DOMA Doomed by Obama?

By Theosebes

Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a homosexual California couple, are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. This law prevents same sex couples from securing spousal benefits from Social Security, filing joint tax returns and gaining benefit from other federal rights reserved for traditional marriage. DOMA gives the states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. According to the Associated Press, the Justice Department lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and they contend that awarding the federal marriage benefits to homosexuals would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

The Obama administration filed court papers this Monday, August 17, 2009, claiming that they too believe that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals. According to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West, “DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.”

But would not the converse be true, if the law was reversed, wouldn’t the millions of people who live in traditional marriages, who support traditional marriages then be discriminated against? And at what point does the institution of marriage stop evolving? Who gets the final say as to what an “Evolved Marriage” looks like?

Also noted in the Associated Press was that the administration does not agree with the arguments that DOMA protects children by defining marriage as between a man and woman?

“The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality,” lawyers argued in the filing.

Ironically, this is the same administration that believes the government (also known as “The Village”) knows how to raise our children better than we and that it would like to send “trained babysitters” to our homes to see that we are parenting right via a little paragraph in the proposed healthcare bill. This administration also thinks that the United Nation has the right tools to take care of all the world’s children, individually caring for them, through the efforts of U.N. Treaty on Children. This Administration is not rational about procreation and child-rearing!

If Mr. Smelt and Mr. Hammer want a state that accepts them and recognizes them for who they are, then I say, move to Massachusetts! Give the people of the states the right to vote their conscience and trust that their voice will be not only heard but also remain law. Let those whose cause has been lost, to either be a good sport about it, or move to a place where they can have the rights they believe they deserve. An interest group, such as the homosexual lobby, should not be able to over turn the voices of millions of Americans and trample states rights. The Obama administration has much bigger issues than to get in bed with this particular “special interest group.”

Sotomayor Bores on Purpose: She’s Looking to Get Hired

By Anthony Bialy

A reality show about, sigh, soon-to-be-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings would be too dull for even Al Gore’s television station, if that’s possible. While her anti-nunchuk rant may have infuriated each and every ninja in the Senate, most of her statements have been Wonder Bread-bland. She’s ironically depicting herself as being more inoffensive than an Osmond.

Of course, this stands as remarkably sudden turnaround for the nominee: she’s instantly become unerringly sympathetic to those who support gun rights, has remained partly coy on the decidedly straightforward subject of abortion, and abruptly claims that her complexion doesn’t make her wiser.

But she’s flipped into tedious mode for a reason: the candidate is applying for a sweet gig. Sotomayor is undergoing a job interview, and she’s naturally going to be either positive or vague about her qualifications in the hope that the hiring managers won’t notice her rising red flags. She’s attempting nothing more than to gloss over her résumé’s rough patches. The native of the, let me double-check, Bronx is doing everything she can to downplay her infamous alleged richness of experience.

After all, Supreme Court Justice is a recession-proof job no matter what else President Obama unleashes on the poor economy. It comes with other benefits, too: the occupation currently pays $208,100 per year, offers a long summer recess, and requires no travel or heavy lifting. And, it’s of course a career for life once you land it.

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached but not removed in 1805; he was the first and last person to face an attempted banishment. At this point, a judge would have to get caught selling meth to war orphans on the court’s steps to put his or her employment status in danger.

It’s steady work during a time when the phrase “government job” may soon become redundant. Even better for Sotomayor, none of her bizarre decisions can be overturned by the Supreme Court if she’s herself on it; at worst, she’ll only find herself voting in the minority. This post would remove her chance of ever again being embarrassed by reversals.

Despite the procedure’s importance, many interviewers have been too busy inking their “HIRED” stamps to ascertain whether the aspirant deserves the post. Most glaringly, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy cut off his New York counterpart Kirsten Gillibrand for sucking up to Sotomayor for too long. The Senate has reached a new low even by its own modest standards when someone like Leahy thinks a colleague is being too fawning toward a perfectly liberal future Court seat-filler.

It’s all dreadful to endure. The most exciting moments of the hearings will continue to be when rudely protesting dunces in the crowd interrupt with shrieks regarding their hostility to her nomination. And even those incidents will only be interesting because of the possibility that the loudmouths might deservedly get pepper-sprayed or tasered.

The only chance for a truly compelling event would be if Republican senators displayed any willingness to stand up for conservative ideals. Namely, they could call out Sotomayor for her obviously ingrained hostility to judicial restraint. That’s especially true in light of her novel claims that she’s now keen about adhering to the Constitution.

Opposition party members could focus on how her recent statements obviously conflict with her record. All they would have to do is highlight Sotomayor’s curious willingness as a member of the judiciary to pass and approve laws; making up policies herself is a type of governmental efficiency we don’t need. Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, and maybe Jon Kyl are at least trying to show that she doesn’t deserve the position despite her salesmanship. But they’re going to end up being a minority of the minority.

Instead, most Republican lawmakers on the whole will lamentably acquiesce during the time between now and the vote. They’ve decided that, since they comprise only one-third of the Senate, the best strategy is to concede and be thankful the applicant isn’t even worse; oddly, they’re acting as if yielding will slingshot them back into power.

Their turnstile mentality means that Sotomayor will succeed in getting promoted from the Court of Appeals despite her evasiveness during the hiring process. The reluctance on the questioners’ part to provoke controversy makes for immensely uninteresting television. Oh, and it also leads to another activist landing on the Supreme Court.


Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and "Red Eye" Conservative in Western New York

Sotomayor Extravaganza!

By Nichole Hungerford

Yesterday began the hearings of judicial nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and not a moment too soon for the liberal hate-writers who now have something to spew their baseless vitriol about besides Sarah Palin. In fact, I can give you the format of each pitifully predictable op-ed piece in advance: They will proceed with a brief introduction of sanctimonious, verbal love-making to Sotomayor, and devote the remainder of the article to irrelevant grandstanding against Justice Roberts. Sad, but formulaically true. The hearing will also be the first official capacity in which we will see comedian Al Franken (a.k.a., Stuart Smalley the fictional self-help guru) as he ascends his newly purchased Senate seat.

At this point, there is simply too much uncertainty about how Sotomayor would conduct herself on the court. She may not even be as liberal as her predecessor, David Souter. At the very least, we can reasonably be assured she won’t be any worse. She enjoys unrestrained affection from most Senate Democrats and considerable skepticism, although not heavy opposition, from Republicans. Republicans are especially interested in how she will explain several controversial, off-bench statements which will be addressed in the coming hearings.

Sotomayor's Three Strikes

By: Laura Adelmann



Sonia Sotomayor is Obama's nominee to replace Justice Souter. The opportune announcement allows us a little more insight into what Obama values and gives us the chance to focus in on Sotomayor's views. Obama claims he was looking for empathy in his nominee. He seems more interested in her life story than in what she stands for as a judge. In my opinion, she has three glaring strikes against her. Didden v. Village of Port Chester, Doninger v. Niehoff and Ricci v. DeStefano.

In Didden v. Village of Port Chester the Second Circuit addressed the case of a taking of property by the village of Port Chester. Didden owned a parcel of property in a redevelopment district which was overseen by Wasser. When Didden requested permission to develop his property as a CVS pharmacy, Wasser demanded $800,000 or a partnership interest or he would condemn the property and take it for the village. When Didden did not meet these demands, the village did take the property and built a Walgreens. The Second Circuit upheld the taking. This expansive view of the government's right to take private property puts even Kelo to shame.

Doninger v. Niehoff dealt with a student's First Amendment rights. Doninger was running for student council when she objected to the school administration's cancellation of "Jamfest" calling the administrators "douchebags" on her livejournal. The school refused to let her run for student council based on her comments and ignored write-in votes she received. The Second Circuit ignored the First Amendment implications and felt that the administrators were correct to punish private speech. This speech was made outside of school, but that mattered little.

Finally, in Ricci v. DeStefano Sotomayor joined in an unsigned opinion that upheld the lower court's ruling without touching on the constitutional issues raised by the case. Frank Ricci and several other firefighters filed suit after the New Haven fire department refused to certify the results of an exam because no African Americans had passed to be promoted. The Second Circuit upheld what amounts to reverse discrimination.

Sonia Sotomayor may have an admirable past. She may have the right background in Obama's eyes, but from the decisions she's supported, she clearly is no defender of the Constitution. She's an activist with an agenda and anyone who believes in property rights, free speech or opposes discrimination should be concerned about Sotomayor's nomination.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service