CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Congressional Black Caucus unhappy with Obama judicial appointments

The Hill's Mike Lillis, reports that leaders of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) plan to "publicly rebuke" President Obama because of the "lack of diversity' in his federal judicial appointments."

You can watch the Hill Tube report in the following video:

It's hard to understand the CBC's complaint. According to Freddie Allen, Obama's judicial appointments have resulted in a higher rate of Black judges confirmed than any other president in history. Research compiled by the Alliance for Justice, demonstrated that so far during the Obama administration, Blacks have accounted for 18.7 percent of the federal judicial confirmations, more than the 7.3 percent under George W. Bush or the 16.4 percent under Bill Clinton.

Its not just Blacks,  Obama's judicial appointees are more diverse among other demographics:

"During the Obama administration, 41 percent of the federal judges that have been confirmed are women, compared to 22 percent under George W. Bush and 29 percent for Clinton.

President Obama has also managed to get more Asian Americans, Hispanics, Native Americans and gays confirmed to the federal bench than either Bush or Clinton."

So what the CBC Democrats complaining about? 

In addition to what Eleanor Holmes Norton calls "the appalling lack of African American representation" among Obama's nominees, the CBC also claims that some Obama nominees championed "policies that either discriminate against minorities, or are just plain racist."

"One of them, Georgia Court of Appeals Judge Michael Boggs, had voted years ago as a state legislator to keep the Confederate battle emblem a prominent part of Georgia's state flag – a move to preserve 'one of the most vicious symbols of hate and white supremacy' in the country's history, Rep. David Scott (D-Ga.), a CBC member, charged earlier this month.

Another nominee, Atlanta lawyer Mark H. Cohen, helped to defend Georgia's voter ID law . . . .

A third pick, DeKalb County State Court Judge Eleanor Louise Ross – the only African American in the group – has raised the Democrats' eyebrows for a different reason.

'Most of us never heard of her, don't know anything about her,' Lewis [Rep. John Lewis] said earlier this month, 'and I understand she's a Republican.'"

So there you have it. When the CBC says "lack of diversity," that's code for too few Blacks who practice group think - "a pattern of thought characterized by self-deception, forced manufacture of consent, and conformity to group values and ethics."

Fifty five percent now favor legalizing marijuana

A new CNN/ORC International poll finds a majority of Americans now support legalizing marijuana, 55% to 44%. The poll also found that only 35% now think that smoking marijuana is morally wrong.

According to CNN Polling Unit, the new poll found interesting divides on the issue:

• Two-thirds of those 18 to 34, and 64% of those 34 to 49, said marijuana should be legal.
• Half of those 50 to 64 said marijuana should be legal, but only 39% of those 65 and older.
• Sixty-two percent of Democrats and 59% of Independents, but just 36% of Republicans, favor legalizing marijuana.
• Fifty-nine percent of men but just 51% of women supported making pot legal.

The CNN poll results confirm findings reported by Gallup in October.

In that poll, Gallup found 58% of Americans support legalizing marijuana. The increase in support for legalizing comes from Independents. Sixty-two percent of Independents now favor legalization. That is a 12% increase during the last year. 

In the accompanying video, Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport discusses Americans' changing views on marijuana legalization since 1969:

When Gallup first asked about legalization in 1969, only 12% favored legalizing marijuana. Support for legalization doubled in the 1970s, plateaued during the 1980s and 1990s, and slowly moved higher since 2000 -- reaching 50% in 2011.

Colorado and Washington recently became the first states to legalize recreational use of marijuana. The new polling suggests they won't be the last.

Supreme Court rules for white firefighters

The Supreme Court has ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.

The firefighters claimed New Haven unfairly threw out a civil service examination because not enough minorities did well on the test, and the city feared a discrimination suit by the black firefighters.

The Supreme Court decided New Haven was wrong to scrap a promotion test because no African-Americans and only two Hispanic firefighters were likely to be made lieutenants or captains based on the results. The city said that it had acted to avoid a lawsuit from minorities. The Court held that the city's fear of litigation cannot justify the refusal to apply the test.    

The decision will certainly play a role in Judge Sotomayor's confirmation.

The 93 decision is available here.

Objectivity is key question for Sotomayor

In the face of revelations that Judge Sonia Sotomayor made numerous "wise Latina" speeches suggesting race and gender should affect a judge’s decisions, Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, says objectivity "is the central question" for consideration of Judge Sotomayor's Supreme Court nomination:

Do I want a judge that allows his or her social, political, or religious views to impact the outcome?

Or, do I want a judge that objectively applies the law to the facts, and fairly rules on the merits?

That is the central question around which this entire nomination process will revolve.

Senator Sessions laid down the objectivity marker in the weekly Republican address, in which Sessions also takes President Obama to task for use the "empathy standard" in nominating Judge Sotomayor:

I am troubled by President Obama's use of the ‘empathy standard' when selecting federal judges.

With this view—that a judge should use his or her personal feelings about a particular group or issues to decide a case—it stands in stark contrast to the impartiality that we expect in the American courtroom.

If a judge is allowed to let his or her feelings for one party in the case sway his decision, hasn't that judge then demonstrated a bias against the other party?

And, if a judge is allowed to inject his personal views into the interpretation of the law, does he not then have a license to rewrite the laws to fit his own preferences? 

I fear that this ‘empathy standard' is another step down the path to a cynical, relativistic, results-oriented world:

• Where words and laws have no fixed meaning;

• Where unelected judges set policy;

• And where Constitutional limits on government power are ignored when they are inconvenient to the powerful.

This standard is deeply troubling because it is so contradictory to our country's long heritage of a faithful and impartial adherence to the rule of law.

Impartiality is a cornerstone of the American legal system.  The rule of law is a hallmark of an orderly society.  Together, they form the basis for the moral authority of law.   

That moral authority is the reason that Americans everyday respect and accept the rulings of courts, even when they strongly disagree.

You can watch Senator Sessions' remarks in the following video, which begins by honoring those who participated in the invasion of Normandy 65 years ago:

Obama seeks 'civil tone' to prepare for 'more ideologically provocative judges'

President Obama has announced his first judicial nominee.

Obama nominated David F. Hamilton of Indiana, for the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judge Hamilton, who was appointed by President Clinton in 1994, is the nephew of former Indiana Democrat Representative  Lee Hamilton.

I don't know anything about Judge Hamilton except what I read in the papers. The New York Times calls Judge Hamilton a "moderate." That means Liberal like him and Conservatives should have concerns about some of Hamilton's rulings, not to mention his "advocacy" with the Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union:

In 2005, Hamilton ordered the Indiana House of Representatives to avoid mentioning Jesus Christ by name or using terms such as "savior" during official prayers because they were "systematically sectarian" and therefore unconstitutional. A federal appeals court later reversed him on a technicality.

In 2003, he struck down part of an Indiana law requiring abortion clinics to give women information about alternatives to abortion. That decision also was overturned.

Those rulings are probably why Obama claims Hamilton is "fair and judicious."

Regardless of how "moderate" Judge Hamilton is considered, it is troubling that Obama is telegraphing his future nominees will be "more ideologically provocative."

Even though the Obama administration is "eager" to move past the confirmation wars, the White House reassured Liberals that Obama's call for bipartisanship doesn't mean he won't appoint liberal judges:

"I don’t think you could generalize that we're going to be ideologically moderate every time there's an appointment. I think you'll find that all the judges that we appoint are in the mainstream of judicial thought," the official said. "Some are going to be at some locations on the ideological spectrum and some are going to be at other locations. ... I think it is inevitable that some judges will be perceived as being liberal and some judges will be perceived as being moderate. There may well be some judges that are also perceived as being conservative. ... Ideology is not the touchstone for these appointments."

More troubling, is the fact that Hamilton has worked, albeit briefly, as a fundraiser for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, more commonly known "ACORN." The "community organizers" infamous for fraudulent voter registration and helping to bring about the financial crisis. Sounds like a real "moderate." Just wait until Obama nominates judges from some of those "other locations" on his "ideological spectrum."

Atheists sue to take religion out Obama inauguration

Atheists and non-religious organizations sue to take religion out of Obama's inauguration ceremony:

In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, the plaintiffs demand that the words "so help me God" not be added to the end of the president's oath of office.

In addition, the lawsuit objects to plans for ministers to deliver an invocation and a benediction in which they may discuss God and religion.

How many times do we have to say it? The Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

The First Amendment provides:

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.

Michael Newdow filed similar unsuccessful suits over inauguration ceremonies in 2001 and 2005. This one will also be unsuccessful.

Speed camera pimping - another reason to oppose photo enforcement

Students in Montgomery County, Delaware frame innocent drivers.

They duplicate license plates by printing plate numbers on glossy photo paper, using fonts from certain websites that "mimic" those on Maryland license plates. Then they tape the fake plate over the existing plate on the back of their car and purposefully speed through a speed camera. The victim then receives a citation in the mail. According to the Montgomery County Sentinel,the students try to use vehicles from their friends that are similar to the make and model of the car owned by the targeted victim.

Students from Richard Montgomery High School call the "prank" speed camera pimping. The students use the prank students to exact revenge on people who the students believe have wronged them.

Watch the following Fox News video report.

Automatic speed cameras and a system that forces people to prove their innocence seem to violate the presumption of innocence. However, a federal judge in Akron disagrees and recently rejected a claim that automatic traffic cameras violate the Constitution.

Dismissal of lawsuit questioning Obama's presidential eligibility to be appealed

Philip Berg's lawsuit challenging Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve as president of the United States was dismissed by Judge R. Barclay Surrick on grounds that Berg lacked standing.

Generally, a standing issue has to do whether or not the person bringing a lawsuit has a legal right to bring the suit.

In his 34 page decision, Judge Surrick sees no "injury" resulting from a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause:

To reiterate: a candidate’s ineligibility under the Natural Born Citizen Clause does not result in an injury in fact to voters. By extension, the theoretical constitutional harm experienced by voters does not change as the candidacy of an allegedly ineligible candidate progresses from the primaries to the general election.

So, who does have standing to challenge whether a presidential candidate meets the constitutional eligibility requirement of being a "natural born citizen?" According to Surrick, that is completely up to Congress:

If, through the political process, Congress determines that citizens, voters, or party members should police the Constitution’s eligibility requirements for the Presidency, then it is free to pass laws conferring standing on individuals like Plaintiff.

Until Congress does that, voters do not have standing to bring a lawsuit challenging a presidential candidate's constitutional eligibility.

Berg issued a press release saying he will appeal:

Berg said, "I am totally disappointed by Judge Surrick's decision and, for all citizens of the United States, I am immediately appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court."

This is a question of who has standing to uphold our Constitution. If I don't have standing, if you don't have standing, if your neighbor doesn't have standing to question the eligibility of an individual to be President of the United States - the Commander-in-Chief, the most powerful person in the world - then who does?

So, anyone can just claim to be eligible for congress or the presidency without having their legal status, age or citizenship questioned. According to Judge Surrick, we the people have no right to police the eligibility requirements under the U.S. Constitution.

What happened to ‘...Government of the people, by the people, for the people,...’ Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address 1863.

Berg's appeal is not likely to succeed. The way Obama and the Democratic National Committee fought Berg's lawsuit, and the way Judge Surrick dismissed it, leaves the question of Obama's constitutional eligibility unresolved.

Judge Surrick obviously didn't think much of Berg's evidence:

Various accounts, details and ambiguities from Obama’s childhood form the basis of Plaintiff’s allegation that Obama is not a natural born citizen of the United States. To support his contention, Plaintiff cites sources as varied as the Rainbow Edition News Letter … and the television news tabloid Inside Edition. These sources and others lead Plaintiff to conclude that Obama is either a citizen of his father’s native Kenya, by birth there or through operation of U.S. law; or that Obama became a citizen of Indonesia by relinquishing his prior citizenship (American or Kenyan) when he moved there with his mother in 1967. Either way, in Plaintiff’s opinion, Obama does not have the requisite qualifications for the Presidency that the Natural Born Citizen Clause mandates. The Amended Complaint alleges that Obama has actively covered up this information and that the other named Defendants are complicit in Obama’s cover-up.

Nevertheless, because the case was dismissed on the standing issue, not on the merits of Berg's allegations that Obama does not meet the Constitutional requirement of being a natural born citizen, the issue will continue to dog Obama until Obama produces documents that prove Obama's eligibility and make the question go away?

Supreme Court Affirms Second Amendment Rights, Strikes Down D.C. Gun Ban

5 to 4 decision, Justice Scalia writes for the majority:

Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Court's ruling significantly restricts the D.C. gun laws, enacted in 1976 as the strictest gun control law in the country. The justices did not bar all government regulation of firearms:

"The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns," Justice Scalia said, adding the Constitution bars an absolute handgun ban.

No wonder Obama disavowed his "inartful" statement calling the D.C. gun laws constitutional.

Not Even Obama Agrees With What Obama Says

Last year, in a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune's James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins reported that "the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.'"

That was then.

Now, anticipating the Supreme Court's ruling in the DC gun case, Obama, a former constitutional law lecturer at the University of Chicago, reconsiders:

With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.'s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator's consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator's views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

According to ABC, Senator McCain has been more straightforward when it comes to the D.C. gun law:

He [McCain] signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

The D.C. ban prohibits residents from keeping handguns inside their homes and requires that lawfully registered guns, such as shotguns, be locked and unloaded when kept at home.