Senator Arlen Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee when Rick Santorum was in the senate. Being the sneaky opportunistic little devil that Specter was he pretty much blackmailed Santorum, saying if you support my reelection bid I will support whichever Supreme Court nominees that Pres. Bush picks. The fact that Specter was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee meant that he had a lot of power over who was going to make it out of the committee. So, yes, Santorum supported Specter over Toomey. Santorum knew that his decision to do so would be a greater benefit in the long run to both conservatism and the pro-life movement. Now, we have Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts, two conservative strict constructionists that will be on the Supreme Court for a very long time which will benefit us for years to come. What if Santorum had said no to Specter and there were two moderate wishy-washy types sitting on the bench today where would that leave us with Obamacare and other important controversial issues brought before the Supreme Court? So, I send a big thank you to Rick Santorum for supporting the greater good. Pennsylvania conservatives should be thanking Santorum for this, not chastising him and railing against him because of what you perceive as a mistake, a blemish on his conservative, pro-life credentials. His conservative, pro-life credentials are very much in tact. He supported Specter in exchange for two pro-life justices who are now sitting on the Supreme Court. He made a good deal. Santorum made the best decision he could have at that time. He turned a lemon into lemonade IMO because now we have two lifetime appointed, pro-life, strict constructionist justices on the Supreme Court.
A big H/T goes to Maggie's Notebook for her post, and her finding this wonderful article and video. She keeps her excellent blog updated often on various issues so I am asking you to please go and check out her blog.
Justice Clarence Thomas spoke to law students at the Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, FL. yesterday and gave the Court's Constitutional reasoning for the controversial striking down of some portions of the country's campaign finance laws. His explanation is dissimilar from any other you've heard, and guess what? It has to do with "race." He also paints a picture of what it is like to sit with the Supremes in a State of the Union address - a picture you and I do not see or hear. He wanted no part of it. See a video below.
If you need background on campaign finance laws and why it is in the news today, read this, which in short, has a former FEC chairman, Bradley Smith, defending the Supreme Court's ruling, saying unequivocally, the law after the ruling "continues to forbid election spending by foreign corporations. Smith also said the President's decision to reprimand the Court in the middle of a SOTU address was "pure demagoguery."
The remarks of Justice Thomas are always devisive, because he is a conservative Black man, and Lord knows, we can't have that. Just wait until you hear this, which boils down to Democrats trying to restrict the free speech of those favorable (Republicans) to our Black neighbors back to 1907. Source: New York Times:
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.
“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”
“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.
Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
In other words, Justice Clarence Thomas chooses to be a servant of Constitutional Law. God Bless this man, Amen.
It was odd to see the Supremes gathered at the SOTU and note the absence of Clarence Thomas. Here is his explanation:
I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.”
“One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.”
The Supreme Court Justices have just made a ruling in favor of the white firefighters in Bias Case. The Supreme Court ruled that in New Haven Conn. were unfairly denied promotions because of their race. This means that the Supreme Court reversed a decision that Sonia Sotomayor, a Supreme Court nominee, endorsed as an appeals coourt judge.
This was a case of racism pure and simple. There have been absolutely NO firefighters promoted since the firefighters having taken the exam, which was for consideration of promotion in the New Haven Fire Department. These white firefighters were not considered for promotion, after passing the exam with flying colors, because there were no African Americans that had good enough results on the exam to be eligible for promotion.This is an exam that was approved for ALL people coming from various ethnic backgrounds to take by the city of New Haven. Then, afterward New Haven wants to say that the exam showed favoritism towards whites, but only after the exam results were known-that no African Americans were eligible for promotion at the firehouse. Since the Supreme Court ruled in this case that the white firefighters were unfairly denied promotions based on race, does that show some indication that Sotomayor is a racist? Or at least unjustly favors minorities over whites? Will this cause Sotomayor to have any problems with her upcoming Supreme Court hearings? Now it is the law of the land that the Ricci Case was a case of reverse racism.
