Senator Grassley has entered the fray demanding perhaps any and all information related to this investigation. You can follow this if you haven’t already by clicking HERE.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

some other references…

Shame on Yale Law School for betraying its principles
By GERALD WALPIN
Thursday, March 6th 2008, 4:00 AM

The Wisdom of Solomon
Law schools adopt an Orwellian theory in an effort to keep the military out.
by GERALD WALPIN
Monday, December 5, 2005 12:01 A.M. EST

Some campaign contribution data for Gerald Walpin

How does the following report reconcile one statement indicating Netanyahu ‘concedes little’ and making the speech was due to ‘American pressure’? They claim he was under duress and felt compelled to make a speech. Based on the second report below it would appear nothing has changed. Egypt still balks at the idea of recognizing the Jewish state. Is that supposed to be a big surprise?

Israeli PM concedes little in speech

The fact that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu felt it necessary to make a speech at all about a Palestinian state shows that American pressure works.

2nd report…..
CAIRO, June 15 (Reuters) - Egypt said on Monday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision for achieving peace with the Palestinians was flawed and fell short of Arab and international demands for an independent Palestinian state.

Netanyahu endorsed — with tough conditions — the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state in a policy speech on Sunday. He said Palestinians must recognise Israel as a Jewish state and forego the right of return for refugees.

Other reports express the Palestinians were disappointed, there is ‘fallout’ after the speech and that opposition party leader Tzipi Livni is on the same page with Netanyahu. Considering what is available to read about this topic it appears Israel is conceding nothing, maintaining their previous positions and any new items are so vague as to be a no risk offer. And the question of a Palestinian state is rendered useless since they will not likely be disarmed.

The world has moved no closer to peace in the Middle East. So what’s new? Is it possible that President Obama’s two state solution is DOA?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

From the White House website and the out of place blog three items are featured. Health care reform is touted as ‘the key to our fiscal future.’ The 2000th transportation construction job located in Michigan is described so cutely as the road to recovery. And ‘a broad array of ways’ the public can participate in government extends the fantasy of transparency and accountability, etc.

And a list along side these items outlines legislation passed this year. The measure on credit card rules demonstrates the not so creative use of words to give the impression new laws are significant. Accountability (there’s that word again), responsibility and disclosure are combined with credit or card to give the cute acronym CARD for this law. Another weapons procurement law, another title suggesting a way to save homes of those at risk of foreclosure, something on fraud and recovery, serving America, managing public lands, extending some small business programs, PORKULUS, DTV and SCHIPS finish out the list with a bill characterized as securing fair pay.

You can conclude that all these things guarantee the spending of more taxpayer dollars. What you cannot conclude is whether or not they will do any good. Every time Congress passes a law and the President signs it money will be spent. But exactly what good it does or the fact that no one in Washington (or really at any other level of government) will do anything to present facts and figures with supporting data to prove the end results or lack of same stands as evidence nothing changes in the executive and legislative branches at the federal level and all talk of transparency and accountability is ludicrous.

Put this in comparison with the biggest issues this past week. North Korea has expanded on its course to collide with the rest of the world on nuclear threats and its reckless actions while the best the White House can do is say it supports the UN resolution that is simply one more impotent act in a series of them from the international community including current leadership of the United States.

Iran is reported to have held elections in which the little Hitler has been kept in power while the opposition is making claims of election fraud. Has anyone offered a helping hand to those making the allegations in an effort to place pressure on Iran to show proof of a valid election? If the world’s rogue state’s can refuse to recognize Israel why can’t the same be said of Iran based on this week’s elections?

A Treasury Dept task force ‘defends’ taking over the automobile industry There is some quiet noise being made about Gitmo and Uighur detainees and China’s opposition to relocating them from members of Congress. Obama plans to push another government takeover in the form of health care reform. The House of Representatives passes a State Dept funding plan to clean up other people’s messes and waste more taxpayer money. But let’s keep accepting the White House PR that progress is being made and things are going to get better. Cuz there from the government and here to help. Right.

It might be fair to say that Russia an China, being two other significant players on the world scene, are doing just as poorly as the US leadership in turning things around and getting serious about what really matters. But this blog is not that concerned about how well other countries are living up to their responsibilities. The US needs its leadership to return to principles that have kept us going all these years. Tearing down what has been and ‘rebuilding the fundamental ways’ this country functions as Obama has suggested is not a recipe for success.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

What the hell took so long?

Following another dreadful start, the Brewers Saturday optioned left-hander Manny Parra to Class AAA Nashville.

Parra’s demotion was announced just hours after his worst outing of the season. He allowed six runs on six hits in just 1.2 innings of work in a 7-1 loss to the White Sox. It was just the latest in a poor stretch for Parra, who’s allowed 32 earned runs on 40 hits with 15 walks in 21.1 innings over his last five outings.

This Brewer fan just doesn’t get it. Wish the bosses I had were that patient.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

an aside: 1.2 innings? How about 1 2/3 or 1.67 innings or is that some kind of sports writer shorthand?

The previous post featured another liberal being paid to give her take on the news at a well-known media outlet. Let not the criticism be placed solely on liberal taking heads. While there is a considerable quantity of worthwhile writing coming from the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan is not responsible for any of it. How does that square with the fact she is a contributing editor at the WSJ? Maybe it is just another example that nothing has to make sense in the media world.

Noonan is considered by some to be a conservative. Why? Just because she was a speech writer for Ronald Reagan. Dick Morris was in the Clinton clan. Does that make him a liberal? Not necessarily but he fits well with Noonan as not being particularly useful as a media voice. How about David Brooks? Sitting with liberal Mark Shields on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer from PBS you might expect a sort of point counterpoint arrangement of the left and right. A description of Brooks on Wikipedia suggests a claim from Brooks that he was ‘originally a liberal’ yet Wiki states he is a ’staunch conservative.’ If position statements on Wiki are accurate about Brooks there is little doubt he still maintains a liberal viewpoint.

Rush Limbaugh makes a boat load of money with his radio talk show. Does that prove anything about Mr Limbaugh. Certainly it does. Whether you are on the left or right or nowhere at all it is a simple matter to conclude that whatever your opinion of Rush Limbaugh he attracts a large enough audience to command stellar compensation for his efforts. With a reported contract of $400 million for eight years one can assume many people in this country agree with what he has to say. Something the left side of politics has been unable to produce.

What is the difference between someone like Rush Limbaugh and the others mentioned in this post? Aside from the occasional broadcast appearance of the others they are largely print media people and Limbaugh is primarily in broadcast. The real difference is that Limbaugh is marketable on his own having little influence over his programming by those who sign the checks. The same cannot be said of the others. Their loyalties and the influence over them by those who sign the paychecks can easily influence their opinions as expressed under the byline.

Whether Limbaugh simply knows how to work the best paying crowd or has won a massive audience and payday by preaching to the choir does not matter. He is either striking a resonant chord with like-minded individuals or cheer leading for those who already know most of what he says is true. If you think you found a flaw in that statement you would be wrong. If what Rush says is not true it is generally preceded with hints to indicate that and if you miss the cues altogether you haven’t listened to his program long enough.

By now the average liberal should have drawn a conclusion that this is merely another pitch for Rush Limbaugh. Nope. Wrong again. Since these days even the liberals are contributing to the popularity of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative messengers it saves typing to select an example with which everyone is familiar. Simply by virtue of the liberal response to conservative media people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck and others it would be difficult to get a substantial number of people to describe them as liberals. The same cannot be said of the previously mentioned print media people in either direction.

By Limbaugh’s often heard statement equating the voting distinction of ‘independent’ as nothing more than a liberal this blog’s author is, go figure, a liberal. That is not the case. Is Limbaugh not telling the truth? Not exactly. His understanding of the term independent as used in politics is different than the one on this blog. Here is is used to define a voter or politician with no political affiliation. Apparently Limbaugh sees it as a mask for closet liberals to hide behind.

It is not uncommon for those in the GOP to get labeled RINO (Republican In Name Only) due to either not supporting the GOP or acting counter to conservative principles. Even without the recent party move by Specter the Defector the entire GOP could be labeled RINO after their fall from grace from conservative principles like fiscal responsibility. But can you ever remember a Democrat being called a DINO (Democrat In Name Only)? Hence it would be understandable if Rush found all those interested in politics or public affairs to be left or right, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative with nothing in between. Or in other words, if independent was not available and you had to pick one side or the other of the pairs just listed, what would it be?

In closing, to find reasonable information or commentary about current events is no less difficult now then it ever has been in years past. Just because technology has increased the number of offerings to choose from does not make the choices any easier. If anything it has made it more challenging since anyone can become a voice. So in this case rather than making life easier technological advancements have made the mission of being well-informed a labor-intensive task.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Back in the eighties the launch of Cable News Network was quite impressive. Especially since broadcast news offerings are largely limited to the evening news around dinner time and occasional news magazines or prime time specials that were also limited. Offering 24/7 news coverage on TV was a long overdue effort that seemed the obvious next step. Ted Turner was the guy who started it all.

Mr Turner’s life and career are notable and should be considered impressive by anyone’s standards although, as is usually the case with popular or public figures, not without controversy. Much has changed and much stayed the same after Turner relinquished his mogul role with the merger of his empire with Time Warner. One could say the ride was over at that point.

But there is no shortage of criticism of ‘the media’. While there once may have been a sense that media outlets were the voices that kept the public informed and served as watchdogs in the public interest the case is being made these days that journalism is dead.

The list of usual suspects tainting the news media is too long ot cover here but a recently announced addition certainly serves as a fine example of what is wrong.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - “The View” co-host Joy Behar will be adding a daily primetime show to her workload.

Beginning this fall, the comedian will host “The Joy Behar Show” on HLN (formerly Headline News). The one-hour talk show will air at 9 p.m., seven days a week as part of the network’s primetime slate of opinion-based programing.

And the following is a media executive’s opinion on this ‘opinion-based programming’.

“Joy’s sense of humor and her bold interview style make her one of the best talk-show hosts in the business,” said CNN Worldwide exec vice president Ken Jautz.

To complete the point being made here, what is in Joy Behar’s resume’ that qualifies her as a talk show host giving her ‘take’ on the news of the day? Not since a sports commentator hack became a news person or news commentator on the same media group has the decline of the MSM been so obvious.

What Ted Turner began in the eighties is slowly circling the drain in search of an epitaph.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The debate on whether the Obama Administration is reliving FDR’s New Deal has come up from time to time. In that debate those who support Obama suggest the New Deal was a success and predictably those who oppose the new President suggest it was a failure and even prolonged The Depression.

With the debate over Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor making news another example from FDR’s years draws more historical similarities. Not only are there historic references to Obama and FDR’s economics but judicial ones as well. It even raises the level of awareness on matters of separation of powers. Although this blog is not as confident in the conclusion drawn on that topic in the excerpt below.

It is safe to say that a respect for the principle of separation of powers is deeply ingrained in every American. The nation subscribes to the original premise of the framers of the Constitution that the way to safeguard against tyranny is to separate the powers of government among three branches so that each branch checks the other two. Even when this system thwarts the public will and paralyzes the processes of government, Americans have rallied to its defense.

Perhaps more correctly, ’some’ Americans rally to its defense. Will there be any conflict between the White House and SCOTUS with the current redux of the New Deal? There was during the first New Deal.

In 1935-36, the Court struck down eight of FDR’s New Deal programs, including the National Recovery Act (NRA) and the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA). Public antijudicial sentiment intensified; many critics questioned the constitutionality of the concept of judicial review itself. As a result of this reaction, several constitutional amendments were introduced into Congress in 1936, including one that would require a two-thirds vote of the Court whenever an act of Congress was declared unconstitutional; another that would permit Congress to revalidate federal laws previously declared unconstitutional by repassing them with a two-thirds vote of both houses, and even one that would abolish altogether the Court’s power to declare federal laws unconstitutional.

FDR remained silent, hoping that the antijudicial public sentiment would continue to grow without his having to enter the fray. He avoided any direct references to the Court in the 1936 election campaign. After his election victory, however, he submitted to Congress early in February 1937 a plan for “judicial reform,” which forever came to be known as his attempt to “pack” the Supreme Court. Given Roosevelt’s record for legislative success, it is interesting to discover why this plan to reconstitute the Court with Justices more favorable to the New Deal backfired.

Ironically, the following is from the White House website and its offering of resources of and about past Presidents. Much of what is written below seems to be reflected in the Obama Administration beyond the New Deal and the Supreme Court.

By 1935 the Nation had achieved some measure of recovery, but businessmen and bankers were turning more and more against Roosevelt’s New Deal program. They feared his experiments, were appalled because he had taken the Nation off the gold standard and allowed deficits in the budget, and disliked the concessions to labor. Roosevelt responded with a new program of reform: Social Security, heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks and public utilities, and an enormous work relief program for the unemployed.

In 1936 he was re-elected by a top-heavy margin. Feeling he was armed with a popular mandate, he sought legislation to enlarge the Supreme Court, which had been invalidating key New Deal measures. Roosevelt lost the Supreme Court battle, but a revolution in constitutional law took place. Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.

Roosevelt had pledged the United States to the “good neighbor” policy, transforming the Monroe Doctrine from a unilateral American manifesto into arrangements for mutual action against aggressors. He also sought through neutrality legislation to keep the United States out of the war in Europe, yet at the same time to strengthen nations threatened or attacked. When France fell and England came under siege in 1940, he began to send Great Britain all possible aid short of actual military involvement.

When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, Roosevelt directed organization of the Nation’s manpower and resources for global war.

Feeling that the future peace of the world would depend upon relations between the United States and Russia, he devoted much thought to the planning of a United Nations, in which, he hoped, international difficulties could be settled.

‘Thereafter the Government could legally regulate the economy.’ That’s a statement requiring more study. As for the other items, allowing deficits is nothing new. Heavier taxes on the wealthy, new controls over banks, etc. Then to foreign policy FDR expressed the good neighbor idea not unlike BHO cowering to the Saudis and appeasing Muslims. No unilateral defense for Obama like FDR only ‘mutual action’ against aggressors. We helped Britain, got into the war and afterwards we can blame the United Nations on FDR. You might also consider that while FDR had a good neighbor policy Neville Chamberlain in Britain was attempting to appease aggressors as well.

Obviously that is just the take on this blog. Your’s may be different. But the point remains that there are clear historical references to actions taking place today. And that old reminder is still valid. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Sometimes called the United States’ ‘first constitution’ the Articles of Confederation and the story behind them demonstrate the difficulty in forming a new nation. These days there is again much concern about ‘big government’ and too much power being wielded by the curent federal government. Yet another current example of difficulties in a country like Iraq trying to form a new government shares some similarities as well as differences with the history of the forming of our nation.

There is and was a need for the several states in America maintaining their independence and liberty from the tyranny of a central government yet having such central authority to provide strength in protecting the nation from foreign interference. Foreign trade and foreign affairs being conducted by the several states independently was not without problems. One example was Maryland’s reluctance to ratify the Articles and when under attack by the British sought help from the French who encouraged them to ratify.

The struggle among the several states to maintain their independence and liberty yet bind with a central authority for national strength and protection continues today. The Articles of Confederation represent one of our earliest attempts at resolving these issues.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Articles of Confederation

Nov. 15, 1777

To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

I.

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be “The United States of America”.

II.

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

III.

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

IV.

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each of these States to the records, acts, and judicial proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every other State.

V.

For the most convenient management of the general interests of the United States, delegates shall be annually appointed in such manner as the legislatures of each State shall direct, to meet in Congress on the first Monday in November, in every year, with a powerreserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

Each State shall maintain its own delegates in a meeting of the States, and while they act as members of the committee of the States.

In determining questions in the United States in Congress assembled, each State shall have one vote.

Freedom of speech and debate in Congress shall not be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Congress, and the members of Congress shall be protected in their persons from arrests or imprisonments, during the time of their going to and from, and attendence on Congress, except for treason, felony, or breach of the peace.

VI.

No State, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, shall send any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or enter into any conference, agreement, alliance or treaty with any King, Prince or State; nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State; nor shall the United States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any title of nobility.

No two or more States shall enter into any treaty, confederation or alliance whatever between them, without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, specifying accurately the purposes for which the same is to be entered into, and how long it shall continue.

No State shall lay any imposts or duties, which may interfere with any stipulations in treaties, entered into by the United States in Congress assembled, with any King, Prince or State, in pursuance of any treaties already proposed by Congress, to the courts of France and Spain.

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.

No State shall engage in any war without the consent of the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, or shall have received certain advice of a resolution being formed by some nation of Indians to invade such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to admit of a delay till the United States in Congress assembled can be consulted; nor shall any State grant commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor letters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a declaration of war by the United States in Congress assembled, and then only against the Kingdom or State and the subjects thereof, against which war has been so declared, and under such regulations as shall be established by the United States in Congress assembled, unless such State be infested by pirates, in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall continue, or until the United States in Congress assembled shall determine otherwise.

VII.

When land forces are raised by any State for the common defense, all officers of or under the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the legislature of each State respectively, by whom such forces shall be raised, or in such manner as such State shall direct, and all vacancies shall be filled up by the State which first made the appointment.

VIII.

All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State, granted or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon shall be estimated according to such mode as the United States in Congress assembled, shall from time to time direct and appoint.

The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid and levied by the authority and direction of the legislatures of the several States within the time agreed upon by the United States in Congress assembled.

IX.

The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the sole and exclusive right and power of determining on peace and war, except in the cases mentioned in the sixth article

* of sending and receiving ambassadors
* entering into treaties and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce shall be made whereby the legislative power of the respective States shall be restrained from imposing such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own people are subjected to, or from prohibiting the exportation or importation of any species of goods or commodities whatsoever
* of establishing rules for deciding in all cases, what captures on land or water shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken by land or naval forces in the service of the United States shall be divided or appropriated
* of granting letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace
* appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felonies commited on the high seas and establishing courts for receiving and determining finally appeals in all cases of captures, provided that no member of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the said courts.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes and differences now subsisting or that hereafter may arise between two or more States concerning boundary, jurisdiction or any other causes whatever; which authority shall always be exercised in the manner following. Whenever the legislative or executive authority or lawful agent of any State in controversy with another shall present a petition to Congress stating the matter in question and praying for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order of Congress to the legislative or executive authority of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned for the appearance of the parties by their lawful agents, who shall then be directed to appoint by joint consent, commissioners or judges to constitute a court for hearing and determining the matter in question: but if they cannot agree, Congress shall name three persons out of each of the United States, and from the list of such persons each party shall alternately strike out one, the petitioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, nor more than nine names as Congress shall direct, shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judges, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so always as a major part of the judges who shall hear the cause shall agree in the determination: and if either party shall neglect to attend at the day appointed, without showing reasons, which Congress shall judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three persons out of each State, and the secretary of Congress shall strike in behalf of such party absent or refusing; and the judgement and sentence of the court to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the parties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce sentence, or judgement, which shall in like manner be final and decisive, the judgement or sentence and other proceedings being in either case transmitted to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress for the security of the parties concerned: provided that every commissioner, before he sits in judgement, shall take an oath to be administered by one of the judges of the supreme or superior court of the State, where the cause shall be tried, ‘well and truly to hear and determine the matter in question, according to the best of his judgement, without favor, affection or hope of reward’: provided also, that no State shall be deprived of territory for the benefit of the United States.

All controversies concerning the private right of soil claimed under different grants of two or more States, whose jurisdictions as they may respect such lands, and the States which passed such grants are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being at the same time claimed to have originated antecedent to such settlement of jurisdiction, shall on the petition of either party to the Congress of the United States, be finally determined as near as may be in the same manner as is before presecribed for deciding disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between different States.

The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by their own authority, or by that of the respective States

* fixing the standards of weights and measures throughout the United States
* regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the States, provided that the legislative right of any State within its own limits be not infringed or violated
* establishing or regulating post offices from one State to another, throughout all the United States, and exacting such postage on the papers passing through the same as may be requisite to defray the expenses of the said office
* appointing all officers of the land forces, in the service of the United States, excepting regimental officers
* appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers whatever in the service of the United States
* making rules for the government and regulation of the said land and naval forces, and directing their operations.

The United States in Congress assembled shall have authority to appoint a committee, to sit in the recess of Congress, to be denominated ‘A Committee of the States’, and to consist of one delegate from each State; and to appoint such other committees and civil officers as may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the United States under their direction

* to appoint one of their members to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of money to be raised for the service of the United States, and to appropriate and apply the same for defraying the public expenses
* to borrow money, or emit bills on the credit of the United States, transmitting every half-year to the respective States an account of the sums of money so borrowed or emitted
* to build and equip a navy
* to agree upon the number of land forces, and to make requisitions from each State for its quota, in proportion to the number of white inhabitants in such State; which requisition shall be binding, and thereupon the legislature of each State shall appoint the regimental officers, raise the men and cloath, arm and equip them in a solid-like manner, at the expense of the United States; and the officers and men so cloathed, armed and equipped shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled. But if the United States in Congress assembled shall, on consideration of circumstances judge proper that any State should not raise men, or should raise a smaller number of men than the quota thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, cloathed, armed and equipped in the same manner as the quota of each State, unless the legislature of such State shall judge that such extra number cannot be safely spread out in the same, in which case they shall raise, officer, cloath, arm and equip as many of such extra number as they judeg can be safely spared. And the officers and men so cloathed, armed, and equipped, shall march to the place appointed, and within the time agreed on by the United States in Congress assembled.

The United States in Congress assembled shall never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque or reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels of war, to be built or purchased, or the number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine States assent to the same: nor shall a question on any other point, except for adjourning from day to day be determined, unless by the votes of the majority of the United States in Congress assembled.

The Congress of the United States shall have power to adjourn to any time within the year, and to any place within the United States, so that no period of adjournment be for a longer duration than the space of six months, and shall publish the journal of their proceedings monthly, except such parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances or military operations, as in their judgement require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the delegates of each State on any question shall be entered on the journal, when it is desired by any delegates of a State, or any of them, at his or their request shall be furnished with a transcript of the said journal, except such parts as are above excepted, to lay before the legislatures of the several States.

X.

The Committee of the States, or any nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress as the United States in Congress assembled, by the consent of the nine States, shall from time to time think expedient to vest them with; provided that no power be delegated to the said Committee, for the exercise of which, by the Articles of Confederation, the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United States assembled be requisite.

XI.

Canada acceding to this confederation, and adjoining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages of this Union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine States.

XII.

All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pleged.

XIII.

Every State shall abide by the determination of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions which by this confederation are submitted to them. And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union, and all and singular the matters and things therein contained: And we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith of our respective constituents, that they shall abide by the determinations of the United States in Congress assembled, on all questions, which by the said Confederation are submitted to them. And that the Articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectively represent, and that the Union shall be perpetual.

In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.

Agreed to by Congress 15 November 1777

In force after ratification by Maryland, 1 March 1781

(Click on the image to download it or other document images in higher rez)

As another long overdue installment in a series of posts published on this blog inspired by the American Civics Literacy Quiz from the Intercollegiate Studies Institute as well as other bloggers e.g., Perri Nelson , the following is presented on the Bill of Rights. Given the current political climate and issues in public affairs these matters are of no less significance than they were at the time the Bill of Rights were proposed and ultimately ratified by the several states. It is fair to state here the intention was to limit the power of government and protect the rights of individuals. Two principles that may be tested more in the days ahead than they have been in a very long time. It is incumbent upon every citizen, while there is no bill of responsibilities, to contribute the time and resources necessary to ensure their own liberty by attending to matters of civics in a manner adequate to safeguard ours and future generations from the tyranny present when vigilance is ignored.

The content and links below as well as the image and link above are borrowed of course from elsewhere and provided to assist in raising the level of attention to civics and related topics. It is hoped you will find this and other posts in this series useful. There are related documents in the ‘Pages’ section which can be found in the sidebar.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States therefore proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. The first two proposed amendments, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative and the compensation of Congressmen, were not ratified. Articles 3 to 12, however, ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Note: The following text is a transcription of the first ten amendments to the Constitution in their original form. These amendments were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

There has been something of a debate about reversals of decisions in which Judge Sonia Sotomayor has been involved. It would seem those who oppose her confirmation to the SCOTUS suggest she has been reversed 60% of the time. It would also seem those who support her confirmation suggest reversals are in line or lower than averages in the courts. This post is not pursuing that debate.

The first item below is a brief explanation of what is available and a link from the Senate Judiciary Committee’s website where you can view what Sotomayor submitted to the committee. The second and third items are presented in full as they represent what this blog asserts is the problem with Sotomayor on the bench.

Her treatment on the subject of judicial impartiality or objectivity appears to be argued in a manner that justifies subjective decisions. It is apparent that Judge Sotomayor is an advocate for social change. She has a long career filled with advocacy for what she believes in. There is nothing wrong with that. But to place that advocacy on the bench is not proper. To understand one’s own bias is necessary. But to justify it as inevitable rather than having the discipline to consciously and routinely remove it from matters brought before a court is totally irresponsible.

Therefore this blog (and obviously its author) respectfully oppose the confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court - Sonia Sotomayor - Questionnaire

Judicial nominees, including nominees to vacancies on the United States Supreme Court, are required to complete a bipartisan questionnaire compiled by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s questionnaire and related attachment available here

“A Latina Judge’s Voice” (from 2002)

By Sonia Sotomayor

Judge Reynoso, thank you for that lovely introduction. I am humbled to be speaking behind a man who has contributed so much to the Hispanic community. I am also grateful to have such kind words said about me.

I am delighted to be here. It is nice to escape my hometown for just a little bit. It is also nice to say hello to old friends who are in the audience, to rekindle contact with old acquaintances and to make new friends among those of you in the audience. It is particularly heart warming to me to be attending a conference to which I was invited by a Latina law school friend, Rachel Moran, who is now an accomplished and widely respected legal scholar. I warn Latinos in this room: Latinas are making a lot of progress in the old-boy network.

I am also deeply honored to have been asked to deliver the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos lecture. I am joining a remarkable group of prior speakers who have given this lecture. I hope what I speak about today continues to promote the legacy of that man whose commitment to public service and abiding dedication to promoting equality and justice for all people inspired this memorial lecture and the conference that will follow. I thank Judge Olmos’ widow Mary Louise’s family, her son and the judge’s many friends for hosting me. And for the privilege you have bestowed on me in honoring the memory of a very special person. If I and the many people of this conference can accomplish a fraction of what Judge Olmos did in his short but extraordinary life we and our respective communities will be infinitely better.

I intend tonight to touch upon the themes that this conference will be discussing this weekend and to talk to you about my Latina identity, where it came from, and the influence I perceive it has on my presence on the bench.

Who am I? I am a “Newyorkrican.” For those of you on the West Coast who do not know what that term means: I am a born and bred New Yorker of Puerto Rican-born parents who came to the states during World War II.

Like many other immigrants to this great land, my parents came because of poverty and to attempt to find and secure a better life for themselves and the family that they hoped to have. They largely succeeded. For that, my brother and I are very grateful. The story of that success is what made me and what makes me the Latina that I am. The Latina side of my identity was forged and closely nurtured by my family through our shared experiences and traditions.

For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir - rice, beans and pork - that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events. My Latina identity also includes, because of my particularly adventurous taste buds, morcilla, — pig intestines, patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with beans, and la lengua y orejas de cuchifrito, pigs’ tongue and ears. I bet the Mexican-Americans in this room are thinking that Puerto Ricans have unusual food tastes. Some of us, like me, do. Part of my Latina identity is the sound of merengue at all our family parties and the heart wrenching Spanish love songs that we enjoy. It is the memory of Saturday afternoon at the movies with my aunt and cousins watching Cantinflas, who is not Puerto Rican, but who was an icon Spanish comedian on par with Abbot and Costello of my generation. My Latina soul was nourished as I visited and played at my grandmother’s house with my cousins and extended family. They were my friends as I grew up. Being a Latina child was watching the adults playing dominos on Saturday night and us kids playing loteria, bingo, with my grandmother calling out the numbers which we marked on our cards with chick peas.

Now, does any one of these things make me a Latina? Obviously not because each of our Carribean and Latin American communities has their own unique food and different traditions at the holidays. I only learned about tacos in college from my Mexican-American roommate. Being a Latina in America also does not mean speaking Spanish. I happen to speak it fairly well. But my brother, only three years younger, like too many of us educated here, barely speaks it. Most of us born and bred here, speak it very poorly.

If I had pursued my career in my undergraduate history major, I would likely provide you with a very academic description of what being a Latino or Latina means. For example, I could define Latinos as those peoples and cultures populated or colonized by Spain who maintained or adopted Spanish or Spanish Creole as their language of communication. You can tell that I have been very well educated. That antiseptic description however, does not really explain the appeal of morcilla - pig’s intestine - to an American born child. It does not provide an adequate explanation of why individuals like us, many of whom are born in this completely different American culture, still identify so strongly with those communities in which our parents were born and raised.

America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud. That tension between “the melting pot and the salad bowl” — a recently popular metaphor used to described New York’s diversity - is being hotly debated today in national discussions about affirmative action. Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with its differences. In this time of great debate we must remember that it is not political struggles that create a Latino or Latina identity. I became a Latina by the way I love and the way I live my life. My family showed me by their example how wonderful and vibrant life is and how wonderful and magical it is to have a Latina soul. They taught me to love being a Puerto Riqueña and to love America and value its lesson that great things could be achieved if one works hard for it. But achieving success here is no easy accomplishment for Latinos or Latinas, and although that struggle did not and does not create a Latina identity, it does inspire how I live my life.

I was born in the year 1954. That year was the fateful year in which Brown v. Board of Education was decided. When I was eight, in 1961, the first Latino, the wonderful Judge Reynaldo Garza, was appointed to the federal bench, an event we are celebrating at this conference. When I finished law school in 1979, there were no women judges on the Supreme Court or on the highest court of my home state, New York. There was then only one Afro-American Supreme Court Justice and then and now no Latino or Latina justices on our highest court. Now in the last twenty plus years of my professional life, I have seen a quantum leap in the representation of women and Latinos in the legal profession and particularly in the judiciary. In addition to the appointment of the first female United States Attorney General, Janet Reno, we have seen the appointment of two female justices to the Supreme Court and two female justices to the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court of my home state. One of those judges is the Chief Judge and the other is a Puerto Riqueña, like I am. As of today, women sit on the highest courts of almost all of the states and of the territories, including Puerto Rico. One Supreme Court, that of Minnesota, had a majority of women justices for a period of time.

As of September 1, 2001, the federal judiciary consisting of Supreme, Circuit and District Court Judges was about 22% women. In 1992, nearly ten years ago, when I was first appointed a District Court Judge, the percentage of women in the total federal judiciary was only 13%. Now, the growth of Latino representation is somewhat less favorable. As of today we have, as I noted earlier, no Supreme Court justices, and we have only 10 out of 147 active Circuit Court judges and 30 out of 587 active district court judges. Those numbers are grossly below our proportion of the population. As recently as 1965, however, the federal bench had only three women serving and only one Latino judge. So changes are happening, although in some areas, very slowly. These figures and appointments are heartwarming. Nevertheless, much still remains to happen.

Let us not forget that between the appointments of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor in 1981 and Justice Ginsburg in 1992, eleven years passed. Similarly, between Justice Kaye’s initial appointment as an Associate Judge to the New York Court of Appeals in 1983, and Justice Ciparick’s appointment in 1993, ten years elapsed. Almost nine years later, we are waiting for a third appointment of a woman to both the Supreme Court and the New York Court of Appeals and of a second minority, male or female, preferably Hispanic, to the Supreme Court. In 1992 when I joined the bench, there were still two out of 13 circuit courts and about 53 out of 92 district courts in which no women sat. At the beginning of September of 2001, there are women sitting in all 13 circuit courts. The First, Fifth, Eighth and Federal Circuits each have only one female judge, however, out of a combined total number of 48 judges. There are still nearly 37 district courts with no women judges at all. For women of color the statistics are more sobering. As of September 20, 1998, of the then 195 circuit court judges only two were African-American women and two Hispanic women. Of the 641 district court judges only twelve were African-American women and eleven Hispanic women. African-American women comprise only 1.56% of the federal judiciary and Hispanic-American women comprise only 1%. No African-American, male or female, sits today on the Fourth or Federal circuits. And no Hispanics, male or female, sit on the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, District of Columbia or Federal Circuits.

Sort of shocking, isn’t it? This is the year 2002. We have a long way to go. Unfortunately, there are some very deep storm warnings we must keep in mind. In at least the last five years the majority of nominated judges the Senate delayed more than one year before confirming or never confirming were women or minorities. I need not remind this audience that Judge Paez of your home Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, has had the dubious distinction of having had his confirmation delayed the longest in Senate history. These figures demonstrate that there is a real and continuing need for Latino and Latina organizations and community groups throughout the country to exist and to continue their efforts of promoting women and men of all colors in their pursuit for equality in the judicial system.

This weekend’s conference, illustrated by its name, is bound to examine issues that I hope will identify the efforts and solutions that will assist our communities. The focus of my speech tonight, however, is not about the struggle to get us where we are and where we need to go but instead to discuss with you what it all will mean to have more women and people of color on the bench. The statistics I have been talking about provide a base from which to discuss a question which one of my former colleagues on the Southern District bench, Judge Miriam Cederbaum, raised when speaking about women on the federal bench. Her question was: What do the history and statistics mean? In her speech, Judge Cederbaum expressed her belief that the number of women and by direct inference people of color on the bench, was still statistically insignificant and that therefore we could not draw valid scientific conclusions from the acts of so few people over such a short period of time. Yet, we do have women and people of color in more significant numbers on the bench and no one can or should ignore pondering what that will mean or not mean in the development of the law. Now, I cannot and do not claim this issue as personally my own. In recent years there has been an explosion of research and writing in this area. On one of the panels tomorrow, you will hear the Latino perspective in this debate.

For those of you interested in the gender perspective on this issue, I commend to you a wonderful compilation of articles published on the subject in Vol. 77 of the Judicature, the Journal of the American Judicature Society of November-December 1993. It is on Westlaw/Lexis and I assume the students and academics in this room can find it.

Now Judge Cedarbaum expresses concern with any analysis of women and presumably again people of color on the bench, which begins and presumably ends with the conclusion that women or minorities are different from men generally. She sees danger in presuming that judging should be gender or anything else based. She rightly points out that the perception of the differences between men and women is what led to many paternalistic laws and to the denial to women of the right to vote because we were described then “as not capable of reasoning or thinking logically” but instead of “acting intuitively.” I am quoting adjectives that were bandied around famously during the suffragettes’ movement.

While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address. I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor — I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area - Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be.

That same point can be made with respect to people of color. No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, “to judge is an exercise of power” and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states “there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,” I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that–it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging. The Minnesota Supreme Court has given an example of this. As reported by Judge Patricia Wald formerly of the D.C. Circuit Court, three women on the Minnesota Court with two men dissenting agreed to grant a protective order against a father’s visitation rights when the father abused his child. The Judicature Journal has at least two excellent studies on how women on the courts of appeal and state supreme courts have tended to vote more often than their male counterpart to uphold women’s claims in sex discrimination cases and criminal defendants’ claims in search and seizure cases. As recognized by legal scholars, whatever the reason, not one woman or person of color in any one position but as a group we will have an effect on the development of the law and on judging.

In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making.

I am delighted to have been here tonight and extend once again my deepest gratitude to all of you for listening and letting me share my reflections on being a Latina voice on the bench. Thank you.

Anti-Latino discrimination at Princeton

By Sonia Sotomayor
May 10, 1974

On April 18, 1974, the Puerto Rican and Chicano students of Princeton filed a complaint with HEW charging the university with an institutional pattern of discrimination.

The facts of the complaint are these: 1) There is not one Puerto Rican or Chicano administrator or faculty member in the university; 2) There are two million Puerto Ricans in the United States and two and a half million more on the island itself. Yet there were only 66 Puerto Rican applicants this year, and only 31 Puerto Rican students on campus. While there are 12 million Chicanos in the United States, there were only 111 Chicano applicants and 27 students on campus this year; 3) Not one permanent course in this university now deals in any notable detail with the Puerto Rican or Chicano cultures.

Self-evident lack of commitment

The lack of commitment on the part of the university to the Puerto Rican or Chicano heritage seems self-evident from these facts. Yet statistical evidence is not the total concern or complaint of the Puerto Rican or Chicano students — what is terrifying to us are the implications. The facts imply and reflect the total absence of regard, concern and respect for an entire people and their culture. In effect, they reflect an attempt — a successful attempt so far — to relegate an important cultural sector of the population to oblivion.

Chicanos were the first natives of the Southwest. They were the largest population sector to become citizens when the Southwest was incorporated into the United States. Puerto Ricans constitute 12 per cent of the population in New Jersey. Immediately surrounding Princeton — New Brunswick, Trenton, and Newark — they constitute approximately 15 per cent of the population. Yet we estimate that over 90 per cent of the Princeton community knows nothing about either culture other than that we speak Spanish and that we are presently complaining about something. The members of the student body, for the same reasons they study the French, Russians, English or Chinese, are the ones to benefit from an inclusion of our culture into the Princeton community and curriculum. Puerto Rican or Chicano students have no great need to study about their own culture — we live it. What good is it to know about what happens west of the Urals if you do not know what is happening a few miles around you?

Vanguards of societal change?

It has been said that the universities of America are the vanguard of societal ideas and changes. Princeton University claims to foster the intellectual diversity, spirit, and thoughts that are necessary components in order to achieve this ideal. Yet words are transitory; it is the practice of the ideas you espouse that affect society and are permanent. Thus it is only when Princeton fulfills the goal of being a truly representative community that it can attempt to instill in society a respect for all people — regardless of race, color, sex or national origin.

The feelings we are trying to convey was best stated by Frank Reed ’76 when he said: “We only wish the opportunity as a people, to learn and be learned from.” This is our complaint, and what it signifies.

While former President George W Bush has withheld comment on the performance of current President Barack Obama the reverse is not true. As if liberals haven’t bashed Bush enough over the last eight or nine years the liberals’ liberal, Barack Obama has once again resorted to blaming others for how things are. In a report from The Hill below it is mentioned that Senator Obama was more supportive of President Bush when public money first flowed to the auto industry.

Administration blames Bush for GM crisis

By Mike Soraghan
Posted: 06/07/09 11:24 AM [ET]

The Obama administration has a familiar response to criticism of the General Motors bailout – they inherited this mess from George W. Bush.

In his first five months in office, Obama has often said that some of the politically difficult decisions he’s made are the fault of his predecessor, most notably the $1.3 trillion budget deficit.

But he’d previously been more supportive of Bush’s handling of the crisis in the auto industry. When Bush sent $17.4 billion of the $700 billion bailout package to GM and Chrysler in December, Obama issued a statement calling Bush’s move “a necessary step.”

In another current report former First Lady Laura Bush expresses the sentiment or rationale behind the ‘courtesy’ silence on matters Obama from her husband, former President George W Bush. A sensible approach from a man so often criticized by liberals. A reasonable position apparently lost on the current President who at times expressed it was counterproductive to engage in assessing blame for the ways things are when he took office in January of this year.

Laura explains Bush ’silence’

Former first lady Laura Bush said while her husband, George W. Bush, does not think it’s appropriate for a former president to criticize his successor, she understands why former Vice President Dick Cheney has.

“That’s his right as a citizen of the U.S., and I think he also feels obligated and so I understand why he wants to speak out,” Bush said in an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “On the other hand George feels like as a former president that he owes President Obama his silence on issues and that there’s no reason to second guess any decisions he makes.”

A brief look back at how we got here may not match the current criticism emanating from the Obama Administration on the topic of a government takeover of the American auto industry. The House auto bailout bill passed and of the 237 votes in favor of it 205 were from Democrats. The bill died in the Senate and as the last line below indicates GOP members opposed it. Other reports suggest the ‘tough love’ measures were not strong enough.

Obama, who will inherit the problem next month, even if bailout billions are handed over in the meantime, said, “My hope is that the administration and the Congress will still find a way to give the industry the temporary assistance it needs while demanding the long-term restructuring that is absolutely required.”

In a letter to Bush, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged the president to demand “the same tough accountability” and taxpayer protections from the automakers as was contained in legislation that cleared the House at midweek.

The Dems were liking an auto bailout…..

In the days between then and now, the White House and congressional Democrats agreed on a $14 billion measure that would have extended short-term financing to the industry while establishing a powerful new “car czar” to make sure the money was used to turn the Big Three into competitive companies. That bill passed the House on Wednesday but immediately ran into opposition from Senate Republicans who said it did not go far enough.

Whatever the reason, the effort stalled when Republicans voted en masse against advancing the original House bill to a final vote late Thursday night.

The point is there is always enough blame to go around when things go wrong. Obama blaming Bush will only take him so far. Every President inherits the way things are when they take office. It is time for the current President to prove he is worthy of the office and set aside meaningless political bickering.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

While they try to play Sotomayor’s bias as nothing more than someone from ‘humble’ beginnings making it to prime time even the NYT fish wrap feels compelled to state the obvious. As if a ‘focus’ on ‘diversity, struggle, heritage and alienation’ does not foretell the kind of decisions the nominee would make based on her predispositions to various issues. As illusive as objectivity can be, humans being what they are, a long history on the bench accompanied by an equally long history of expressing personal opinions and how they affect judgment should spell doom for this nominee. But then politics isn’t about objectivity even when the task demands it.

Speeches Show Judge’s Steady Focus on Diversity and Struggle

WASHINGTON — In speech after speech over the years, Judge Sonia Sotomayor has returned to the themes of diversity, struggle, heritage and alienation that have both powered and complicated her nomination to the Supreme Court.

She has lamented the dearth of Hispanics on the federal bench. She has exhorted young people to value immigration. She has mulled over the “deeply confused image” America has of its own racial identity. And she has used on more than one occasion a version of the “wise Latina” line that she has spent much of this week trying to explain.

The CNN report below is an affirmation of the difficulty for the MSM to ignore this nominee’s bias.

Sotomayor’s ‘wise Latina’ comment a staple of her speeches

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Judge Sonia Sotomayor has spoken for years about how her experiences as a Latina woman have influenced her public and private life.
In her speeches, she often discussed her “Latina soul” and explained how even the traditional dishes of her Puerto Rican family shaped her views. And she often said that she hoped those experiences would help her reach better judicial conclusions than someone without such a varied background might reach. The line was almost identical every time:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Imagine that. The word ‘objectivity’ appears in an AP report on the opposition party’s take on the SCOTUS nominee.

Sotomayor’s objectivity on bench is key question

WASHINGTON (AP) — The senator leading the GOP’s review of Sonia Sotomayor said the central question in her Supreme Court nomination should be whether she allows personal views to color her decisions.

In the Republican Party’s weekly radio and Internet address Saturday, Sen. Jeff Sessions didn’t say whether he thinks Sotomayor crosses that line. But he raised questions that reflect a growing chorus of GOP criticism that the federal appeals court judge sees her role as something more than an impartial umpire.

Of course there is no bias coming from the SCOTUS nominee. Not disclosing a memo about her opinion on the death penalty and suggestion of racial overtones must have simply been a careless oversight. You know, just like Tim Geithner not paying his taxes until nominated for Treasury Secretary. After all, for Sotomayor, what possible significance could an opinion on the death penalty or her various associations have to do with her nomination to the SCOTUS?

Sotomayor Faulted Over Missing Memo

Critics of Judge Sonia Sotomayor seized Friday on her failure to include a 1981 memo opposing the death penalty in her response to the Senate Judiciary Committee’s questionnaire.

The memo, signed by Judge Sotomayor and two other members of the group, listed eight arguments against the death penalty, including that “capital punishment is associated with evident racism in our society,” because minorities are disproportionately represented on death row.

And the public certainly shows some peculiar responses to this nomination. More than half are polled indicating they want Sotomayor confirmed. Yet nearly three to one disagree with her decision in the New Haven firefighters case. It is indeed a strange world we live in.

June 2nd…
Slightly more than half — 54% — said they would like to see the Senate confirm the president’s first nominee for the nation’s highest court, according to the results of a Gallup Poll released today. Just 28% of those surveyed said they opposed Sotomayor’s confirmation, and 19% had no opinion, according to the poll conducted Friday through Sunday.

June 3rd…
Of more than 3,000 people surveyed, 71% said they disagreed with Sotomayor’s vote in favor of tossing out the results of a New Haven, Conn., firefighter-promotion test because no blacks or Hispanics qualified.

It’s real simple. Sotomayor has demonstrated her strong bias and is not suitable for the SCOTUS. Case closed. Except for the notion that Obama nominated Sotomayor to throw Democrats a bone since shamnesty may not get on the calendar this year and the nomination helps liberals at the polls. And this is how they select SCOTUS nominees.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com