26 May 2009

E vai con la Supreme Court

Obama inizia la marxistizzazione, razziale ed "empatica" (sarebbe: The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that’s the criteria by which I’ll be selecting my judges.), della corte suprema. ("We're beyond you, we're beyond race" -"No, you aren't. You are not.")

Alcune reazioni (altre qui (i post del 26 maggio) e qui e qui) :

Any Obama nominee was sure to be reliably liberal on high-salience "social" issues. Judge Sotomayor adds another qualification: She is among the most aggressively pro-plaintiff, anti-business appellate judges in the country. Her rulings in class actions, preemption cases, and other commercial matters are of a piece with her contempt for property rights (noted by Richard Epstein) and her anti-employer bias in discrimination cases (a matter of notoriety).
[I was annoyed] at the press' immediate willingness to play a race card on behalf of the Democrats. When President Bush nominated Miquel Estrada to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, I don't recall the press wondering if the Dems should dare commence with their successful filibuster because of race.
I find the posy-bearing "compelling life story" idea to be gag-inducing. Aside from making news reporters sound like they're narrating programming for the LifeStyle network ("...in a moment, a very special story...") it seems manipulative and dishonest, to me. Good heavens, if anyone on the Supreme Court has a "compelling life story" it is Clarence Thomas, but the press didn't feel the need to gush over his rise from dirt-poverty.

P.S. Camillo riporta che Obama ieri ha tenuto a specificare che Sonia Sotomayor riconosce “i limiti del ruolo del giudice” e crede che il suo lavoro sia quello di “interpretare le leggi, non farle”. Peccato che lei dica il contrario (anche glissando sul fatto che si tratta di applicare le leggi, non interpretarle).

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home