Another ethics complaint filed against Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been dismissed.
The State Personnel Board on Wednesday dismissed the argument that Palin violated the Executive Branch Ethics Act in furthering her national political aspirations. The complaint alleged that the governor used state staff to publish a press release announcing Palin as John McCain's running mate and that state resources were used for partisan political purposes.
The board, following the recommendation of an independent counsel, threw out the complaint for lack of merit.
The governor's office said it was the 13th ethics complaint filed against the governor or her staff that has been resolved with no finding of a violation of the state ethics law. Bill McAllister, the governor's spokesman, said Palin was "grateful" the board took a "rational approach to these matters."
She has started a Legal Defense fund as a result of all these nuisance ethics complaints. The 14th complaint has just been filed complaining that the Legal Defense Fund is an ethics violation in and of itself. What we need here is for Palin to load up the 30.06, sight in the scope and go bear hunting, preferably for Democrat bear.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
05/28/2009 13:02 Comments ||
You know, when there are that many charges the average Joe is going to believe at least some of them are true - kind of a statistical thing. Sort of like the police re-arresting the suspect with a rap sheet four pages long, even with no convictions. The problem is it is not a statistical issue when there are clear biases in the process.
White House officials have assembled a squad of distinguished legal experts to rebut charges that Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama's Supreme Court pick, is an intellectual lightweight who puts her political views ahead of the law.
White House advisers and allies have scrambled to repair the damage to Sotomayor's reputation inflicted by an article published early this month in The New Republic, a left-leaning magazine, which painted Sotomayor as "not that smart."
Several prominent legal scholars, including law school classmates of Sotomayor, assembled by White House officials Wednesday afternoon sought to dispel that characterization during a conference call with reporters.
Martha Minow, a professor at Harvard Law School and onetime classmate of Sotomayor, said that she teaches Sotomayor's opinions at Harvard and that her body of work "shows a great deal of craft." Minow also called Sotomayor a judge who takes a "careful adjudicatory approach."
Minow also noted that Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton University and was a distinguished graduate of Yale Law School. Minow called her body of opinions "about as professional a presentation of craft you can find."
Minow said Sotomayor "reads statutes extremely closely" and that the Supreme Court once reversed a decision because she had adopted an overly literal interpretation of a word in the law.
Some critics panned Sotomayor as an intellectual lightweight soon after Obama announced his intent to nominate her to replace retiring Justice David Souter. The notion that Sotomayor would have trouble standing up to justices such as Antonin Scalia has gained momentum since Jeffrey Rosen penned in an article in The New Republic in which he reported that former law clerks from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals and federal prosecutors give her less than rave reviews.
"The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was 'not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,' as one former 2nd Circuit clerk for another judge put it," Rosen wrote.
The legal scholars and lawyers on Wednesday's White House-organized call sought to rebut that characterization. "She was very engaged and very polite to all the parties involved," said Kevin Russell, a partner at Howe and Russell, who argued a case before Sotomayor. "I saw no indication of anything but perfectly acceptable judicial temperament."
The expert also sought to play down the charge by conservative activists that Sotomayor is a liberal activist judge.
To be called a so-so intellect by a lefty magazine may be a mortal sin for her. All lefties are dazzling brillant. I know because they tell us so.
Posted by: Richard of Oregon ||
05/28/2009 2:52 Comments ||
Eh, calling the current version of the New Republic "lefty" is refreshing but a little pejorative. They're not exactly the Nation; they've been known to be deliberately counter-intuitive and un-politically correct in a fashion designed to catch attention and stir up controversy. Andy Sullivan before he went batshit was an editor there, back when he was Mr. Gay Conservative.
I wouldn't push too hard on the "activist judge" thing. You're not going to get a non-activist judge out of the Chicago mafia. The best you can hope for is someone who isn't a New Racist.
And frankly, stupid, obnoxious and lazy is probably a selling point from our POV. The dumber & less charismatic the Obama Supreme Court pick, the less likely they are to talk the current court squishes - Kennedy, maybe Breyer - into monstrous rulings.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
05/28/2009 8:13 Comments ||
I commend her rise to a Supreme Court nomination but not her interpretation of the Constitution.
She is an inspirational story but is too left for my taste.
Posted by: King Lebron James ||
05/28/2009 9:32 Comments ||
Those that know her report that she is a lightweight, a judicial bully, a rascist, not too smart, and most of her decisions are reversed (60%). She should not ask for a promotion, she should hope she still gets a uniform and receives some sensitivity training. What an embarrassment.
Only 5 decisions she wrote went up to the SCourt and, in fact, controversial issues are the ones the SCourt takes so anything that goes that far has a decent shot at either a reversal or a partial reversal.
On the other hand, if she is actually a member of La Raza ('the race' in Spanish) that is bad (Drudgereport notes the La Raza connection). I would look forward to her defending why racism is OK in some cases and not OK in others.
Posted by: Lord garth ||
05/28/2009 19:24 Comments ||
maybe the firefighter's case she helped submarine would help illuminate that. Apparently it's okay to discriminate against predominantly white guys.
Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) will be at Wednesday's Democratic National Committee (DNC) fundraiser with President Obama.
Specter has been on a fundraising swing along the West Coast in preparation for his 2010 reelection campaign and will make a stop in Los Angeles to be at Obama's DNC fundraiser at the Beverly Hilton.
"He will be with President Obama tonight, and we're glad to report that many of the president's West Coast fundraisers have agreed to help us," Specter campaign manager Chris Nicholas said.
The fundraiser should afford the two some quality time and allow Specter to become acquainted with donors from his new party. Specter has had a rough first few weeks as a Democrat, voting against Obama's budget and losing his seniority, which he initially told reporters would remain intact.
It's a rough patch I'm going through," says Chris Dodd. How rough? Not long ago, Dodd entertained dreams of ascending to the White House. He moved his family to Iowa in 2007 and enrolled his daughter in a Des Moines public school, all in the hope of winning the state's caucus. He gave solid (if never spectacular) performances in debates while fund-raising prodigiously. And, though he didn't vault into the top tier of candidates, he managed to end his bid for the presidency with his long-standing reputation as a serious player in Democratic politics basically intact.
Today, Dodd--five-term senator, established Washington powerbroker, the man whose "magnificent handshake," The New York Times gushed two years ago, is "the grip of a pro, a ... political pro, which he is"--has been reduced to shoring up his liberal bona fides by railing against credit card companies on a blog called My Left Nutmeg (motto: "Where Connecticut Dems Scratch That Progressive Itch"). Despite representing a solidly blue state, he is, in his own words, an "underdog" in his reelection bid--perhaps the most vulnerable Democratic incumbent in the Senate. His approval rating has plummeted to the low 30s, and he trails Rob Simmons, his likely GOP challenger, by an astonishing 16 points.
The source of Dodd's problems is simple: He has become a symbol of Wall Street's grip on the federal government. Having served on the banking committee since 1981, and as its chairman since 2007, Dodd is one of the Senate's largest recipients of campaign contributions from that sector of the economy. Last summer, allegations emerged that he had received an especially sweet rate on his mortgage from one of the culprits in the subprime mess. And, in March, he managed to become wrapped up in the AIG bonus scandal, with critics blaming him (more than a bit unfairly, it turns out) for having maneuvered in Congress to protect the controversial bonuses. The case against Dodd may be a left-populist one, but Republicans have been more than happy to pile on. Simmons boils down the critique to a single catchphrase: "Chris Dodd has gone Washington."
But the commonly held perception of the Connecticut senator as an entrenched, almost anachronistic pawn of moneyed interests misses a critical layer of complexity. Dodd's public life has been shaped by the hovering presence of his father, Tom Dodd, who was drummed out of the Senate in 1970 after being censured for misusing campaign funds. The son, who arrived in the Senate ten years later, has spent his career pulled in two opposing directions: on the one hand, following in his father's footsteps by becoming one of the Old Bulls ensconced in Washington's corridors of privilege, the image that is now causing him such political headaches; but, on the other hand, presenting himself as the very antithesis of an old-style senator--a changemaker, a populist, an insurgent. Dodd, it seems, has never entirely decided whether he wants to be his father or what his father was not. Now, his political survival depends on his ability to present himself as the latter--and escape the ghost of Tom Dodd once and for all.
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs issued a pointed warning to opponents of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination Wednesday, urging critics to measure their words carefully during a politically charged confirmation debate. "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation," Gibbs said.
He was replying to a question from CBS's Chip Reid about a blog post by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich accusing Sotomayor of imposing identity politics on the bench and declaring: "A white man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. A Latina woman racist should also withdraw."
Yeah, whatever you do, don't 'Bork' her ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/28/2009 00:00 ||
Top|| File under:
She is a abomination to the rule of law. Do you really want a lawless society not bound of Constitution because YOU BROKE YOUR OATH, Mr Executive?
All of your nominees are fucked in the head, this one is a life sitting member.
Pull it out man, for your own sake before Rome is called out on the GOD carpet.
Her intelligence is apparent. It is outrageous that she is being attacked on those grounds, said Ramona Romero, president of the Hispanic National Bar Association. Im assuming these folks are grasping at straws .I wonder if she were a white male we would be hearing that about somebody with the same credentials.
Why yes you would - and far, far, worse coming from the Liberal left.
Its not her 'intelliect' which we oppose - its her ignornace of the most basic tenant of the Rule of Law in which we are a nation of LAWS and not FEELINGS or EXPERIENCES.
Its her ignorance of the role of a Judge - particulary a Justice of the supreme court - which is to INTERPRET THE LAW NOT SET POLICY.
How's she gonna take this oath with a straight face?
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''
How's she gonna take this oath with a straight face?
With the same straight face Obama articulates and implements multiple contradictory concepts and actions. For them its all ritual with no binding and no meaning. Their loyalty is to power, nothing more, nothing less.
"I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful
Listen up you nation of cowards! When it comes to identity politics Conservative white males are low hanging fruit. Dont ever forget, during the campaign, were the crew that had no shame in branding Bill Clinton and Gerri Ferrao as racists
When President Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, Sen. Joe Biden had this to say:
I think that the only reason Clarence Thomas is on the Court is because he is black. I don't believe he could have won had he been white. And the reason is, I think it was a cynical ploy by President Bush.
It's two decades later. Clarence Thomas has proven himself a smart, tough, and effective jurist. Joe Biden is now vice president - and his administration has made what looks very like a pick motivated by affirmative action considerations. Maybe somebody should ask Joe Biden whether Sonia Sotomayor would have been nominated if she had been male and white. And the great thing about Joe Biden is -- the guy might blurt the truth.
I listened to Wilcow Majority today on sirius. He advocated that the GOP members open up the nomination questioning to Ms Sotomayor with first commending her on her past Pro-life positions (which she had some). Seriously, as much as I don't like her she's prolly gonna get the nom and by replacing the retiring justice really can't make SCOTUS more screwed up then it already is, in fact, if she is pro-life she either has to denounce herself to her lefty critics or stand up for her past positions, either way would be good for the right.
BP - the assumption here (which I agree with) is that Obama would NEVER nominate someone who agrees with our thought of what was good for Americans. Typical lefty tactic is to refer to our constitution and bill of rights as "living documents" that need to be interpreted in accoedanc with "current thinking". In each case that diminishes personal liberty, increases statist authority and restricts our rights of self-defense. To oppose at each and every opportunity is doing "what's best for Americans". Otherwise, we eventually get civil war. You don't even wanna know how many weapons the avg American in the hinterlands owns and knows how to use.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/28/2009 20:41 Comments ||
OTTAWA (AP) - U.S. Homeland Secretary Janet Napolitano wanted to make it clear to Canada on Wednesday that she knows she misspoke when she erroneously said that the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorists entered the United States through Canada. Napolitano, on her first trip to Canada since joining President Barack Obama's Cabinet in January, was discussing security issues with Canadian Minister of Public Safety Peter Van Loan.
Napolitano was trying to get past the diplomatic gaffe after an interview last month with the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. in which she saidincorrectlythat the Sept. 11 terrorists crossed into the U.S. from Canada. The comments caused an uproar in America's neighbor to the north. The Sept. 11 commission found that none came through Canada. But other extremists have, such as the would-be millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian convicted on multiple counts for plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport around Jan. 1, 2000.
"We know, and I know, that 9-11 terrorists did not cross the Canadian border. I regret that the Canadian media only seems to hear that earlier misstatement by me to that effect," Napolitano said at a brief news conference, adding that she wants to move on. "So let me be perfectly clear: We know that. But what they also need to hear, and what you need to hear from me, are all the things we are doing with Canada, and will continue to do with Canada, to further our joint security because we share the same interests."
Van Loan said Canada has accepted Napolitano's correction and "moved on."
Opposition Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said in Washington last month that he thought Napolitano was seriously ill-informed about the border. Napolitano has also said that Canada "lets people into its country that we don't allow into ours."
Van Loan said Wednesday that Canadians should realize that there have been homegrown terrorism plots in Canada and pointed to two recent convictions. "I do caution people that they would be naive to think that those threats of terrorism are behind us."
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/28/2009 00:00 ||
Top|| File under:
ION TOPIX > SENATOR CALLS FOR BUILDING 100 NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS OVER NEXT 20 YEARS; + CHINA, JAPAN ON COLLISION COURSE OVER RARE-EARTH METALS.
Don't be so hard on the girl. Canada, Saudia Arabia, whatever. I mean they're all like, you know, countries. It's no big deal; like when you call your wife by the wrong name in the heat of the moment.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.