1990: While Mayor of Washington D.C., Marion Barry is arrested after being caught on camera smoking crack during an FBI sting operation.
1994: Barry wins mayoral re-election, reinforcing the Constitutional wisdom of not giving Washington D.C. an actual vote in congress.
2002: Barry arrested after traces of cocaine and marijuana are found in his car. Barry claims the drugs were planted, probably by the same person who planted those rocks in his crack pipe back in 1990.
2004: Barry elected to a seat on the D.C. Council (which he still holds), reinforcing the intuitive wisdom of every American who decided not to live in Washington D.C. among the brain-dead voters.
2005: Barry placed on probation for not filing or paying income taxes for several years. .
2006: Barry stopped by the police for driving too slowly, prompting him to accuse authorities of targeting him . . . and prompting America to wonder why they don't target him more often.
2009: And just yesterday, Barry is arrested again after a woman flagged down police to complain that he was stalking her.
With this resume how has this guy avoided a position in the Obama administration?
Remember the self-righteous indignation from the left as they tsk-tskedly waved their fingers at George W. Bush and his claim that some terror suspects, if given freedom, would once again treat innocent "infidels" the way Madonna treats the Puerto Rican flag? Well . . .
The Obama administration . . . is crafting language for an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely.
Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war.
It seems self-righteous indignation doesn't have the staying power that it used to. Now if only Obama would change his stance on destroying America's economy.
Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, uses some the same communication techniques that we have seen from the President's teleprompter and one of he favorites is the use of jokes (warning: this is not a endorsement of her sense of humor . . . something as rare in liberal politicians as jobs in the public sector).
But I've always felt that you can tell a lot about a person by the jokes they tell. Some irreverent folk lean toward inappropriateness with offense, some crude creepers drop the horribly racist, and others are just plan dull and their punchline land like a flu shot on the nurse's first day.
With Sotomayor we see and interesting revelation as reported by The National Review. While speaking at Hofstra she dropped this little gem; and watch closely because the punchline comes before the end.
It involves three judges who go duck hunting. A duck flies overhead and the supreme court justice, before he picks up his shotgun, ponders about the policy implications of shooting the duck—how will the environment be affected, how will the duck hunting business be affected if he doesn’t shoot the duck, well by the time he finishes, the duck got away.
Another duck flies overhead, and the circuit judge goes through his five part test before pulling the trigger—1) he lifts the shotgun to his shoulder, 3) [sic] he sights the duck, 3) he measures the velocity of the duck’s flight, 4) he aims, and 5) he shoots—and, he misses.
Finally, another duck flies by, the district judge picks up the shotgun and shoots. The duck lands and the district judge picks it up, swings it over his shoulder and decides that he will let the other two judges explain what he did over dinner.
Read that description of the supreme court justice closely. With Sotomayor, the defining jest of the Supreme Court is their obligation in establishing policy. Apparently for Sotomayor the separation of powers is a jackass jape.
There's another code word in the liberal lexicon: "empathy." As described in the WSJ,
"Empathy" is the latest code word for liberal activism, for treating the Constitution as malleable clay to be kneaded and molded in whatever form justices want. It represents an expansive view of the judiciary in which courts create policy that couldn't pass the legislative branch or, if it did, would generate voter backlash.
In the same way "deficit reductions" means higher taxes, "assault weapons" was coined for gun control and "Choice" only applies to abortion, the liberals have debauched another discourse. So in the liberal mind it's just fine to subvert the separation of powers defined in the U.S Constitution as long as your doing so out of "empathy" (though empathy becomes a slippery term that is relative to the world view of the liberal).
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Barack Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, has become their poster child for "empathy." In their world, "personal experience and cultural identity are the better part of judicial wisdom." Instead of justice being blind, you have to become blind to justice and focus on your life experiences and how they make you feel. Woe be to the dairy industry of Sotomayor is lactose intolerant.
Obama's speech introducing Sotomoyar revealed his agenda: "Experience being tested by obstacles and barriers, by hardship and misfortune; experience insisting, persisting, and ultimately overcoming those barriers . . . it is experience that can give a person a common touch of compassion; an understanding of how the world works and how ordinary people live. And that is why it is a necessary ingredient in the kind of Justice we need on the Supreme Court."
It's important to note that Obama is not saying that experience in and of itself it a necessary ingredient for justice. He is pointing to a certain kind of experience being necessary in the "kind of justice we need." So much for diversity. So much for equality in a blind justice system. Obama is looking for a "kind of justice" not as defined by the Constitution, but by his perception of the world.
Sotomayor's comments at Duke University on why students should clerk at the appellate court level reveals her agenda:
The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know. OK, I know.
Oh, yes, I know, I know, I know those of you who get your talking points from The Huffington Post or Media Matters will prattle that the comment was taken out of context. That she later said that she was not advocating that . . . and you (like your sense-free sources) ignore that she said she did not promote it with a chuckle and wink. So as a service to you, I am dropping the YouTube video of her comments below and you make the call.
Well, since this is my site I'm going to make the call first. Sotamayor concocts an interesting explanation of her comments concerning higher courts when she contrives that one is no longer looking at "the facts of the case" but how the law is developing along with the ramifications your decision will have over the next step of the law's development. In other words, a justice is no longer supposed to be judging the case based on its individual merits, the current law or constitutional framing, but instead should judge it on how they believe the law will develop (founded on their personal "experience" and belief system, of course), and the judge needs to predetermine the precedent they want to establish for future related decisions.
That, my friends, is the very definition of judicial activism . . . or as the left puts it, "empathy."
Remember the self-righteous indignation from the left as they tsk-tskedly waved their fingers at George W. Bush and his claim that some terror suspects, if given freedom, would once again treat innocent "infidels" the way Madonna treats the Puerto Rican flag? 
Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, uses some the same communication techniques that we have seen from the President's teleprompter and one of he favorites is the use of jokes (warning: this is not a endorsement of her sense of humor . . . something as rare in liberal politicians as jobs in the public sector).
