Rag Hand

The Obama Whitehouse has found a candidate for the supreme court who appears to be of the opinion that race takes precedence over qualifications.

A bunch of firefighters took and passed a test for advancement in New Haven, Conn. but because only 2 Hispanics and no African Americans passed, they were denied promotion by the civil service board because of potential lawsuits by minorities.

Now the local politicians and the lower courts, including the court where Sotomayor sat, have decided that because of skin color, was more important than being able to pass the test.

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed their suit before it went to trial. She said in her 47-page decision that the city was justified under the law in junking the test, even if it could not explain its flaws.

The case then went to the 2nd Circuit, where Sotomayor and judges Robert Sack and Rosemary S. Pooler heard the appeal. Oral arguments lasted an hour, with Sotomayor leading the questioning, as is her reputation. But instead of issuing a detailed and signed opinion, the panel said in a brief summary that, while it was “not unsympathetic” to the plight of the white firefighters, it unanimously affirmed the lower court’s decision for “reasons stated in the thorough, thoughtful, and well-reasoned opinion.”

These fire fighters all took the same test. These fire fighters had all worked for the same fire department. But because there weren’t enough qualified minorities among those that passed, the firefighters who did pass are being denied promotion.

As a side note: The New Haven fire department has promoted no one since 2003.

I agree that discriminatory testing should not be allowed, but in this case no bias in the makeup of questions has been demonstrated, -in fact none of the questions have been made public- so the denial of promotion was based entirely on skin color. —This sounds like racism to me

Under the title of “Scalia gets a schooling in online privacy” Richard Koman blogged for ZDNet Government about Justice Scalia and privacy saying:

Justice Antonin Scalia doesn’t think there’s much need for Internet privacy rules. Speaking at the Institute of American and Talmudic Law, he exclaimed:
“Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly.”

This is a more accurate version of what the Justice said from Above the Law:

Discussions of privacy rights in the digital era should distinguish between such confidential data as medical records and information that might be personal but is easy to find out, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Wednesday.

Considering every fact about someone’s life private is “extraordinary,” he said, noting that data such as addresses have long been discernible, even if technology has made them easier to find.

“Every single datum about my life is private? That’s silly,” Scalia [said].

It sounds different when taken in context, but it isn’t as inflammatory and doesn’t make for a very good headline.

Fordham Law Professor Joel Reidenberg interpreted that as a challenge. He gave the fifteen students in his Information Privacy Law class a special assignment this semester: Track down everything available on the Web about Antonin Scalia to compile a dossier on him.

The students compiled a fairly complete dossier on Justice Scalia but what this has to do with what the Justice said I cannot fathom.

Obviously I did not attend the conference, but as far as I have been able to determine all Justice Scalia said was that there are some things that are impossible to keep private.

I’m afraid I expect people to use common sense instead of grasping at straws to forward their own agendas or to sell newspapers….. How silly of me.

The Democrats are starting to remind the President that he has to answer to them.

Perry Bacon Jr. –Washington Post Staff Writer –Friday, May 15, 2009:
The House passed a bill yesterday that would provide more than $96 billion in funding for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq through Sept. 30, as President Obama had requested, but a bloc of 51 Democrats opposed it.

Democratic opponents are accusing Obama of the same charge they leveled against his predecessor: escalating a war without a clear exit strategy.

The bill passed 368 to 60, with 200 Democrats and all but nine Republicans supporting it.

Democratic opponents did not attack Obama by name, but some likened his increase of 21,000 troops and billions of dollars to win the war in Afghanistan to President George W. Bush’s efforts in Iraq.

“When George Bush was president, I was on this floor saying we need an exit strategy,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.). “The same applies with Afghanistan. I’m tired of wars with no deadlines, no exits and no ends.”

The bill passed, but with 51 members of his own party voting against these piece of legislation you can see that the honeymoon is over.

The group of conservative Democrats called the Blue Dogs were responsible for blocking Obama’s ban on assault weapons.

The $50 million requested to close Gitmo has run into a snag because the measure bans Obama from using the money to bring any of the 241 detainees to the United States.

There are some from the President’s own party that are comparing Obama to Bush because a lack of exit strategy for Afghanistan.

He sure talked purty, but now he’s president Mr. Obama is finding out that no matter how popular you are there will be days when even your staunchest allies will vote against your pet projects.

The government prosecutors have announced that they are dropping all charges against to former AIPAC lobbyists who “allegedly” received classified information from a pentagon analyst who made the mistake of pleading guilty and was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Their man on the inside is doing time but the spies are free to get on with their lives.

Washington Post:
Lawyers for Rosen and Weissman attributed the withdrawal of the case in part to the Obama administration. “We are extremely grateful that this new Administration . . . has taken seriously their obligation to evaluate cases on the merits,” the lawyers, Abbe D. Lowell, John Nassikas and Baruch Weiss, said in a statement.

Dana J. Boente, the acting U.S. attorney in Alexandria, where the trial was set to begin June 2, said prosecutors reversed course because of “the diminished likelihood the government will prevail at trial . . . and the inevitable disclosure of classified information that would occur.” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. was aware of the discussions, law enforcement sources said, adding that the ultimate decision was made by prosecutors.

I wonder if that has anything to do with Rahm Emanuel the president’s current chief of staff and the son of a member of the radical Jewish organization (Irgun now Etzel) that blew up the King David Hotel among other things.

AIPAC’s critics had seized on the allegations against the two lobbyists as fresh evidence that the group had aligned itself so closely with the Israeli government that it was acting on that country’s behalf. Supporters of the group said they were mystified by the case, noting that collecting information from government officials and sharing it with others, including governments with embassies in Washington, is a highly profitable local business.

“A highly profitable local business.” –So this is the new politically correct definition of espionage??

Spying used to be called treason now it’s just business….