Here we go!

Instapundit tipped me off to this, but I should be credited (shouldn't I?) for tipping all of you off in advance.

Ted Olson argues for overturning Proposition 8 of California. The Justice is Judge Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee:

Justice Sotomayor - "Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked, and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people, with respect to that could get married, the incest laws, the mother and child, assuming that they are the age I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?"

Ted Olson - "Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing, and if you, if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status."

Olson also said banning gay marriage was 'picking out a group of individuals to deny them the freedom (the court) said is fundamental'." (CNS NEWS)

But what about BISEXUALS I keep asking? Homosexual rights advocates claim they are "homosexuals" on a fundamental and programmed level. They often argue it's genetic. If this is so, what about the bisexual that wishes to engage in the "fundamental right" of marriage with another adult? Isn't their status denied recognition in marriage when they can't also marry another person at the same time? A bisexual, to conduct and realize all of their orientation in marriage needs two marriage partners. A man, and a woman in addition to themselves. Marriage as three. Polygamy!

Notice the bigoted language of Ted Olson saying that the plural married are already in abuse, exploitation and so on.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

That's one Great Cake! Ghost Writers in Walther's Court?

I speculated a while ago that Judge Walther would recuse herself in the Motion to Suppress. I wasn't real confident of that but it was at the time the top "Best Guess" I could come up with based on the facts at that time.

It would now be at the bottom of the list instead of the top. I suppose it could still happen but every day that goes by where Judge Walther does not bow out, that begins to look less like an intelligent guess and more like wishful thinking. If Babs ever writes a memoir, maybe she'll mention considering it.

At this point I'm going to have to say that Judge Walther will rule against the motion to suppress. I base this on evidence that Barbara is a skillful small town political operator, not a great jurist. This is not a slap by the way, it's just an observation. While I still believe she will not win in the end, she has been skillful, powerful, unflinching and brutal when necessary, almost without hesitation.

So what does a politician do when they don't have a legal mind and they wish to write an opinion on inclusion as opposed to suppression of evidence when there is so clearly a good case to suppress the evidence? Mind you I did not say "overwhelming" or "winning" case, I said "good."

Texas has not supplied Judge Walther in their filing with boilerplate to sign. They've supplied her with a list of case law and a set of facts and said "Here Babs, cook up a ruling!" It's as if you walked into a kitchen with a picture of a pie and the ingredients all set out on the counter and you've never baked a cake before. You whip up mean omelets but baking is not your calling. You've got a picture of a pie, and they're asking for cake.

Texas has to be seen as wanting the evidence to stand, and not be overturned on appeal. They seem to have confidence that Walther will rule in her favor but I can't believe what they think Walther can bake a cake. In the movie "Calender Girls," Chris Harper's (Helen Mirren) problem is solved by going out and buying the item in question, and passing it off as hers. She wins the blue ribbon by the way.

I'm of the opinion that Walther is down to two choices which may seem obvious to you but since the third choice, "recuse" (punt) seems off the table, she can only rule against, or rule for the motion to suppress. In the second case she need only agree adding a few embellishments with the Gerry Goldstein/FLDS motion. It's well written. Case closed.

Ruling against the motion means she has to bake that cake into a winner, and she can't. To me, that means Texas has delivered the ingredients to her kitchen, but someone else is going to cook up the winner. Either that, or we're on a fast track to a reversal. Judge Walther has a worse record with the FLDS and higher courts than Judge Sotomayor has with the Supreme Court of the United States, and that's no small accomplishment.

More →

Sphere: Related Content

What Did She Mean?

Having endured vicariously a Judicial Bully in the person of Barbara Walther, this concerns me, because Judge Sotomayor is being called a bully.

Frankly, the issue of whether or not this potential "Supreme" is a Latina and the "peril" that might be involved in "attacking" her is all the more reason in my humble opinion, to eviscerate her, provided that is the "right(s)" response. We are no longer a "racist nation" so her status as a "Latina" is utterly irrelevant other than I would think it provides a chance to showcase the idea that whatever race you are, if you're an idiot leftist, the political right stands ready to field dress you (figuratively) on the spot.

The New Republic - "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 Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. 'She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren't penetrating and don't get to the heart of the issue.' (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, 'Will you please stop talking and let them talk?')"

A Judge in love with her own opinions and the wisecracking sound of her own voice? This is a Judge with her mind already made up and I've seen one of those before. Judge Walther "made herself clear" and then promptly lost control of her courtroom. Do we need a Supreme that's going to start verbal brawls in our highest court?

So what did she mean in the above clip? If she's a Judicial Bully and she likes to hang with her "crowd" and make snickering inside jokes about writing law from the bench or "making policy" there, she's the most dangerous sort of Justice. We'll be listening to her enjoy the sound of her own voice for decades to come and at worst, she will lead the liberal charge on our bench for 30 years or more, at best she will be a marginalized joke.

She could be making an honest remark about the unfortunate nature of courts in this country, that policy is indeed made from the bench whether that be appropriate or not. In that case Sonia Sotomayor will probably take a dim view of it when she spots egregious examples of law making from the bench and from the tone of her voice, in the above clip, it's possible she just might mean that. I doubt it. Consider the author of her nomination.

If Judge Sotomayor is a winking middle finger flashing equivalent of her nominating President, she should be fought tooth and nail for whatever faint hope of her defeat there might be. If she's just a liberal Judge, well, we have a Liberal President and a Liberal House and a Liberal Senate where there is a filibuster proof Liberal majority and the only useful purpose of resisting her will be the simple benefit of illustrating who Liberals are.

More →

Sphere: Related Content