Rightank

The ACLU has lambasted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for applauding the Minuteman Project’s efforts at the southern Arizona border. How did the ACLU refer to the Minutemen? Vigilantes. How did President Bush refer to the Minuteman? Vigilantes.

It’s perplexing when the linguistic license of President Bush becomes the propaganda mouthpiece for the socialist ACLUers and should cause one to pause and digest the happening. Is Bush’s mischaracterization merely coincidental or will it prove consequential in terms of immigration policy and how Bush supporters view his judgment with regard to protecting our Nation’s borders?

Time will tell. Erstwhile, the Minutemen have prevented a significant amount of illegals (maybe even a terrorist) from entering our country and free-riding on our liberty–a whopping 98% decrease in the area they patrolled. Thank you, Minutemen.

After the ignominious decision by the Massachusetts Supremes, along comes Connecticut advancing the homosexual marriage stick a little bit farther. Aside from the Connecticut law granting gays “all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law” as heterosexual marriages, the law creates more ambiguity into what constitutes a “marriage” relationship and draws unconventional lines in the sands of American society.

The law prohibits a member of the same sex from entering into a civil union their mother or father, grandmother or grandfather, grandaughter or grandson, aunt or uncle, and/or niece and nephew. Why? Understandably, the law prohibiting two persons of the opposite sex from marrying members of one’s immediate family because (1) it’s gross (2) birth defects and (3) it’s very gross. While mere repulsion might not satisfy the liberal wackos who are designing the destruction of the “traditional” family, does the same level of repulsion apply to civil unions? Why would Connecticut need to draw a prohibitory line based upon generational or blood lines if the two persons entering into a civil union cannot procreate? If marriage laws discriminate because they prevent two men or two women who love each other from “marrying,” why should Connecticut limit an expression of “love” between a woman and her niece but allow such an expression between a woman and her great aunt or a man and his second-cousin? How does Connecuticut justify such legalistic meanspiritedness? Why do the same-sex marriage advocacy groups permit the restrictions?

The answer is strategy. Same-sex marriage (”SSM”) advocates do not attack these generational/blood line restricutions because they are linked to procreation. SSM supporters intensely argue that procreation is a faulty justification for limiting marriage to heterosexual couples because (1) Some couples are infertile, (2) Some couples marry in their golden years, and (3) Some couples use alternative methods of reproduction (invitro fertilization, etc.) that are outside the conjugal relationship. If the procreative link is destroyed in the public’s and legislature’s minds, then SSM becomes a closer reality precisely because SSM does not further procreation and the propagation of the human society within a traditional family relationship.

Al Gore spoke to every Communist’s and Anarchist’s home-away-from-home: moveon.org. As LGF depicts, Al Gore is fire-breathing, Bush-bashing, Depends wearing, putz–the most disgraceful former Vice President in United States history.

I do have to say something nice about the former VP: Hey Al, thanks for the internet.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg addressed the America Society of International Law on April Fool’s Day (how coincidental). Not only does she take an off-hand, feminist swipe at the Jefferson’s use of language in the Declaration of Independence, her premise or as she states “her position” doesn’t make a lick of sense–unless you believe the Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the land.

Ginsburg’s “position”:

If U. S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so [sic] we can learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.

Ginsburg appears to argue that if other countries can learn from our system of judicial review (which was imposed by judicial fiat, not the Constitution) then we also can learn from other countries about human rights–not because they interpret our Constitution or statutory law–but because they interpret a radical gaggle of international treaties or charters that seek to protect “human rights.” Ginburg’s method of legal interpretation is frightening because there is no stopping point in looking to the decisions made by other countries and international tribunals. Ginburg could reasonably say (1) Our Constitution protects in its fundamental abstract “human rights” (a penumbral right like the “right to privacy” used to force abortion on America) and (2) International law is applicable to each and every Amendment and Article of the U.S. Constitution. Moreover, there is absolutely no discretionary line at which country, tribunal, or “human rights” charter Ginburg (and her complict collegues on the Supreme Court) could look to in deciding the cases there are constitutionally empowered to decide. Let’s see Justice Ginsburg, shall we look to Iran first or perhaps the gulags of North Korea . . .?

Throughout her speech, Justice Ginsburg disguises the Supreme Court’s reliance on foreign law as mere consultation or an auspicious glance at trends of other nation-states. Granted, you can look at the international stuff all you want, but you can’t use it to substantively support any legal analysis of the Constitution or statutory law. The Constitution is what it is–a body of law by which our nation’s citizens (including the federal government) are to be governed. Anything outside the Constitution or laws passed by Congress (who receives the authority to legislate by the Constitution) is not legally binding upon the American polity.

More Ginsburg:

The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U. S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification. I am not a partisan of that view. U. S. jurists honor the Framers’ intent “to create a more perfect Union,” I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings.

For those of us who support the Federal Marriage Amendment or an originalist, constitutionally adherent interpretation of the Constitution, we have received our “global” warning. It is true that we are living in the 21st century, but there is nothing global about our Constitution. Our Constitution is for one nation–the United States of America. Neither Justice Ginsburg nor any other Supreme Court Justice should dispose themselves to any other jurisprudential viewpoint or modality of judicial interpretation. Period.

Last week, the Connecticut legislature passed and the Connecticut governor signed a law granting gays and lesbians the opportunity to enter into a civil union. Liberal Yale professor Ian Ayres is excited beyond belief that this is the first time civil unions have been legislatively enacted (not thrust upon an unwilling populace by the judiciary). Hmmm . . . he seems to have omitted the fact that the law also specifically defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

More of Ayres stupidity:

The gays and their liberal advocacy parrots can continue to squawk about each little step a liberal governmental body takes toward “marriage equality”–whether it be the Massachusetts Judiciary or the Connecticut Legislature and Executive. Let ‘em have their squalid “victories.” Perhaps, they have forgotten that more Americans oppose gay marriage than favor it and that the Red State legislatures outnumber the Blue State legislatures.

China once again has expressed interest in taking back Taiwan from its self-imposed exile from the People’s Republic of Communists. The Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian issued last month a statement denouncing China’s “anti-separation law.” In a nutshell, the anti-separation law states that Taiwan is part of China and that China will enforce this freshly-written legality by force if necessary.

Interestingly, France is on board with the Chi-Cons. Frenchy-French Prime Minister of Stupidity Jean-Pierre Raffarin puffed that an unprovoked Chinese military assault on Taiwan would be “completely compatible with the position of France.” The only real question is this . . . How many oil contracts are the French getting from Chinese?

The ACLUers that are harassing the Minuteman Project were caught smoking pot (no doubt exclusively for medicinal purposes).

Perhaps, they decided to celebrate International Pot Day (April 20th) a little early . . .

On another note, the Minutemen are halting the deluge of illegals at the border. With what? A bunch of old-fashioned patriotism–pure and simple. Ain’t America great?

Well . . . I’m going to be back in the blogging business shortly. My hard drive crashed which necessitated a prolonged absence from the blogosphere and the internet.

I apologize.

Affirmative action is consistently lauded among the Libs, within Academia, and the pandered-to, weak-kneed Corporations. Law school is no different. Affirmative action is emphasized in admissions policies, in recruiting, and on-campus placement. Moreover, the need for “diversity” clings on the coattails of affirmative action and is becoming more important in hiring practices of elite and medium-sized law firms than the merit of a particular candidate. (I had a classmate who excelled academically, earning his way into the Top 10% of my class. However, he was rejected by a law firm because he was white. He told me that the firm recruiter informed him in a 2nd interview that “We would hire you if you weren’t white”).

After the Michigan cases were decided last year (in which the Supreme Court held that race could be used as a category or factor in the admissions process), the ACLU gleefully uttered their approval:

Today’s ruling recognizes that there is still work that needs to be done to fulfill the promise of equal educational opportunity that the Court set in motion nearly 50 years ago in another landmark case, Brown v. Board of Education, said ACLU Legal Director Steven R. Shapiro.

With today’s ruling, the Court has kept the door open for thousands of academically qualified students of color to continue to pursue the American dream through our nation’s colleges and universities.

Thousands of academically qualified? Well, not really.

UCLA Law Professor Richard Sander has questioned the usefulness of affirmative action in producing enough black lawyers (forget about hispanic or the other selectively disadvantaged races) . . . and the legal profession (or at least some of them) are fastidiously working to dumb-down such intellectual absurdity. Yale Law Professor Ian Ayres apparently disagrees and believes affirmative action increases the odds of more blacks becoming attorneys. However, his analysis (in a forthcoming law review article) reveals how discrminatory the law school admissions process is vis-a-vis “academically qualified” white candidates. Specifically, he (and Professor Richard Brooks) estimate that 42.6% of blacks entering law school had less than a 50% chance of becoming lawyers. (while virtually no white students — .23% — were in this high risk category).

What? How could nearly 43% of “academically qualified” blacks have less than 50% chance of passing the bar compared with a mere 2/10 of a percent of similarly “academcially qualified” white students? In other words, blacks are 853 times as likely not to pass the bar then their white classmates. How much, then, does the race of these candidates factor into their total score when law schools are vetting their candidate pools each year?

It is disheartening that law schools (both elite and podunk) are goading a good chunk of black law students into believing that they have what it takes to graduate from law school and pass a state bar examination. Furthermore, those who fail carry are saddled with the financial burden of $100K or more in loans and no law license to help pay them back. It would make an interesting study to see if those blacks who graduate and pass the bar examination would have been admitted to law schools without affirmative action and how many of those who flunk out or fail the bar leapfrogged other “academically qualified” students of other races only through affirmative action (i.e., using race as a factor in the admissions process).

Who pays the price? An academic culture blinded by race? Law schools? Blacks? Whites? You decide. But don’t tell me that the “benefits” of affirmative action outweigh its costs on society dependent upon capable lawyers to uphold the Constitution.

John Kerry is still crying about his election year LOSS courtesy of 52 million plus Americans who told him and Edwards to get lost. Among other things, he claims that leaflets were distributed to Kerry voters instructing them to vote on the wrong day. Thus, Kerry supporters were disenfranchised (I’m surprised P-Diddy made it to the polls). I wonder: What is the IQ of those voters eager to vote for Kerry but who raced to vote on the day after Election Day? 40? Perhaps, this also explains why the “Vote or Die” slogan was chosen by the Hollywood Libs as their voter-get-out-of-your-crib slogan: any word larger than four letters or containing more than one syllable is too much to handle for their dopish brains.

Waffle Warning: Kerry is after a bigger electoral fish: the papal election.