The Leak is the Crime; Reversing Roe - Perfectly Legal

The Leak is the Crime; Reversing Roe - Perfectly Legal

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

May 5, 2022

The last bastion of integrity in the American government, for the most part, has been the Supreme Court. The American people certainly have not agreed on the outcome of myriad cases heard by the High Court since 1790, but the work of the Supreme Court has ostensibly been scandal free. The integrity of this institution has been shattered by a poltroon devoid of a conscience in the hopes of creating a maelstrom the likes of which will divert attention from the absolute failings of the Biden administration.

At issue is the unprecedented leak of the draft majority opinion penned by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito regarding the Mississippi abortion case Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. That this is an abortion case, the opposing sides are apoplectic that the ultimate decision, to be rendered by the end of June, could overturn Roe v. Wade (1973). Such a leak has heretofore been unheard of, attested Supreme Court historians and former Supreme Court law clerks.

As polarizing a lightning rod as Roe is, the greater concern is, and should be, the penetration of the sanctity of the Supreme Court, and what happens in the Supreme Court stays in the Supreme Court, until the justices themselves say otherwise and reveal their verdicts in June on the cases they agreed to adjudicate prior to the opening of the session - the first Monday in October.

It is painfully obvious the leaker is unsatisfied with the potential outcome of Dobbs and hopes the court of public opinion will weigh heavily enough on the minds of the majority for one of them to alter his or her vote, which if at five to four in favor, will flip the script to a five to four verdict in the other direction. Should this occur, the damage to the Supreme Court would be in perpetuity. Leaks of draft opinions would become commonplace knowing that the weak link will kowtow to the pressure of mob justice. This would completely politicize the Supreme Court in ways heretofore unfathomable.

Not only should none of the justices fall victim to such tactics, the Court as a whole must not be intimidated by such unsavory and illegal tactics. While Chief Justice John Roberts has enlisted the Supreme Court’s marshal to conduct an investigation, the tentacles of such search must reach infinitely higher. 

According to Chris Swecker, a former FBI Assistant Director, both the FBI and the Justice Department have jurisdiction in such instances. This culprit must be diligently sought out, fired, charged, and disbarred, preventing him or her from practicing law anywhere in the United States, its territories or commonwealths. As harsh a message as possible must be sent to deter future leaks, and after the cost of a law school education is flushed away, that message should be loud and clear.

Swecker specified two US Codes that have been violated by the leaker. The first, 18 USC 1905, prohibits the disclosure of confidential information. The draft opinion is confidential to the Supreme Court - this is not the final version ready for public consumption. Additionally, 18 USC 641 pertains to theft of government property - including records and/or documents.

That the Biden administration has yet to condemn this egregious act, quite frankly, is not surprising. In fact, White House press secretary Jen Psaki won’t even call for punishment for this dastardly deed, having said that the real story is about abortion, and not the leak. “Our focus is on the content of the leak,” said Psaki, clearly more concerned about preserving the odious act of slaughtering an innocent life, than preserving the integrity of the Supreme Court, its people, and its work.

Already, threats to burn down the Supreme Court, threats of violence toward what progressive woke liberals are calling extremist justices are being heard coast to coast. A pro-abortion organization called Ruth Sent Us, named for the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, has not only planned protests at the homes of the six justices they deem extremist, they have made those addresses public. This does not sound like something the late justice would support. Members of Congress are calling the court illegitimate, simply because they do not agree with a potential decision that has yet to be made official. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has called the justices liars and is attempting to exert political pressure upon them to reverse the potential outcome of Dobbs. Senators Bernie Sanders (S-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have already called for four liberal justices to be added to the Supreme Court.

From the White House, Joe Biden also called the five or six justices in the majority extremists, yet in 2006 said he would not fund paying for abortions as a member of the Senate. Kamala Harris ranted and raved about abortion being the right of women, yet supported a recent successful Supreme Court appointee who could not define what a woman is when asked under oath during her Senate confirmation hearing.

Susan B. Anthony List, a pro-life organization, reported, “Biden slipped up today, acknowledging that abortion kills children - ‘choose to abort a child.’ How tragic to see a man, who for decades in the Senate stood against tax funding for abortion, so completely sell out to Big Abortion.”

Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) made it perfectly clear that should Roe v. Wade be reversed, such a decision would not legally end the practice of abortion in the United States, it would merely return to the separate states the power to decide. “It’s Federalism 101,” said Blackburn.

Roe v. Wade was poorly decided in 1973, This case should have never been brought to the Supreme Court in the first place. Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution and thus should have remained within the purview of the states to determine, as per the Tenth Amendment. The pro-choice and pro-abortion crowds are bemoaning the potential loss of their precious abortions, calling this the end of democracy. The leftist woke progressives are demonstrating their ignorance of how government works, or is supposed to work. Returning the issue of abortion to the states is the constitutionally correct thing to do, and, in the interest of democracy, the most democratic action. Each state can, and should, put the issue of abortion on the ballot for the voters to decide - not the 535 members of the houses of Congress, not the 50 state legislatures, but the millions of eligible voters. That is, in fact, a more pure form of democracy. 

This is what Justice Alito has called for within the 98 page draft opinion. He narrowed his focus specifically to that issue, and only that issue. The overblown hysteria of the far left media, far left politicians, and far left supporters of abortion on demand are spreading rumors that once Dobbs is decided and Roe reversed, the “extremist” court will attempt to rescind gay marriage, interracial marriage (have they met Mrs. Clarence Thomas?), and even reverse Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, KS (1954), according to leftwing talk show host Joy Behar. None of those claims are remotely true. Apparently the new office of misinformation has not opened its doors yet (read: government censorship). Perhaps if those people read the leaked document, which the Supreme Court confirmed is legitimate, their hysteria would be assuaged.

For those who think supporting life is extreme, consider how extreme murdering that same life is.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Name Ginsburg Replacement to Save the Union

Name Ginsburg Replacement to Save the Union
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
September 21, 2020

Liberals, progressives, Democrats, and Socialists are using sheer emotion and felonious threats against the body politic and innocent American citizens in an effort to bully the President of these United States from completing his Constitutionally granted duties.

In case there is any confusion, and I pray we can all agree that the United States Constitution is the law of the land, Article II, Section 2 states, the President “...by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law…” [sic]

And hopefully, to amplify that power granted the president via the Constitution, Amendment XX, Section 1 states, “The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January… and the terms of their successors shall then begin.” [sic]

While a nation mourns the loss of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the business of government marches on. With as much fervency as her supporters are arguing in favor of adhering to her supposed last words and request that her successor not be chosen until there is a new president, the Constitution supersedes such grandstanding. It would actually be sad and pathetic if Ginsburg’s last thoughts were political and not familial. If Ginsburg was concerned about retaining the seat for another liberal justice, she should have retired during the first three years of President Obama’s second term.

To be sure, Ginsburg, who died on Friday, September 18, at age 87 having served 27 years on the nation’s High Court, left an indelible mark in earning legions of fans to the point of being a rock star - replete with t-shirts, coloring books for children, even a feature film was produced. While no fan of her judicial decisions, my wife and I saw the movie and it was rather interesting. I appreciated her upbringing in pre-World War II, Depression-era New York. I associated with her having to endure anti-Semitism, and empathized with her having to fight twice as hard for her accomplishments simply due to her gender. For that, I am glad my own daughters, who admired the popularly nicknamed RBG, do not have to fight nearly as hard for their place in the world as young women.

All that being said, there is still a task at hand - a Constitutional responsibility to be carried out by President Donald Trump, regardless of what his detractors think, say, or threaten. There are no liberal or conservative seats on the Supreme Court. There are no black or white seats on the Supreme Court. There are no male or female seats on the Supreme Court. There are no Catholic, Christian, or Jewish seats on the Supreme Court. That a president chooses to replace a justice with a similarly categorized justice is his or her choice. In some cases it just makes sense - strategic political sense to be sure; let’s not sugarcoat it. Yet, I don’t seem to recall the fervor to violently overthrow the Union in 1991 when President George Herbert Walker Bush nominated Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court - replacing a liberal black justice - Thurgood Marshall, with a conservative black justice in Thomas. (Granted, there were other issues with which to contend.)

And of course with fewer than six weeks until Election Day, that Trump will select a woman to replace Ginsburg is a no-brainer. The controversy is two-fold - that she will be a conservative Originalist, and that she will be appointed less than six weeks out from an election. Before Ginsburg’s body was cold the Democrats invoked the name Merrick Garland more often than when he was nominated to the Supreme Court by Obama in 2016 - another election year. The GOP-led Senate declined to give Garland a hearing citing he was appointed by a Democrat president, while in this year’s appointment, a Republican president is nominating to a Republican majority Senate.

President Trump is simply carrying out his duties as laid out by the Constitution - the law of the land in the United States since 1789. There have been a number of presidential election year nominations to the High Court. Most recently, President Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, nominated Justice Frank Murphy in 1940; prior to Murphy, in 1932 President Herbert Hoover, a Republican, nominated Justice Benjamin Cardozo, a liberal; and in 1916 President Woodrow Wilson nominated Louis Brandeis, the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice. Even during the lame duck session of 1880, was William Burnham Woods nominated on December 15, by President Rutherford B. Hayes.

As there is no lack of precedent to appoint a Supreme Court justice in a presidential election year, a confirmation can also be accomplished in fewer than six weeks. John Paul Stevens, a 1975 President Gerald Ford nominee was confirmed by the Senate in 19 days. Current Chief Justice John Roberts, a President George W. Bush nominee in 2005, was confirmed in 24 days. The first woman to sit on the Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’ Connor, a 1981 President Ronald Reagan appointee, was confirmed in 33 days, and Ginsburg herself, a 1993 President Bill Clinton nominee, was confirmed in 42 days.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said the GOP has “no right to fill it [the seat].” Perhaps Schumer missed Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School.

Ginsburg herself said in 2016, “there’s no Constitutional impediment at all to the Senate taking up a Supreme Court nomination in an election year.”

Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) objects to a pre-Election Day nomination on the grounds that roughly half the states have already begun voting. That’s a choice those voters made of their own volition. Should a 11th hour surprise or scandal erupt on October 22, will Coons demand those who have already voted have the opportunity to re-vote? That is one of myriad problems with early voting occurring six or seven weeks prior to Election Day. And quite frankly, anyone casting their ballot prior to the first debate (September 29), is probably not sitting on the fence.

That “legal scholar” Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez (S-NY) threatened Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell saying, “he is playing with fire,” and to all her acolytes, “let this moment radicalize you!”

“I’m just doing my Constitutional obligation,” said Trump, who expects to announce his nomination by week’s end. And all but two Republican Senators are on board with Trump making this appointment prior to Election Day. The holdouts are Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Maine’s Susan Collins who is in the battle for her electoral life. Also in tough reelection campaigns are Republican Senators Cory Gardner (CO), Martha McSally (AZ), and Thom Tillis (NC), yet they support Trump making this appointment prior to November 3.

Even the feckless Democrat nominee for president, Joe Biden can’t make up his mind on this issue. In 1992 Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) was against nominating and confirming a new Supreme Court justice. In 2016 Vice President Joe Biden supported the nomination and confirmation of a new justice, and in 2020 candidate Joe Biden has once again reversed himself. So he was for it, before he was against it, before he was for it again?

For those complaining that a Supreme Court nomination will distract Congress from conducting its business pertaining to Covid or Covid-related recovery programs, since when can’t Congress multi-task? While the Senate is taking up the court vacancy, the House of Representatives should be handling the finances, as per their Constitutional duties. Wow, it sure seems the Democrats have a penchant for forgetting what’s in the Constitution. Perhaps that’s why it’s so easy for them to want to ignore, change, or cancel its contents.

Part of the threats coming from Democrats should Trump do his job and appoint Ginsburg’s replacement include impeachment. “We can impeach him every day of the week for anything he does,” said Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) in an interview. Seems Pelosi also has forgotten her Constitution. Article II, Section 4 states, “The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [sic] That kind of chicanery could only help the reelection chances of Trump.

Yet, even fellow Democrat Tim Kaine (VA) sees the impudence in impeachment, calling it “foolish.”

But Representative Joe Kennedy III (D-MA) is attempting to dig up the old playbook of Franklin D. Roosevelt, announcing that if Trump makes his pick in 2020, the Democrats will pack the court in 2021. And they can do that if the Democrats run the table winning the governmental triumvirate of the House, Senate, and White House. The Democrats are likely to retain the House, and the Senate is in their reach. Yet, even Ginsburg objected to court packing in an interview with NPR in 2019. “I think that was a very bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court. If anything it would make the court appear partisan,” said Ginsburg.

The Democrats have already promised to wreak catastrophic changes to the Senate. If they can’t win elections legally and fairly, they are committed to an overhaul that would forever change the political landscape in the United States and render most of the Constitution obsolete. This is not hyperbole. Consider the laundry list of damaging changes the Democrats would likely attempt, akin to taking their ball and going home since they don’t like the rules.

The Democrats desperately seek to end the Electoral College, as proscribed by Amendment XII to the Constitution. The United States is a Republic, not a true democracy in that the popular vote is not the deciding factor in a presidential election. Imagine the easy path to the White House the lack of the Electoral College would create for the Democrats if they only had to campaign in Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Portland, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and virtually every small or rural state would cease to be relevant to the Democrats.

The Democrats want to make Washington, DC a state, with two Democrat senators in perpetuity - again, a clear violation of that pesky Constitution. Then, while rearranging the stars on Old Glory, the Democrats want to add the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a state, also with two Democrat senators in perpetuity.

Additionally, the Democrats would attempt to end Senate equality - no longer would each state have two Senators. If that is a goal, they should run for the House of Representatives - the Founding Fathers gave us a bicameral legislature for a reason, as well as compromising on the New Jersey Plan and the Virginia Plan - this coming from the party claiming to support equality.

All of these machinations from court packing to growing the Senate are in support of two goals - keeping a liberal Supreme Court, and keeping their precious abortions from becoming illegal. There is almost, if not actually, an apoplectic sense that the addition of another conservative justice would facilitate the overturning of Roe v. Wade (1973), which should never have been brought before the Supreme Court in the first place. That they are willing to destroy public and private property in the name of murdering the unborn actually makes sense - their total disregard for life and property is mighty transparent. Threats of literally burning down the government and its buildings, of burning down the houses of senators who would allow such a “travesty” to occur, of physically attacking anyone who is pro-life, are not off the table. And thus I find it imperative to remind one and all of AOC’s message to her acolytes, to “let this moment radicalize you.” She is doing her damndest to turn this capitalist republic into a socialist totalitarian state with government control of virtually everything, including our speech.

The Republicans must not demurely kowtow to the Democrats or genuflect to their threats - theirs or their loyal followers. They must demonstrate backbone and stand up to their unhinged opponents who, by virtue of their silence, support arson, looting, rioting, tearing down statues and  monuments, as well as the destruction of private and public property. Practicality should dictate that a high court vacancy leaves the possibility of a four to four tie should there be a repeat of Bush v. Gore (2000). Should that occur, and a winner is not determined by January 2o, 2021, G-d help us, but Pelosi would temporarily become president.

All that remains is the nominating, vetting, and confirming the next Associate Justice to the Supreme Court. Amy Coney Barrett, 48, Barbara Lagoa, 52, Joan Larsen, 51, and Allison Jones Rushing, 38, all with solid conservative bona fides, appear to be the leading candidates to replace Ginsburg.

Barrett currently serves as a judge on the Seventh US Circuit Court of Appeals located in Chicago, earning Senate confirmation 55-43 in 2017. She graduated Rhodes College magna cum laude with a degree in English Literature. Barrett attended Notre Dame Law School on a full scholarship, graduating first in her class, summa cum laude. She clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia - both strict Originalists. Barrett and her husband Jesse Barrett, an attorney, have seven children - five biological and two adopted from Haiti.

Lagoa is a Cuban-American whose parents escaped Castro’s Cuba following the 1959 Communist Revolution and was the first Latina to serve on the Florida Supreme Court. She serves as a judge on the Eleventh US Circuit Court of Appeals located in Atlanta, earning Senate confirmation 80-15 this past December. Lagoa is a Constitutionalist believing in judicial restraint. She graduated Florida International University cum laude with a degree in English and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Lagoa graduated Columbia Law School, also Ginsburg’s alma mater. Lagoa and her husband Paul Huck, Jr., an attorney, have three children.

Larsen serves as a judge on the Sixth US Circuit Court of Appeals located in Cincinnati, earning Senate confirmation 60-38 in 2017. She graduated from Northern Iowa University and was first in her law school class at Northwestern University. Like Barrett, Larsen also clerked for Scalia. She and her husband Adam Pritchard, a professor at the University of Michigan School of Law, have two children.

Rushing serves as a judge on the Fourth US Circuit of Appeals located in Richmond, earning Senate confirmation 53-44 in 2019. She graduated from Wake Forest University summa cum laude with a degree in Music and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Rushing graduated from Duke University School of Law having served as Executive Editor of the Duke Law Journal and later clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas. She and her husband Blake Rushing have one child.

As each of the four potential Supreme Court jurists have been vetted and confirmed by the Senate as recently as 2017, there is no logical reason for the confirmation process to take more than a couple of weeks. And a bigger question arises. If a number of Democrat senators have already voted to confirm each of the four aforementioned judges, what has changed for those same Democrats to now vote against these same Trump nominees?

“The people pick the president, and the president picks the justice. That is how this works,” said Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a one-time rival to Biden for the Democrat nomination. Thanks for that civics lesson, Senator Klobuchar. You’re right, the people did pick the president - Donald Trump in 2016, and win or lose on November 3, his term doesn’t expire until January 20, 2021. Let’s pray that common sense prevails and the voters remember the Trump accomplishments, as well as the frightening prospects a future “Harris-Biden” administration would foist upon the American people.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

ROE-ing Against the Tide

ROE-ing Against the Tide
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
October 4, 2018

As I wrote in my most recent column, “Sexism v. Rule of Law,” http://sanfordspeaksout.blogspot.com/2018/09/sexism-v-rule-of-law.html, the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee are attempting to protect the accusers of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, while the Republicans on that same committee are protecting the process.

In reality, both Dr. Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh have been treated miserably. She, a useful tool of the liberals and progressives, he the punching bag by the same groups. The bottom line during this mishegas is no one will emerge the winner. It’s akin to attempting to pick a turd by its clean end.

Make no mistake, I am not equating Ford, et al with Kavanaugh. I truly believe something happened to Ford and possibly to Deborah Ramirez, but I also believe not at the hands of Kavanaugh. The Democrats have handled the Kavanaugh hearings with a search and destroy mission, taking no prisoners to the deleterious effects on the wife and young daughters of Kavanaugh. Even some miserable political cartoonist took potshots at one of Kavanaugh’s daughters.

The be all, end all, for the Democrats and their minions is the preservation of the much vaunted Roe v. Wade (1973) - despite the fact it should have been a states’ rights issue from jump. Nothing is more important than ensuring women have the legal right to murder their unborn child, and the sanctimony by which the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have attacked Kavanaugh is demonstrative of how the Roe crowd owns these lemmings.

Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who fortunately does not sit on the Judiciary Committee, announced he would do whatever it takes to keep President Donald Trump’s nominee from being seated on the Supreme Court. This pronouncement came before the nomination of Kavanaugh. Is this how the non-partisan process of Supreme Court nominations works?

From within the committee, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ), a potential candidate for president in 2020, hypocritically vigorously chastised Kavanaugh for actions that have yet to be proven, even after seven FBI investigations. Hypocritically, because Booker is an admitted gropper and assaulter of women.

Then there is the equally smarmy Senator Dick Blumenthal (D-CT). Trump should give him the nickname of “Stolen Valor Dick,” because for years he lied about serving his country in the military overseas in Vietnam. Liar, liar, pantalones en fuego, Dick!

When the accusations of Ford, et al could not be corroborated by witnesses, the Democrats demanded an additional FBI investigation - the seventh. In the interim, the Democrats shifted gears and attacked Kavanaugh for his drinking and his temperament. Is Kavanaugh the only Supreme Court nominee to enjoy a few adult beverages? Hardly. Don’t tell me Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn’t knocking back some Manischewitz from time to time. Yes, Kavanaugh enjoys his beer. Should that disqualify him from the Supreme Court? As for Kavanaugh’s temperament, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee goaded him into speaking with strength and vigor in his voice. Accuse me of unspeakable behavior and rest assured the response would not be some weak-kneed, mealy-mouthed, mousey, undertoned denial. No, the vehement denial would be heard from the mountaintops, and rightfully so. Rightful indignation, if not righteous.

Now that the FBI conducted their most recent investigation, and finding nothing new, the Democrats are flummoxed and attempting to find yet another manner in which to move the goalposts as the clock keeps ticking toward the November 6 midterm elections. Believing chicanery has occurred, the same Democrats who demanded this FBI inquiry - Booker, Blumenthal, Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA), Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) are leading the disingenuous parade suggesting collusion between the FBI and the Trump administration. Apparently the FBI, because it could not prove what the Democrats wanted, is now organization non grata to them.

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) said “this is a sham. Don’t take the FBI’s word.” So the umpire rules against Kaine’s team, he decides to take his ball and go home like a petulant three year old.

Trump also needs to be chastised for mocking Ford while speaking at a rally in Mississippi on Tuesday night. Granted, her memory has been fuzzy at best regarding virtually any detail other than it was Kavanaugh who assaulted her, but Trump, as is his wont, went overboard during the rally, a setting he takes to as a duck does to water.

To be fair, the additional FBI probe was the right course of action, as was holding the hearing to learn what Ford had to say in the first place. Let there be no doubt, or as little doubt as possible considering the decades-old allegations are virtually impossible to prove sans legitimate witnesses. However, in spite of the FBI’s latest report, Kavanaugh’s reputation will forever remain sullied, unable to be restored in the court of public opinion.

Even the ACLU, an organization famously known for supporting the free speech rights of neo-Nazis, has sold out - hypocritically presuming the guilt of Kavanaugh before his innocence is proven. Isn’t that backwards as far as the United States Constitution is concerned? It is, except where white males are concerned. It is, except where the preservation of the almighty abortion is concerned - after all the progressive left is ROE-ing against the tide, especially at a time where medical science proves the viability of the fetus at earlier and earlier ages, and more and more people are opposing abortion - thank G-d. Nevertheless, Planned Parenthood continues waging its war against Kavanaugh; and make no mistake, this is a bloodbath in its continuation.

“With regard to the freedom of the individual for choice with regard to abortion, there’s one individual who’s not being considered at all. That’s the one who is being aborted. And I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born,” said Ronald Reagan.

Yet, there is the ACLU preaching integrity while linking Kavanaugh to the convicted and disgraced actor Bill Cosby - a clear case of guilt by - lack of association? I say guilt by genitalia - men’s only. In fact, Faiz Shakir, the national Political DIrector with the ACLU said Kavanaugh is not entitled to the presumption of innocence just Thursday evening on the Fox News program Tucker Carlson Tonight. This is a matter of guilt via vilification and equal justice under the law is a thing of the past.

This is a dangerous path this nation is traversing; or should I say goose-stepping. A dangerous precedent is hovering overhead like a black cloud and its talons have already reached college campuses.

At the University of Southern California, Professor James Moore had the audacity to defend the centuries old innocent until proven guilty. More than 100 students called for Moore’s dismissal. Making matters infinitely worse, Dean Jack Knott defended the students against Moore. 

“Accusers sometimes lie,” Moore wrote responding to an email calling for all victims to be believed, thus incurring the wrath of students clearly having no knowledge of the Constitution regarding both the presumption of innocence as well as Moore’s First Amendment right of free speech, calling for his firing for such an insensitive email. (As for lying accusers, see my “Sexism…” column for examples.)

Dean Knott’s brainstem apparently is tied in knots as he offered a full-throated rebuke against Moore and support of the students. “What [Moore] sent was extremely inappropriate, hurtful, insensitive,” [Knotts] said. “We are going to try to do everything we can to try to create a better school, to educate the faculty. This is going to be a multi-pronged effort. We are going to have a faculty meeting later this week around implicit bias, sensitivity towards survivors.”

But here’s the rub regarding this ROE-ing against the tide. There is a growing support for Kavanaugh amongst women, and the suggested Blue Wave presumed to be heading this way for the November 6 midterm may either be nothing more than a trickle or the growing anger of conservatives will stem that tide altogether.

More and more women are infuriated not only by the treatment of Kavanaugh, but how the long term implications may affect their sons. A mere accusation will mar a male’s reputation for life, impact their ability to secure gainful employment, engage in meaningful relationships, or simply interact with women in any setting for fear of an allegation for any action real or imagined. This will ultimately lead to the greater straining of relations between the genders - of which there are still but two, by the way.

“Like the 2016 Trump silent majority laying beneath the polls which oversampled Democrats, women just might be ready to lash out against Democrats this November,” wrote Emma Green with The Atlantic. “These women are infuriated with the way the sexual-assault allegations against… Kavanaugh have been handled. They are not convinced by Ford or any other woman who has come forward. They resent the implication that all women should support the accusers. And they believe that this scandal will ultimately hurt the cause of women who have been sexually assaulted."

These mistaken notions that all accusers must be believed all the time and that each of the accused are now required to prove their innocence under the presumption of guilt run completely antithetical to the founding of this great nation. Once that foundation crumbles, so to will the entirety of the republic, and ultimately civilization as it is known. Make no mistake, this not hyperbole as the eyes of the world are typically upon the United States. Our freedoms; our rights; our sons and daughters futures are at stake.

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free,” said Reagan.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Is Chief Justice Roberts Souter Redux?

“We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” – President Ronald Reagan, First Inaugural Address, Tuesday, January 20, 1981

Is Chief Justice Roberts Souter Redux?

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 30, 2012

In an 11^th hour twist seen by most so-called experts and pundits as unexpected, the Affordable Health Care Act, a.k.a. Obama Care, has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. The individual mandate has been declared constitutional in a five to four decision authored by none other than Chief Justice John Roberts.

Roberts, a heretofore reliable conservative appointed by former President George W. Bush, wrote in his majority opinion, that while the individual mandate did not stand up to the constitutional smell test under either the Commerce Clause or the necessary and Proper Clause, it did however, pass muster as a tax.

Slice and dice it six ways from Sunday, this irresponsible decision by a feckless majority of the high court’s jurists, has given the federal government carte blanche to dictate medical decisions over the states and over the American people. Siding with Roberts are the usual liberal suspects: Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. The four dissenting justices were Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

With Roberts, there is the eerily similar turn a la former Justice David Souter, a 1990 appointment of President George H. W. Bush. Souter seen as a conservative became a reliable liberal jurist on the high court until his retirement in 2009. Will Roberts follow Souter as another Bush appointment to disappoint? Or will this landmark decision simply prove to be an aberration? Time will tell.

Regardless of how the individual mandate crossed the finish line, this is largely seen as a victory for the Obama administration. This has been his signature piece of legislation defining his term thus far. Largely seen, because the administration must now defend the largest tax increase in the history of the republic.

Yet, the so-called Affordable Health Care Act has been repeatedly defended by Obama saying, “This is absolutely not a tax increase.” His campaign mantra in 2008 had been that “taxes would not be raised by one thin dime.”

The federal government now has the constitutional authority to levy a tax on those people who chose not to purchase a health insurance policy. The American people can now be punished for opting not to buy something.

For adults with no coverage this translates into one percent of one’s income or $95 in 2014; two percent or $325 in 2015 and two and a half percent or $695 in 2016. Notice how the taxing penalties don’t take effect until after the 2012 presidential election? Wonder why? Wonder no more.

According to The Indianapolis Star “The IRS can’t prosecute violators or place liens against them; its only enforcement option may be withholding money from refunds.” (June 29, 2012; A-1)

Here’s a damn good suggestion folks: adjust your withholding by amending the W-4 form filed with employers. Have less money deducted from paychecks so there won’t be a refund coming to you the following April. This will do two positive things: put more money in your pockets every pay period and deny the federal government an interest free loan given them by overpaying your taxes. Sure, you may have to write a check to the IRS in April, but, better that than the possibility of the government stealing your refund because you choose not to purchase a product the government is forcing you to buy.

The Roberts’ Court decision on health care is precedent setting in that the federal government can now potentially mandate that we the people should be forced to buy a certain brand of vehicle that suits the administrations’ green agenda. Or perhaps a future Republican administration wishes to mandate that everyone must purchase a firearm to help keep police costs at bay.

Another disturbing aspect of the government seizure of health care is that it is about to hire an additional 16,000 IRS agents to enforce this legislation, proving that it is in fact, a tax. After all, the IRS is in the business of collecting taxes. This is more money spent, that we the people are funding, when the government is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

Not only do a majority of the American people oppose Obama Care – the tax, but the medical profession is widely against it, many suggesting they will not be able to afford to keep their practices open. Costs will surely rise and fewer qualified doctors will remain in the profession.

Obama will need to defend this largest tax increase in American history in his campaign for reelection against former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. How will he juxtapose his campaign rhetoric of 2008 imploring voters that anyone earning less than $250,000 would not see a tax increase with an acknowledgement from the Supreme Court that Obama’s victory is a tax? That figure then became $200,000.

In reality, Obama Care will institute more than a trillion dollars in new taxes – 75 percent of which to be paid by those earning less than $120,000 and 50 percent of that to be incurred by those brining home between $25,000 and $75,000.

This must not be allowed to stand. In order to generate a repeal of the Affordable Health Care Act, a simple majority in Congress is required in what is known as a reconciliation vote. That would necessitate a minimum of 218 votes to overturn a tax, a.k.a. a budget item. The Republicans must gain a majority in the Senate in order to support their Congressional brethren, should this come down to a partisan vote, which it almost guarantees to do.

This is an attack on the liberty of a free people whose freedoms are eroding partly due to the expediency of entitlements and partly due to a lack of knowledge of American History and the Constitution. If we do not save ourselves, who will?

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Supremes Weaken National Security in AZ Case

Supremes Weaken National Security in AZ Case
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
June 26, 2012

In a severe blow to states’ rights and sovereignty, the Supreme Court has effectively tied the hands of the State of Arizona from enforcing SB 1070 – the illegal immigration law officially entitled “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act.”

The Supreme Court ruled that the State of Arizona interfered with Congressional authority over the borders of the United States. Yet, the Grand Canyon State passed legislation in the best interest of its citizens and legal residents. Congress, and by extension, the federal government as a whole, has either refused to do its job or has done so in such a poor manner as to necessitate Arizona to do for themselves what the feds have not or would not.

Porous borders, too few border patrol agents, and a feckless Justice Department unwilling to do its job of halting illegal immigration, made it incumbent upon the states, whether Arizona, via SB 1070, or any other legislative acts, to do what the federal government refuses to do.

Yet, the Supreme Court, in cherry-picking where the federal government’s responsibilities lie and do not lie, has long accepted the existence, and uncooperative behavior of, sanctuary cities that would juxtapose the ruling it handed down on June 25. No city declaring itself a sanctuary should be entitled a single dollar of federal funding. For those who think that punishment is Draconian, that is the severity of the scourge of illegal immigration deleterious to the security of the United States.

And yet, “We will not be issuing detainers on people unless they meet our priorities,” was a statement from the Barack Hussein Obama administration. Those priorities are to turn a blind eye on any illegal who has not committed a crime, according to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. BEING IN THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY IS A CRIME! As the former Arizona governor, Napolitano should understand the challenges faced in that state and the region as a whole.

“There has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona… predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected…. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?” asked Associate Justice Antonin Scalia in writing his minority opinion.

The frightening answer is YES, the states are indeed at the mercy of the federal executive – a federal executive who has balked at every opportunity to close loopholes providing illegals with free and unfettered medical care, food stamps, education for their children and citizenship for children born in the United States, thanks to a weak interpretation of the 14^th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

A “patchwork of state laws is not a solution – it’s part of the problem,” said Obama in defending the indefensible – continuing to support sanctuary cities and the striking down of three of the four main provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070. Obama expressed his opposition even prior to Governor Jan Brewer (R) boldly signing the bill into law in 2010. Obama has, for political purposes, opposed efforts to combat illegal immigration.

Obama’s pandering to the Hispanic community, which is not monolithic, is actually insulting all Hispanic-Americans who immigrated to the United States legally. It insults them on two levels: that their legal immigration is meaningless and that just because the illegals in question are predominantly Hispanic, their legal brethren would welcome them with open arms.

“The government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens,” wrote Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy in his majority opinion. “Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire nation,” continued Kennedy for Chief Justice John Roberts, along with associate justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor in a five to three decision. Associate Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from this case having served as Solicitor General during the litigation stages. (www.wsj.com)

Three of the four components of SB 1070 were struck down:

Section Three, defeated six to two with Associate Justice Samuel Alito joining the aforementioned majority, would have declared it a state crime if immigrants failed to register with the federal government or failed to carry a required registration card.

Quite frankly, if all legal residents and citizens were required to carry a photo ID, be it a drivers’ license, which cannot legally be obtained by illegals, or another official federal ID, there would be fewer problems and would also eliminate the voter ID issue.

In the case of sections Five-C and Six, Alito joined the minority of associate justices Scalia and Clarence Thomas in the five to three decisions.

Section Five-C would have made it a crime for an illegal alien to solicit work if not authorized to work in the United States. A jail sentence would have accompanied that crime.

Denying the legality of this section of SB 1070 puts the onus completely on the shoulders of the employers, who, according to federal law, are punishable for hiring illegals. The only saving grace for employers would be if illegals used forged documentation or perjured themselves in an effort to garner employment.

Striking this portion of SB 1070 is practically a free pass for foreigners to continue invading the United States in hopes of finding employment, thus defrauding the country they claim to wish to join. Such a violation should be countered with deportation and inclusion on a data base which lists all such violators. Should the violation be repeated, jail time should be the next penalty with a concomitant reduction in aid to the miscreant’s country of origin.

Section Six would have granted state and local law enforcement the right to arrest immigrants in some cases without a warrant. Granted, there are times when an arrest without a warrant is imperative, but it should apply to immigrants and natives alike equally.

The majority “deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” Scalia opined in the minority. (www.wsj.com)

It can’t get simpler than that. In other words, what part of illegal does the executive branch of the federal government not understand? What part of illegal do justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Roberts, and Sotomayor not understand? One does not need a law degree or teach constitutional law to comprehend this basic concept.

What was upheld by the High Court was Section Two-B: maintaining state and local law enforcements’ authority to determine the immigration status of anyone stopped under suspicion of committing another crime. This provision, known as status-check, is rather weak, as it does not include any authority to hold illegals without federal permission.

In spite of the weakness of the upheld portion of SB 1070, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio offered his spin on the partial victory. “It shows cops can ask someone if they’re here illegally when you stop them for another crime,” said the sheriff known for his dogged determination to fight illegal immigration. (www.wsj.com)

“The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid prohibition. The Executive’s policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a provision… If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State,” wrote Scalia in his minority opinion.

Scalia, as per his usual, presents so eloquent an opinion; it is baffling how it was not supported by the five justices in the majority. Only those with an agenda similar to that of Obama could possibly object, and they did, in effect endangering the security of the United States.

With the potential retirements of swing voter Kennedy and reliable conservative Scalia during the next presidential term, all the more reason for the defeat of Obama and the election of Mitt Romney. Romney may not be the darling of the conservatives, but he will presumably make more intelligent Supreme Court appointments than Obama.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Is Obama Intimidating the Supremes?

Is Obama Intimidating the Supremes?  
Commentary by Sanford D. Horn
April 3, 2012

No, Diana Ross has nothing about which to worry. But perhaps Obama himself does, in light of demeaning, disrespectful and ignorant remarks toward and about the current members of the High Court as well as its treasured history.

For better or worse, the Supreme Court is the final word pertaining to legal disputes, and contrary to Obama’s description, the court is an equal branch in the federal triumvirate of the legislature, executive and judiciary.

In slamming the Supreme Court over the possibility of rejecting his signature piece of legislation known infamously as Obama-care, Obama expressed shock “that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” This is both rude and disrespectful, but not out of character for Obama, who lashes out at anyone or any entity that dare challenge his will.

Obama also wrongly stated that his health care plan “was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” The margin of victory, two years ago, prior to the GOP sweep of the House, was a mere 219-212.

So outrageous is it that a three-judge panel from the 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered the Obama Justice Department to pen a three-page, single-spaced, minimum, specific answer to “whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.” (www.foxnews.com) The administration’s homework assignment is due by noon Thursday CDT.

Treating his office as a monarchy/dictatorship, Obama said it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to somehow overturn the will of Congress, demonstrating his ignorance that it could be done at all. This, sadly, coming from a person who graduated from Harvard Law School, was head of the Harvard Law review and taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School. This “oversight” is more than just a little disturbing.

In fact, the will of Congress, as Obama stated, has been overturned more than 160 times, by the Supreme Court, according to Fox News. The precedent setting case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is classic Con Law 101. (laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/us/5/137.html)

And of course there is the debate over judicial review versus judicial activism. Obama, sensing defeat at the hands of the Supremes come June in what is likely to be a 5-4 verdict with the liberal justices Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor siding with Obama and the conservative justices siding with the Constitution. Obama is calling the Roberts court an activist court, which by definition couldn’t be further from the truth.

“Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court and other judges can and should (re)interpret the texts of the Constitution and the laws in order to serve the judges’ own visions regarding the needs of contemporary society…. [J]udges assume a role as independent policy makers or independent “trustees” on behalf of society that goes beyond their traditional role as interpreters of the Constitution and the laws.” (www.uslegal.com)

The liberal justices are seeking to uphold an unconstitutional policy requiring the American people to purchase a product as demanded of them by the federal government – health insurance. This is direct violation of the Commerce Clause as indicated in the Constitution.

The conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, by declaring Obama-care unconstitutional will be exhibiting judicial restraint, the opposite of judicial activism by using their power of judicial review.

Judicial review is the “power of the courts of a country to examine the actions of the legislative, executive, and administrative arms of the government and to determine whether such actions are consistent with the constitution. Actions judged inconsistent are declared unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void.” (www.britannica.com)

Government should be less intrusive in the people’s lives, not more; and as such, the use of judicial review to strike down legislation that reaches too far into the people’s private lives is both appropriate and expected.

However, Obama, forever seeking greater governmental authority over the people’s lives called it a “surprising reach” for the High Court to consider rejecting his legislative baby. This coming from the same so-called leader who referred to Obama-care as “not an abstract exercise,” while all but referring to the Constitution as “abstract.”

That Obama could refer to the Constitution as “abstract,” is demonstrative of his complete lack of understanding of the purpose of this document as well as its significance. The genius of the Founding Fathers was such that this founding document, aside from the Bill of Rights, has been changed but a mere 17 times, and considering prohibition and its repeal cancelling each other out, 15 times.

The Constitution is the foundation of what makes the United States a great nation and no president will be allowed to destroy it and replace it with a system of anti-business, anti-free market socialism where the government steals from its citizenry in an effort to provide for the illegals, shiftless and ne’er-do-wells. It is incumbent upon us to send Obama a message that this will never be tolerated, and that message must be sent this November 6 as we the people reclaim our nation.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and educator living in Westfield, IN.

Sotomayor Compelling but not Court-Worthy

Sotomayor Compelling but not Court-Worthy

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

July 12, 2009

Let’s get the buzzwords out of the way so we can discuss what’s really important here. This is not about gender, as the Democrats blocked the Bush appointment of a qualified Janice Rogers Brown via filibuster. This is not about race – see the previous sentence about Ms. Brown who also happens to be black, not that that should matter. This is not about ethnicity, as the Democrats blocked the Bush appointment of a qualified Miguel Estrada, a native Honduran, via filibuster.

Both Brown and Estrada were nominated to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. And let the record show that Ms. Brown is the daughter of black sharecroppers who grew up in segregated Alabama, yet little was heard about her background from the so-called mainstream media. And even less has been heard about Justice Benjamin Cardozo (1870-1938), nominated by Republican President Herbert Hoover in 1932. Cardozo fits two minority molds having been both Jewish and of Spanish and Portuguese heritage.

This is not about how sympathetic one is based upon how hard one’s upbringing was. If that were the case, Clarence Thomas would not have been harangued by the hypocritical Democrats on the Judiciary Committee two decades ago. Anyone who has read or spoken about her past will admit to being impressed about how Judge Sonia Sotomayor has risen up from the Bronx projects of her youth to Cardinal Spellman to Princeton as an undergraduate and to Yale Law School. Not to take away from her accomplishments, but Sotomayor herself has admitted benefiting from a system of affirmative action. So too for Justice Thomas, but it does not rule his life or his decision-making process on the bench.

Compelling is the oft-used word to describe Sotomayor’s life story, and it is, but that does not give her automatic entrance onto the highest court in the nation. The 12 Democrats sitting on the Judiciary Committee can praise Sotomayor from here to San Juan and back, but all the platitudes in the world are merely a façade for the bigger issues that plague this nominee. Issues that the seven Republicans on the same Judiciary Committee will bring up to legitimately question the validity of this nominee’s fitness to serve an unchecked lifetime appointment.

This is about whether or not Sonia Sotomayor should serve a life term on the Supreme Court – the highest court in these United States. She should not. Using the Senator Obama method, sure Sotomayor is qualified, but that doesn’t mean she will get the votes from those who oppose her politically. Obama, when Senator of Illinois, practically said the same thing of current Chief Justice John Roberts, an eminently qualified jurist who somehow came up short in Obama’s mind.

Make no mistake, the Obama appointment of Sotomayor is both shrewd and overtly political. Shrewd as it puts the GOP senators’ collective backs to the wall already having enough problems securing Hispanic votes, and political, as it all but locks in Hispanic loyalty to Obama and the Democrats for the selection. Unfortunately, too many elected Republicans are afraid of their own shadows and will not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up and vote against this nominee who will earn confirmation with well more than the necessary votes required. There are too few Tom Coburns (OK), Lindsey Grahams (SC) and Jeff Sessions (AL) in the GOP and too many Susan Collinses (ME), Olympia Snowes (ME) and George Voinoviches (OH).

Those who question whether or not the Republican members of the Judiciary Committee should use a full court press in their questioning of a nominee who will almost surely garner confirmation do not understand the process. This is not about the votes, but instead an opportunity for the members of the Senate who must vote yea or nay on Sotomayor to understand her judicial philosophy and the direction in which she sees the Supreme Court moving during her life tenure. The questioning will not entail hammering of a nominee, but a tempered, yet detailed probing to unearth the information required to make a cogent decision. This is also an opportunity for the American people to hear from Sotomayor first hand in an effort to gage what kind of justice she might become.

The Democrats will remind us that Judge Sotomayor is a mainstream candidate for the Supreme Court, after all she was initially nominated to the bench by President George Herbert Walker Bush upon the recommendation of the late Senator Pat Moynihan (D-NY). That the first President Bush appointed her is meaningless – see also retiring Justice David Souter, a disastrous appointment whose departure can’t come soon enough.

The bottom line of Sotomayor’s nomination ought to be about her words, her beliefs, her biases and her record. Having sat on the bench now for 17 years, Sotomayor has enough of a record that neither she nor her supporters can claim her words are being taken out of context. Sotomayor has tremendous experience, which clearly can be viewed as a double-edged sword.

Perhaps most damning are the 32 words she has uttered on more than one occasion. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] that a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” The word “better” is most troubling as Sotomayor is deigning to say outright that her background makes her decision-making process superior to any white male.

Juan Williams, author and commentator on National Public Radio as well as on Fox News, is certainly no conservative. He called Sotomayor’s statement racial on July 12. Rush Limbaugh said the same thing, but was excoriated for the comment simply because he is a conservative lightening rod. Sotomayor has since said she wished she had said those words in a better way. She meant what she said and has no regrets about it; and that’s fine – it gives us greater insight into how she will behave on the bench.

Our system of jurisprudence in the United States is supposed to be colorblind. Now, I am realistic enough to comprehend that clearly it has not been, is not now, and probably will never be in the future, but we do tend to inch ever so closer to that desire. Judge Sotomayor would set that notion back in its paces considerably. Perhaps the notion of a fair and balanced judicial system is anachronistic to both Obama and Sotomayor in this era of touchy-feely and empathy first in the courtroom, but that is not what the Founding Fathers laid out more than 200 years ago in a system that has admittedly been imperfect, but is still the best on record.

Most people don’t care if the nine jurists on the High Court’s bench are Latina, Latino, black, white or Asian, so long as they are not just qualified, but understand their purpose. The purpose is for the justices to interpret, not rewrite, the laws of the land. To interpret the Constitution and not write policy. Already, Sotomayor has that strike against her as she has said on more than occasion, that the Court of Appeals, where she has served, is where policy is made. That is a dangerous idea. The making of policy and creating legislation is, according to the Constitution, the purpose of the United States Congress – even as incompetent as it is.

Sotomayor has also suggested that gun ownership is not a fundamental right and that the states are not held to the Second Amendment of the Constitution. Last I checked, it is the 10^th Amendment to the Constitution that tells us that that which is not defined by the previous nine amendments is left to the states. The second amendment does provide for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” She has also come down on the side against people’s personal property rights on a number  of cases.

Then there’s the Ricci case, whose decision was just handed down by the Supreme Court less than three weeks ago. Twenty men, 19 white and one Hispanic sued the New Haven, CT Fire Department over a promotions exam that they passed but was thrown out denying the firefighters their just promotions simply because no black firefighters who took the same test earned a score qualifying them for the same promotion. The US Court of Appeals for the 2^nd Circuit, on which Sotomayor sits, upheld the lower court decision to deny the passing firefighters their promotions.

The Supreme Court overturned the ruling made by Sotomayor’s panel in a 5-4 decision on June 29. Sotomayor opined that in essence it is permissible to discriminate against one group in favor of another group. That the firefighters who passed the same test all others took should not be given the promotions they earned fairly is unconscionable. That the white and Hispanic firefighters should be penalized because the black firefighters were among those who did not pass the exam is absolutely discriminatory and it is a discrimination supported by Judge Sotomayor. And this was not the first time Sotomayor has been overturned by the Supremes – in fact four times out of six her decisions have been upended by the High Court.

Judge Sotomayor’s actions, judgments, rulings and writings are demonstrative of what is called judicial activism – the creation of rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution. This is not what being a Supreme Court justice is about, and although Sotomayor will almost surely be donning a High Court robe the first Monday in October, she must be watched carefully. The Senate must do its job – that’s what the system of checks and balances is about.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

Alito Deserves the Ginsburg Treatment

Alito Deserves the Ginsburg Treatment

Commentary by Sanford D. Horn

October 31, 2005

President Bush should be applauded for not bowing to pressure groups either from the left or the right in opting instead to listen to his conscience by selecting Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor as the next justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

The New Jersey native and resident is eminently qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court. An undergraduate at Princeton and law student at Yale who also served as its law journal editor, Alito argued 12 cases before the Supreme Court between 1981 and 1985 on behalf of the US government as Assistant to the Solicitor General.

Among other appointments during his career, Alito earned unanimous confirmation twice by the U. S. Senate, first to serve as U. S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, then for the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Yet, in spite of these unanimous appointments, liberal Democratic Senators such as Chuck Schumer (NY) and Minority Leader Harry Reid (NV) quickly weighed in with rhetoric indicative that they have already determined to vote against Alito.

It is painfully obvious that most Democrats have a litmus test regarding high court appointments based upon abortion and Roe v. Wade. Alito is to be praised for his lone dissenting vote in 1991 as a judge on the Third U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals attempting to uphold a Pennsylvania law mandating that a wife consult with her husband prior to an abortion (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). Yet, Alito proved to be no ideologue by voting in 2000 that a New Jersey law banning late-term abortions was unconstitutional.

In attempting to return sanity to the holiday season, Alito voted, as part of the majority in the 1999 case ACLU v. Schundler. The court determined that a display in Jersey City, NJ did not violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause because it contained not only a menorah representing Chanukah and a crèche representing Christmas, but a Frosty the Snowman and a banner praising diversity.

On the virtue of these two cases, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. should be confirmed by the U. S. Senate and take his place on the Supreme Court. How close the vote will be, remains to be seen based upon the intellectual honesty and integrity of the Democrats in the Upper House. The question that needs to be addressed is whether or not Judge Alito is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States. The answer, as was the case with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, formerly with the ACLU, is yes.

Justice Ginsburg secured her seat on the Supreme Court in 1993 with a 97-3 vote in the affirmative. Obviously ideological conservatives voted in favor of a committed liberal. Some of those conservative votes came from Robert Bennett (UT), Christopher “Kit” Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Larry Craig (ID), Orrin Hatch (UT), Trent Lott (MS) and Richard Lugar (IN), all of whom continue their tenure in the US Senate. These conservative senators along with former members Phil Gramm (TX), Alan Simpson (WY) and the late Strom Thurmond (SC) among others, put partisanship behind them and determined that Justice Ginsburg possessed the necessary qualifications to sit on the Supreme Court.

Will Judge Alito be given the same honest consideration from the Democrats? Early indication from the likes of Senators Schumer and Reid is that Alito will go through a knock down-drag out confirmation process. Does any political junkie with an ounce of intelligence expect Alito to receive favorable votes from Senators Joseph Biden (DE), Barbara Boxer (CA), Hillary Clinton (NY), Dianne Feinstein (CA), Ted Kennedy (MA), John Kerry (MA), Barbara Mikulski (MD), or Barack Obama (IL)? The answer to that obviously rhetorical question is resoundingly “no.”

Yet, despite the hardcore ideological left, Judge Alito can expect to become Justice Alito by a 65-35 margin with a margin of error of three.

Sanford D. Horn is a writer and political consultant living in Alexandria, VA.

[This column appeared in the Alexandria Times.]