E!!

A gold star for senator Mitch McConnell for these statements.  He provides an honest history of the nomination process since the 70s, examines past and present objections to Supreme Court nominees based on ”fitness” and ideology, and then takes a stand on Sotomayor.  I think he gets it right.

Though, as we all know, she will be confirmed anyway.

One of my favorites at NRO, Andy McCarthy, finds a unique angle on a much discussed issue.  He explains why many of Sotomayor’s statements would disqualify her from serving on the average jury.  The opening clip:

In every trial – every single trial – judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively – without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused “for cause” – the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or “peremptory”) jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.

And the conclusion:

 Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to “transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law”; and that there are “basic differences” in the way people “of color” exercise ”logic and reasoning.” If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?

Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?

During the course of his campaign, Obama has often said that differing judicial philosophies among Supreme Court justices don’t matter in “ninety-nine percent of cases” because the “the Constitution…a statute…or congressional intent is…clear.”  Conversely, he says it is only in about 1% of cases that differences in judicial bent really count.

What a giant crock of intergalactic BS.

As Obama very well knows – Harvard educated constitutional attorney that he is – and as Ed Whelan points out here (and I quote below), the ratio of unanimous decisions on the Supreme Court is nowhere near 95%:

According to the Harvard Law Review’s statistics for the past three terms, cases with dissents accounted for 64.4% (2006 term), 45.7% (2005 term), and 62.0% (2004 term) of all cases.  Indeed, last term, cases dividing 5-4 accounted for over a third of all cases, and the three justices that Obama cited as justices he likes—Breyer, Ginsburg, and Souter—agreed in the disposition of non-unanimous cases only 61%, 60%, and 63% of the time, respectively.

Yes, fellow citizens of the Republic:  Obama-Wan Kinobi knows his claims are false.  He knows the appointment of Supreme Court justices is crucial; he knows the fundamental changes he wishes to see in the Constitution and the court; and he knows that if elected he will probably have the opportunity to appoint at least two justices to the federal bench.

So, he passes his hand before our eyes and utters his lie with a smile.  

Will his attempt at a Jedi mind trick lull Americans into thinking the appointment of Supreme Court justices is not really important, and they can therefore let him pass, unquestioned and unhindered?

We will know in four days’ time.

May the Force be with US.

So, unless the remaining precincts go for Pickering in a big way, it’ll be Alff and Chairez in November…

Here’s a worthy cut-and-paste from The Muthster re: Nancy Allf, a Nevada Supreme Court candidate with a case of chronic deceitfulness:

Nancy Allf, Nevada Supreme Court candidate and wife to a prominent Democrat campaign consultant, has a commercial running on TV in which she claims to have tried a case before the Supreme Court. However, on Face-to-Face this week, host Jon Ralston called her on the claim and the former head of Planned Parenthood in Southern Nevada had to admit that she never tried any case before the Supreme Court. So what we have here is someone who didn’t tell the truth wanting to sit on the state’s highest bench where everyone coming before her will be required to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Yeah, that makes sense.

Speaking of Allf, an alert News & Views reader points out that the former head of Planned Parenthood, her law firm and her client were fined more than $50,000 for making statements in court that “are lacking any plausible legal or factual basis, are undoubtedly unmeritorious, do not abide by common sense, have been brought in bad faith, and have resulted in unreasonable, unnecessary and vexatious increases in litigation and other costs to the parties, together with a multiplicity of proceedings.” Don’t take my word for it, read all about it HERE

If you’re a Nevada voter, make sure you don’t punch the button for Alff in November!