Sotomayor's decisions are "based more on the merits and facts of the cases"

Legal experts cited by Reuters in a piece by Steve Holland say Judge Sonia Sotomayor doesn't appear to be either particularly liberal or conservative on business issues, with decisions based more on the merits and facts of the cases than an ideological approach to the law.

Replacing a liberal justice with one who decides cases on their merits rather than politics doesn't mean the GOP will just give her a pass, they have to at least appear adversarial for the sake of their base - but despite predictable wailing and knee-jerk gnashing of rhetorical teeth from the usual extreme right info-tainers pandering for ratings, the folks in DC expect Ms. Sotomayor to be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice.

A comment from 2005 may prove sticky if quoted out of context, but this is no activist ideologue. Judge Richard C. Wesley, a George W. Bush appointee to the Second Circuit, said:

"Sonia is an outstanding colleague with a keen legal mind. She brings a wealth of knowledge and hard work to all her endeavors on our court. It is both a pleasure and an honor to serve with her."

While GOP posturing is to be expected, Sotomayor herself was appointed by President George H.W. Bush to the District Court for the Southern District of New York, and with 11 years on the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit she would replace Justice Souter as the only Justice on the court with experience as a trial judge.

There is one point of confusion, evidently, in certain quarters, so let me clarify that unless and until New York secedes from the union, U.S. citizens moving there from Puerto Rico - as Sotomayor's parents did - are not immigrants. I know New York can feel like a foreign country to some, but high school civics classes should be enough to get this right.

digg this article! | read more...

Zennie Abraham: 180 iReports to Date, 74 aired on CNN

Wow, I had no idea I had so many iReports tagged for use by CNN, 74! Out of 180 iReports submitted, that's about a 40 percent rate, not bad overall.

Zennie on CNN's "Money and Main Street" as iReporter

Thanks to the iReport team for this. They and Anderson Cooper are the best!

The California Supreme Court’s Illogical Prop 8 Decision

 

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!



On YouTube



Tuesday, May 26, 2009 will go down as an eventful San Francisco day, sunny, and yet dark, and one that saw a lot of people marginalized who didn’t want to be. But then, who does. Before I turn to who said what, and who got arrested, I stick my head right into the belly of the beast, the California Supreme Court’s decision.


Today, in first upholding Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal that passed in November 2008, and yet protecting the 18,000 same-sex marriages that were done before the passage of the initiative, the California Supreme Court successfully stood logic on its head. I’ve just read the Court’s entire 167-page decision, and while I understand the reasons given by the majority of justices (six supporting the decision, one against it and even then the six judges that agreed were not perfect in their union) I’m concerned with the logic behind them.


To cut to the chase, the Court has placed the 18,000 same-sex marriages in a legally questionable second-class status of rights that, even though the Court claims to protect their rights under marriage, didn’t even consider if those rights would be maintained if the couples elect to divorce or remarry each other for the sake of the children they have.


First, even though I’ve read the full document, I encourage you to do so as well. Even if you think you can’t understand what’s there, challenge yourself, read it, talk about it with your friends. And most of all learn from it.


A Three-Pronged Decision


The California Supreme Court based its decision on three considerations, if the initiative was a constitutional amendment or revision, the validity of the initiative process itself, and if Proposition 8 itself is retroactive, applying to existing same-sex marriages.


In upholding Proposition 8, The California Supreme Court tried to get itself out of a legal pickle created in early 2008, when it protected same-sex marriages in a case called “The Marriages Cases”. To recap, the Court determined that marriage was not limited to a man and a woman.


But later in the same year, Californians passed Prop 8, which earned 52 percent of the vote. Then, California Attorney General Jerry Brown challenged Prop 8 in the California Supreme Court, most famously. (Brown used the observation that “natural law” was over the California Constitution, and since Prop 8 eliminated the rights of a group of Californians, it was in violation of the “unalienable rights” granted by the California Constitution and “natural law”. In today’s decision, The Court wrote that while Brown’s argument was creative, and I would add logical, it was “without merit.”)


And there we have the Court’s pickle: upholding their own decision protecting existing same sex marriages, and yet protecting the initiative process of which Proposition 8 is a part.


In the Decision the majority of judges argue that the initiative process itself is part of The California Constitution and thus can’t be considered something that alters and is outside of the California Constitution. Moreover, the Court writes that Proposition 8 itself is not a constitutional revision, but just an amendment. Why? Because the Court’s majority claims it only concerns marriage and doesn’t call for a large number of word additions or changes. The decision outlines a number of case examples where the Court’s decision backed the idea that an initiative was an amendment and not a revision to the California Constitution, as some of Prop 8’s attackers have claimed.


Finally, the Court majority asserts that even though the framers of Prop 8 may have intended otherwise, the way it was written itself prevents it from being retroactively applied. Thus, existing same sex marriages are upheld.


But here’s where the problem starts, even if one agrees with the other aspects of the majority’s decision. The Court writes “a retroactive application of the initiative would disrupt thousands of actions taken in reliance on The Marriages Cases by these same-sex couples, their employers, their creditors, and many others” (p. 134) and then goes on to mention that such would result in “undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by this state’s highest court.”


But I argue in upholding Prop 8 and existing same-sex marriages, the Court has placed the rights of the existing married couples in disarray and damaged the California Constitution in the process: it’s not for all Californians. If same-sex married couples chose to divorce, they can’t then marry someone else of the same sex, or remarry the same person even if it would be to the benefit of the family they established! There’s no evidence in the Court’s decision – and I looked for it - that this was taken into account.


The dissenting opinion by Justice Moreno focused on the stripping of rights to a minority group, but since the reality is that being gay or straight is really more fluid than fixed and the choice of the individual, the Court’s decision impacts a much broader group of the population and one that’s hard to quantify.


Peaceful Protests in San Francisco


The decision left a lot of people scratching their heads in and around San Francisco City Hall and the California Supreme Court building just next door. While a peaceful protest complete with pre-arranged arrests amassed on Van Ness Avenue between the City Hall and Davies Symphony Hall, a large press conference was held in the South Light Court in City Hall.


California Supreme Court There, many of the lawyers who worked to combat the passage of Prop 8 shared their observations with the audience. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who played a key role in the battle against Prop 8, said I’m disappointed... I think the Court in my view focused on procedure rather than arguments. And that fundamental rights are part of the debate.” He said it was back to the ballot box, a view shared by the Court itself in the decision issued today.


A Shameful Intellectual Display


The Court’s majority decision was shameful, to say the least. I told someone that people will develop an intellectual argument to support their raw emotions, and this California Supreme Court did just that. The Court’s emotional bent is to protect what was decided by it and by the voters in the initiative process rather than challenge it, even if such an alteration would protect the full state constitutional rights of all Californians.


Some conservatives have interpreted the California Supreme Court’s decision as the Court defining marriage as between “a man and a woman”, but that’s wrong. The Court is protecting the initiative called Proposition 8 which claims marriage is between a man and woman because it interprets the California Constitution as consisting of these constitutional amendments and the Court has stated that its job is to interpret the state constitution and that it’s not above it. That distinction is important because should voters pass a new initiative that overturns Prop 8, the Court would be legally inclined to protect it as well.

Sonia Sotomayor First Latino Judge Named To Supreme Court

Warning! Jay Glazer's Twiiter Account Is Not His: ProfootballTalk.Com

My friend from Super Bowl bid years past, and NFL Draft years present, Fox Sports' Jay Glazer is spreading the word that this Twitter account: http://twitter.com/jayglazer does not belong to Glazer at all.

According to Profootballtalk.com, the account is a fake, but even then Jay need not worry too much; the "Fake Glazer" Twitter page has only 76 followers as of this writing. A person of Jay's stature should have thousands of followers, even if the account's not his.

Owen Thomas Lands At KNTV Digital From Valleywag; Starts May 26th

Owen Thomas, who introduced me to the great libations at what was once Moose's in North Beach during the Valleywag Friday happy hours of a few positive GDP growth cycles back, then left the helm of that Gawker-run tech gossip site, has landed on his feet at KNTV Digital, according to "Broadcasting & Cable".

Reportedly, Thomas will manage the NBC Bay Area website, nbcbayarea.com, but I'd guess absent the interesting, biting, and at times down right wild commentary that spared no one. 

Well, almost on one. He and the other Gawker staffers had this soft spot for Internet celebrity Julia Allison. But I digress.

 

Owen Thomas with Julia Allison Hanging On

The Friday meetups stopped well before Thomas depature, but knowing him I'm sure something close to what used to be will materialize. But I say "congratulations, Owen!" The next one's on me!

And on a personal note thanks for the tips!

Andrew Baron's Back With Magma, A Video Tracking Website

Remember Andrew Baron who created the first huge vide-blog show Rocketboom.com, is back with an exciting new startup called Magma. The site, which is in beta stage, is a kind of video-aggregation system where one can track the most popular videos even as they're uploaded and drawing interest.

From what I read at TechCrunch, it's far from complete, his system, but worth waiting for!

Memorial Day in Texas: secession wasn't Perry's point at all

By raising states' rights at a tea bag event, then backing away ASAP assuring everybody it’s just really, really just a discussion about federalism and the role of local vs national government, has Governor Rick Perry sent his signal to those who hear it another way? It didn't stay off the radar, but if the message was received does he care? Some of us still vividly recall George Wallace flanked by Alabama State Troopers, and an era when states' rights was just the PC way to say "segregation is our vision."

Try surveying Texans on Memorial Day, or the 4th of July, and I guarantee they won't be talking about seceding, they're proud to be Americans. If you ask them about Bush cutting taxes on the rich while shorting armor for Americans in Iraq they won't defend him much more than anybody else in the GOP, either.

You might think it was just a ploy for exposure by their current Governor - Perry's back-walking the rhetoric as hard and fast as he can, certainly. But was it really a mistake, just a gaffe, or a just ploy for exposure? At a tea-party? More likely a staged sequence by a savvy politico.

If Rick Perry or his speech team was that inept he wouldn't be the Governor in the first place. States' Rights remains a politically correct way to alert white racists that even if they're a minority they're not alone, and Perry's scripted performance has planted the seeds. The GOP's most visible folks are steadily abandoning the values of moderate Americans.

read more | digg story

Happy Memorial Day! Thank A Soldier Today

YouTube, Yahoo, MySpace, Metacafe, DailyMotion, Blip.tv, StupidVideos, Sclipo and Viddler

Oakland, CA - I went to my stepfather's burial place today. Even though I was really ill, I forced myself to go and place flowers at his grave site as I've made it a habit to visit him on Memorial Day each year. He fought in World War II.

But this time, I took my biological father's burial flag with me. Both my father and stepfather died in 2005.

To some who are anti-war, the title of this video-blog will upset them. It should not. I'm against war and always have been, but the reality of my life is that both my late father and stepfather fought in World War II, and in my father's case, Zenophon Abraham Sr. of is his name (he lives in Chicago), I am the proud owner of his neatly folded burial flag and two bullets wrapped in them. I've never unraveled it.

Chester Harding Yerger III of Oakland is my late stepfather and he  often talked of his time in the service and of attending "Officer Candidate School", and being taught how to kill. While the stories were never ones I looked forward to, I learned that sometime people go to war not because they want to harm people but because they feel their duty to protect America. I used to question this "duty" but now I honor it, even as I disagree with the idea of war.

Why? I frankly can't explain the reason as well as I'd like to but I'll try. I think as I reach deep it's because I now know some people don't feel its their job or "place" to question authority, yet, those same people made it ok for me to question authority. That was my father and my stepfather, especially as they aged.

I think it's also because people who have taken the lives of another in a time of war generally have an appreciation for life that can't be measured. At times my stepfather would think back to the war and cry. That was hard to witness. My father never talked about the war, so I never asked him about it.

My dad talked about Chicago architecture, planes, trains, and automobiles. Not the war. It wasn't until he died and his funeral that I understood his role in the war; he received a 21-gun salute that October day in 2005 and I can feel the noise from the gun fire pass through me today.

It's those memories that cause me to thank a soldier when one is in my presence. I did that on a plane ride as I was standing next to a Army officer in uniform. I asked him where he was going and he responded "Home. And I'm so happy." I said "Hey, thanks for your service"; he said "I tell ya, I really appreciate that."

I got what he was saying. He was telling me, "You know, what we do isn't appreciated by a lot of people and believe me I understand why. But I'm glad you see that I'm carrying out my duty to my country, even if I may not agree with what we're doing all the time."

Thank a soldier today. Even though you may be anti-war, don't blame them for our foreign policies of the past or present. They're doing the best they can in an impossible situation.

Thank a soldier today, or any day. Even though you may be anti-war, don't blame them for our foreign policies of the past or present. They're doing the best they can in an impossible situation. They're serving our country and could die doing so.

Susan Boyle, "Diversity", Win Sunday's "Britain's Got Talent" Finals Round One

 

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!

Susan Boyle, who electrified audiences around the Internet world with her audition on the UK show "Britain's Got Talent" won the first of five finals rounds today, featuring 40 contestants who made "the cut" on Saturday.

This round featured Boyle, violinist Sue Son, the daring Darth Jackson (a combination of Michael Jackson and Darth Vader), young Natalie Okri , belly dancer Julia Naidenko, (who Telegraph.uk blogger Anna Pickard refered to as "Julia Havalottaconstanants", I'm serious), chainsaw artist Kevin James, and a dance duo called "Faces of Disco", as well as a 67-person dance group called "Diversity."

According to Pickard, who live-blogged tonight's event, Boyle sang at 9:33 PM in London and picked an Andrew Lloyd Webber song that Pickard described as "a musical that begins 'midnight ... doo doo dee doo doo evening'" which reads that it must be the song "Memory".

Pickard explains Boyle had a new hairdo and and "dyed and fitted" dress, but the best news to me is Simon Cowell apologized for the belittling way the judges addressed Boyle before she belted out her amazing rendition of "I Dream A Dream" from Les Miserable and shocked the World. If you didn't see Boyle's first performance, it's worth a review:



It's Not Over, Yet

The audience and judges picked Boyle, along with Diversity and over the performance of young Natalie Okri, who Pickard writes was "standing in the middle of a stage and silently weeping."

That gets eight of the final 40 out of the way. The BGT shows for the rest of the week feature the rest of the finalists. Who will win is still up in the air, with perfomers like Harmony and Shaheen Jafargholi yet to appear again.

Here's the full list of the 40 finalists:

Aidan Davis – Dancer
Ben and Becky – Ballroom Dancers
Brit Chix – Rock Band
Callum Francis – Musical Theatre
Darth Jackson – Michael Jackson/ Darth Vader Impersonator
DCD Seniors – Dance Troupe
Diversity – Street Dancers
DJ Talent – Rapper
Dream Bears – Comedy Dancers
Fabia Cerra – Burlesque Dancer
Faces of Disco – Comedy Dancers
Flawless – Street Dancers
Floral High Notes – Flower Arranging and Opera Singing
Fred Bowers – Breakdancer
Gareth Oliver – Comedy Impersonator
Good Evans – Family Singing Group
Greg Pritchard – Male Soprano
Harmony – Musical Theatre
Hollie Steel – Singer/ Dancer
Hot Honeyz – Dancers
Jackie Prescott and Tippy Toes – Dog Act
Jamie Pugh – Singer
Julia Naidenko – Belly Dancer
Julian Smith – Saxophonist
Kay Oresanya – The Living Saxophone
Luke Clements – Juggler/ Street Performer
Mama Trish – Drag Act
Martin Machum – Guitarist
MD Showgroup – Dancers
Merlin Cadogan – Physical Performer
Natalie Okri – Singer
Nick Hell – Street Performer
Shaheen Jafargholi – Singer
Shaun Smith – Singer
Stavros Flatly – Comedy Dancers
Sue Son – Violinist
Sugarfree – Street Dancers
Susan Boyle – Singer
The Barrow Boys – Wheelbarrow Dancing
2 Grand - Singers

Susan Boyle, "Diversity", Win Sunday's "Britain's Got Talent" Finals Round One

 

More at Zennie62.com | Follow me on Twitter! | Get my widget!

Susan Boyle, who electrified audiences around the Internet world with her audition on the UK show "Britain's Got Talent" won the first of five finals rounds today, featuring 40 contestants who made "the cut" on Saturday.

This round featured Boyle, violinist Sue Son, the daring Darth Jackson (a combination of Michael Jackson and Darth Vader), young Natalie Okri , belly dancer Julia Naidenko, (who Telegraph.uk blogger Anna Pickard refered to as "Julia Havalottaconstanants", I'm serious), chainsaw artist Kevin James, and a dance duo called "Faces of Disco", as well as a 67-person dance group called "Diversity."

According to Pickard, who live-blogged tonight's event, Boyle sang at 9:33 PM in London and picked an Andrew Lloyd Webber song that Pickard described as "a musical that begins 'midnight ... doo doo dee doo doo evening'" which reads that it must be the song "Memory".

Pickard explains Boyle had a new hairdo and and "dyed and fitted" dress, but the best news to me is Simon Cowell apologized for the belittling way the judges addressed Boyle before she belted out her amazing rendition of "I Dream A Dream" from Les Miserable and shocked the World. If you didn't see Boyle's first performance, it's worth a review:



It's Not Over, Yet

The audience and judges picked Boyle, along with Diversity and over the performance of young Natalie Okri, who Pickard writes was "standing in the middle of a stage and silently weeping."

That gets eight of the final 40 out of the way. The BGT shows for the rest of the week feature the rest of the finalists. Who will win is still up in the air, with perfomers like Harmony and Shaheen Jafargholi yet to appear again.

Here's the full list of the BGT 40 finalists:

Aidan Davis – Dancer
Ben and Becky – Ballroom Dancers
Brit Chix – Rock Band
Callum Francis – Musical Theatre
Darth Jackson – Michael Jackson/ Darth Vader Impersonator
DCD Seniors – Dance Troupe
Diversity – Street Dancers
DJ Talent – Rapper
Dream Bears – Comedy Dancers
Fabia Cerra – Burlesque Dancer
Faces of Disco – Comedy Dancers
Flawless – Street Dancers
Floral High Notes – Flower Arranging and Opera Singing
Fred Bowers – Breakdancer
Gareth Oliver – Comedy Impersonator
Good Evans – Family Singing Group
Greg Pritchard – Male Soprano
Harmony – Musical Theatre
Hollie Steel – Singer/ Dancer
Hot Honeyz – Dancers
Jackie Prescott and Tippy Toes – Dog Act
Jamie Pugh – Singer
Julia Naidenko – Belly Dancer
Julian Smith – Saxophonist
Kay Oresanya – The Living Saxophone
Luke Clements – Juggler/ Street Performer
Mama Trish – Drag Act
Martin Machum – Guitarist
MD Showgroup – Dancers
Merlin Cadogan – Physical Performer
Natalie Okri – Singer
Nick Hell – Street Performer
Shaheen Jafargholi – Singer
Shaun Smith – Singer
Stavros Flatly – Comedy Dancers
Sue Son – Violinist
Sugarfree – Street Dancers
Susan Boyle – Singer
The Barrow Boys – Wheelbarrow Dancing
2 Grand - Singers