What does politics have to do with justice nominations? Everything!

In Stone’s recent Huffington Post article, he gives a two point defense of why ABA recommendations should be the sole authority in the picking of justice nominations and a rebuttal to conservative arguments for conservative balance in the justice system. Of course I see trouble with Stone’s premise for his arguments. However, it is pointless to give these points credence since they are irrelevant.

“Judges are not supposed to be political. They are supposed to be above politics. Indeed, this is a fundamental premise of the American judicial system. This is not to say that every judge always achieves this aspiration, but it is the central premise of the "rule of law." Thus, political parties are not very reliable determinants of sound legal doctrine.”

Stone admits though dismisses the important truth that the jurisprudence in this country is guided by political bias, but fails to see his own bias seeping onto the page like a bleeding Trojan horse. The fact of the matter is that politics has everything to do with the nomination of justices. Although the ABA may pick a justice based on the views of the average lawyer, it does not speak to the views of the average voter. The founders were quite clear in the constitution and framework laid out in the Federalist Papers that the Executive Branch and Congress were to be the sole authority regarding appointment of justices, not the lawyers. The purpose of the judicial branch is to decide justice for the people, not lawyers. Who is likely to best represent the views of the average voter? A panel elected by lawyers or politicians elected by the people? The whole point of our system of checks and balances is that our elected President pick justices based on the ideology that won them election into office.

Stone would rather crowd out the credence of conservative thought on jurisprudence based on the beliefs of the average lawyer than to take on the difficult task of convincing the people of his liberal legal opinions. This type of reasoning is common from the liberal left who often base their arguments not on fact or history, but on whatever suits their world view at the moment. If you can't sell your ideas to the average person, then narrow the task of justice nominations to a very small population famous for their liberal ideologies.

I wonder if Stone would be using this same argument back in the mid 19th century where the legal consensus was that property was determined by the color of one’s skin? Just because 9 out of 10 lawyers believe it, doesn’t make it true but it does serve those who hold the same opinion.

Democrats Need to Learn from Republican Failures

Recent Democratic rhetoric may be lofty, but actions speak louder than words. I’ve posted a few articles over the last few days that demonstrate the hypocrisy and double talk of today’s democratic politician. Although these examples are not easy to find in main stream media, that does not mean that people will not hear nor remember these instances. It is dangerous for any party, to lose the respect and trust of the American voter. I you don’t believe me, just look at the Republican Party.

Here is a list of some of the promises made by the ruling democratic leaders (Obama, Pelosi, and Reid) that they are not taking seriously or actions that are hypocritical to their cause:

1. Promising fiscal responsibility while spending irresponsibly. Rasmussen shows that fiscal responsibility is the one issue most people are concerned with. We have been promised fiscal responsibility and none of Obama’s bills encourage or take into account fiscal responsibility. Perhaps, this is something we are will need to wait until his second term for?
2. Promising the end of earmarks, but allowing approximately 9,000 of them in the omnibus bill. Their claims the bill is really Bush’s bill, not Obama’s, is ridiculous. They say possession is nine tenths of the law and the bill will be in Obama’s hands if it is signed.
3. Forcing people, not politicians to except green initiatives. I posted an article today regarding congress’ plan to ease pollution restrictions on the power plant they use and their refusal to buy pollution credits to offset.
4. Promising accountability, while taking concealment to new levels. Obama promised to post all bills for 5 days before congress votes. Congress promised to allow 2 days to view the stimulus bill before voting. The American public and politicians had 12 hours.
5. Promising that the Democratic Party will be the party of Ethics. The list is long, but governors from New York, Illinois, and Arizona are all involved in major scandals. Three tax cheats were picked for Obama’s cabinet. One new senator already looking at perjury charges. This is only the beginning

I could go on, but I don’t want to write a book. Most of these have occurred in only the last month since Obama took office. Democrats should stop and take notice of this list and begin to align their rhetoric to match what they are actually perpetuating through their actions. Some suggest that the people of this country have been swayed to the left way of thought. They believe this shift will continue in the future. They couldn’t be more wrong. Conservatism by definition is an attempt to return to the principles of the founding fathers. In short, it is home to most. If people are disillusioned with where they’ve been led, they are going to look to return home.

Biggest Critic of Obama the Stock Market, Not Republicans

It’s been in the news every day since Obama’s election, but has not been covered by the main stream media. As of Today, the Dow has dropped 2,400 points since Obama was elected. That’s one third of the total 7,500 points since the stock market peaked during Bush’s term. The Dow has dropped nearly 600 points (25% of the total 2,400 drop) since the day the stimulus was signed. So what is causing the stock market to drop? After all, if the stimulus, omnibus, budget, and other government programs proposed by Obama were sound financial and economic theory, then the stock market should gain ground after at least some of Obama’s announcements.
No, instead the stock market drops.

February 26th was almost a hallmark day for the Obama team. Stocks opened bullish with news that the new administration would inject another $250 Billion into the banks. Additionally, FED chairman Ben Bernanke promised that the administration would not look to nationalize banks. For the first time since taking office, the Dow was up 140 points and it seemed the market would reflect positive gains as a direct response to Obama’s policies and actions. Then Obama released his new budget, which promised to cut subsidies to private health care providers. Instantly, the stock market fell finally closing 88 points lower than the opening.

What does this mean? Well first of all, I had to rewrite this blog post. This post was originally going to commemorate Obama’s first victory with the stock market. More importantly, it shows that the investors in this country and the world do not have faith in our current President. You see the markets don’t reflect people’s feelings of the economy today, but their feelings of the future of the economy. They are betting against Obama. Please keep in mind that Obama needs to stimulate more than consumption if he wants to turn the economy around. More important than consumption, he needs to increase investment. We need to at least pause and take note of this. Who has more knowledge about finance and the economy? All the investors in the world or a lawyer turned politician for a few years before becoming President?

Below are several links about Obama’s stock market failures and almost success. In the meantime, I’m left to wonder when if at all Obama can bring confidence into the stock markets. Today the Dow fell another 119 points as the government became the largest stockholder in Citigroup. Bernanke, I thought we weren’t going to nationalize banks?

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Wall-Street-slides-after-apf-14501283.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Weak-health-care-stocks-drag-apf-14483774.html
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/USbank-shares-up-on-stress-rb-14479312.html