Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (57210)	8/7/2009 5:43:45 PM
From: longnshort	3 Recommendations Respond to of 59480

Valueless ABA Ratings By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY \| Posted Tuesday, July 07, 2009 4:20 PM PT Supreme Court: The media are treating the American Bar Association's top rating for Judge Sonia Sotomayor like a dispassionate report card. The record shows that the ABA applies a politicized double standard. Related Topics: Judges & Courts The ABA's Canons of Judicial Ethics have a lot of high-minded language. Such as: "To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded." And: "A judge shall not . . . by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice," including but not limited to "bias . . . based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity . . . ." And why not? Because "a judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased." The very definition of "conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased" can be found in Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's statements on race. She has claimed — over and over, it turns out — 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." The unmistakable assertion: A "wise Latina woman" is morally superior to those of another race and the other sex. The ABA further insists that "a judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation." But Sotomayor violated that too, until recently holding membership in an all-female "old girls" club whose only purpose is networking to empower its already elitist members. Nearly two decades ago, then-Republican Arlen Specter and all but one Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee — including current chairman Patrick Leahy of Vermont — supported a resolution warning that membership in such organizations could cost judicial nominees their confirmations. Yet in spite of that, the senators have forgotten those sentiments, and the ABA is ignoring its own precepts — all because a dependable liberal is on the verge of getting a lifetime Supreme Court seat. In the past, outstanding jurists ranging from Robert Bork to Clarence Thomas were scored well below Sotomayor. That was especially outrageous in Bork's case since he never had a decision overturned by the high court; Sotomayor has had 60% of her rulings thrown out. Politics, not competence, is the ABA's motivation.