Truth or Consequences

Much has been written about the connections between Obama and ACORN and whether or not Obama broke any laws during his campaign by providing ACORN with his donor lists. Even if their were no illegalities between Obama and ACORN, the organization is extremely shady. Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly have been looking into the money aspect of ACORN. Forty percent of their funding comes from the taxpayers, and yet their financial books are unavailable to the public because the account in which the money is deposited is a private account. How does that work? They get taxpayer money, but aren't accountable to the taxpayers for how that money is spent? Glenn and Bill have their teeth in this story, and it doesn't sound as if they're about to let go until they get some answers. Good. Michelle Malkin also has been doing some research into ACORN, and she wrote an article today about her findings thus far.

http://townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2009/05/29/the_truth_about_obamacorn?page=full&comments=true

There are consequences--good or bad-- to everything. This country and its citizens have been feeling the consequences of last year's presidential election. Presidential appointments to the Supreme Court are for life, so when an appointee makes judgements based not on the Constitution but on empathy and life experiences, the citizens have to deal with yet another consequence of the pathetic presidential choice that the majority voted in last November.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"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."

So now Obama wants to appoint Sonia Sotomayer to the Supreme Court. Critics have pointed to her comments at a conference at Duke University in 2005, in which she seemed to imply that the role of appellate courts is to set policy, and to a 2001 speech published in the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal.

"Justice (Sandra Day) 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," Sotomayor is quoted in the journal as saying. "I am … not so sure that I agree with the statement. … 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," she said.

The statement is offensive, and it is also highly revealing. Then there's her recent decision in which Judge Sotomayor sided with the city of New Haven, Conn., in denying promotions to one Hispanic and 17 white firefighters who scored highest on promotion exams. They were denied because no African-Americans qualified. Her decision not only showed precious little wisdom but also, more importantly, ignored both civil rights law and constitutional equal protection. In this case, Sotomayor's empathy turned out to be little more than bias toward the outcome she preferred.

We are only four months into the Obama presidency, but the hits just keep on coming.