...here's Mark Karlin!
It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).
I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings
Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...
If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.
Have a great day...
Showing posts with label Clarence Thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Clarence Thomas. Show all posts
18 August 2009
27 July 2009
Henry Louis Gates Jr: You know that white cop was racist, and so are other whites who challenge me...
...that label doesn't fit me when I trash Clarence Thomas...
When I visited my parents last week, I asked them about the arrest of Henry L. Gates Jr. First off, I must admit that my parents aren't politically active, and they generally believe anything coming from the Obamedia. They echoed the president's remarks that the Cambridge police sergeant acted irresponsibly, and recalled their bout with racial discrimination during their tenures at Robins Air Force Base. If I were not privy to the facts of the incident, as my parents were, I could easily draw the same conclusion. The fact is, it was "Skip" Gates who was guilty of racial profiling, not Sgt. Crowley (who bears no resemblance or relation to Sgt. "Pepper" Anderson's supervisor on Police Woman).
Mickey Kaus, of Slate Magazine, talks about how Skip immediately began stereotyping the police officer. He refused to answer the officer's questions, and did very little, if anything, to convince the officer that he was not breaking and entering a man's house. If he had cooperated with the officer, this matter would have been settled. Obviously, Gates can't let go of his ridiculous idea that anything involving "whitey" is racist. He had no evidence that the officer was racist, he thought by calling him one, it would force the officer to back down. Glenn Loury believes this incident is proving US Attorney General, Eric Holder, right...we are a "nation of cowards," in terms of racial issues.
That remark was celebrated throughout the black community, because they felt the target of Holder's statement were whites, who couldn't get over the election of the US's first black president. With that in mind, Holder's remark could cut the other way as well. Blacks, and other minorities, often believe that any adverse action against them has some basis in racism. Loury brings up the acquittal of the police officers in the Sean Bell case, and like the Gates' arrest, could have been avoided if the perpetrator acted differently. Bell, who was at a club being investigated for prostitution, was seen leaving the club after one of the men accompanying Bell, got in an argument with a woman inside the club. The men were confronted by a plain clothes police officer, who ordered Bell to raise his hands. Bell, in turn, accelerated the car and hit another police officer and an unmarked police van. The officers fired at the car, killing Bell. It didn't occur to anyone, who said that the NYPD's actions were "excessive," that Bell's actions played a vital part in that action. I recall Randi Rhodes going off on the police because she thought an innocent black kid had been murdered by racist cops.
In a shocking development, HotAirPundit has unearthed a video from April 1996, where Henry "Skip" Louis Gates rails against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-GA). I'm not sure how Justice Thomas is a "hypocrite," but I'm willing to guess it has to do with Thomas' conservative inclinations, which Obama and Gates view as sucking up to "whitey." In his disastrous presser last Wednesday, the president claimed that Sgt. Crowley acted "stupidly," (this was before Obama knew the facts of the case, which isn't surprising considering how he's good at talking out of his ass) causing many to cry "foul." Obama, relying on his old, tried, and true strategy, gave a speech, giving a non-apology apology to Sergeant Crowley. As Brit Hume said on FNC's Fox News Sunday, this is a man who goes around apologizing for the United States, but couldn't bring himself to apologize for being presumptuous about this issue.
I, like anyone else, has had run-ins with the police. I remember New Year's Day 2006, when my parents sent me on an errand. On my way back to their house, I was being trailed by a Warner Robins police cruiser. I paid no attention to it, and we later met at a stop light. I reached over to change the CD in the car's CD player, causing me to readjust my seatbelt, which I had been wearing the entire time. The officer stopped me for not wearing a seatbelt, but I told the officer what had happened, and he started accusing me of being disorderly (which, if you met me in person, you'd see how that assertion was absurd on its face). I backed down, and accepted my citation. The charges were later dismissed, but had I acted hostile to the police officer, that situation could have ended badly. Later I found out that the city had been experiencing a rash of burglaries in the area and at the time, I had an out-of-state tag.
A commenter at the blog, Sweetness & Light, believes Gates was not calling the officer a racist, but was blinded by his own elitism. I believe that may also be plausible. Sometimes the elites, no matter what race they are, tend to think they're smarter than the rest of us imbeciles...
Have a great day...
When I visited my parents last week, I asked them about the arrest of Henry L. Gates Jr. First off, I must admit that my parents aren't politically active, and they generally believe anything coming from the Obamedia. They echoed the president's remarks that the Cambridge police sergeant acted irresponsibly, and recalled their bout with racial discrimination during their tenures at Robins Air Force Base. If I were not privy to the facts of the incident, as my parents were, I could easily draw the same conclusion. The fact is, it was "Skip" Gates who was guilty of racial profiling, not Sgt. Crowley (who bears no resemblance or relation to Sgt. "Pepper" Anderson's supervisor on Police Woman).
Mickey Kaus, of Slate Magazine, talks about how Skip immediately began stereotyping the police officer. He refused to answer the officer's questions, and did very little, if anything, to convince the officer that he was not breaking and entering a man's house. If he had cooperated with the officer, this matter would have been settled. Obviously, Gates can't let go of his ridiculous idea that anything involving "whitey" is racist. He had no evidence that the officer was racist, he thought by calling him one, it would force the officer to back down. Glenn Loury believes this incident is proving US Attorney General, Eric Holder, right...we are a "nation of cowards," in terms of racial issues.
That remark was celebrated throughout the black community, because they felt the target of Holder's statement were whites, who couldn't get over the election of the US's first black president. With that in mind, Holder's remark could cut the other way as well. Blacks, and other minorities, often believe that any adverse action against them has some basis in racism. Loury brings up the acquittal of the police officers in the Sean Bell case, and like the Gates' arrest, could have been avoided if the perpetrator acted differently. Bell, who was at a club being investigated for prostitution, was seen leaving the club after one of the men accompanying Bell, got in an argument with a woman inside the club. The men were confronted by a plain clothes police officer, who ordered Bell to raise his hands. Bell, in turn, accelerated the car and hit another police officer and an unmarked police van. The officers fired at the car, killing Bell. It didn't occur to anyone, who said that the NYPD's actions were "excessive," that Bell's actions played a vital part in that action. I recall Randi Rhodes going off on the police because she thought an innocent black kid had been murdered by racist cops.
In a shocking development, HotAirPundit has unearthed a video from April 1996, where Henry "Skip" Louis Gates rails against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich (R-GA). I'm not sure how Justice Thomas is a "hypocrite," but I'm willing to guess it has to do with Thomas' conservative inclinations, which Obama and Gates view as sucking up to "whitey." In his disastrous presser last Wednesday, the president claimed that Sgt. Crowley acted "stupidly," (this was before Obama knew the facts of the case, which isn't surprising considering how he's good at talking out of his ass) causing many to cry "foul." Obama, relying on his old, tried, and true strategy, gave a speech, giving a non-apology apology to Sergeant Crowley. As Brit Hume said on FNC's Fox News Sunday, this is a man who goes around apologizing for the United States, but couldn't bring himself to apologize for being presumptuous about this issue.
I, like anyone else, has had run-ins with the police. I remember New Year's Day 2006, when my parents sent me on an errand. On my way back to their house, I was being trailed by a Warner Robins police cruiser. I paid no attention to it, and we later met at a stop light. I reached over to change the CD in the car's CD player, causing me to readjust my seatbelt, which I had been wearing the entire time. The officer stopped me for not wearing a seatbelt, but I told the officer what had happened, and he started accusing me of being disorderly (which, if you met me in person, you'd see how that assertion was absurd on its face). I backed down, and accepted my citation. The charges were later dismissed, but had I acted hostile to the police officer, that situation could have ended badly. Later I found out that the city had been experiencing a rash of burglaries in the area and at the time, I had an out-of-state tag.
A commenter at the blog, Sweetness & Light, believes Gates was not calling the officer a racist, but was blinded by his own elitism. I believe that may also be plausible. Sometimes the elites, no matter what race they are, tend to think they're smarter than the rest of us imbeciles...
Have a great day...
15 July 2009
Pam's House Blend: Jeff Sessions is a man and isn't qualified to question Sotomayor...
...his testicles are shrinking before my very eyes...
Well, it's refreshing to see liberals championing women again. I'm sure Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, and Janice Rogers Brown would have welcomed the change a little sooner than later. Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend, is criticizing "pale males" who have the audacity to question Sonia Sotomayor on her tendency to champion the minority over the white guy. As I mentioned before about many in the pro-Sotomayor crowd, they haven't noted Sonia's reversals and backtracking on her words. They are highlighting Jeff Sessions' testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986, to try and distract people from the truth about Sonia.
At least Pam Spaulding has now admitted that a strong woman makes men like Chrissy Matthews and Barack Obama jealous. But of course, none of her criticism is directed at the likes of those in the media who were airlifted to Juneau on September 30th, 2008. It will be even more refreshing when Pam gets her friends in the media to collectively admit that Palin, and Hillary Clinton, were treated shamelessly by them. When Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin voiced opposition to the savagery they faced, Pam slammed Rice for distracting from Senator Boxer's alleged main point about the sacrifice of military families and encouraged Katie Couric to take the gloves off when she interviewed Governor Palin last year. So it seems disingenuous for Ms. Spaulding to issue caution warnings to GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee after calling on Palin and Rice's opponents to take "the gloves off" when talking to conservative women.
As I have always said, liberals view any policy differences personally, which is why they don't see the Republican senators questioning Sotomayor as legitimate. This confirmation process is less about race, and more about whether Sonia is qualified for the court. Liberals are making this about Sotomayor's race, as she did, when she made her comment about being a "wise Latina." They highlight Jeff Sessions' alleged racial bias, by relying on the testimony of one J. Gerald Hebert, and believe that Senator Sessions, like the other white Republicans, are threatened by the slippage of a white majority. Obviously, they haven't heard the same confirmation hearings I have. None of the Democratic senators have taken the view their base has in these hearings. I'm sure someone as uncouth as Charles Schumer and Al Franken would have pointed that out.
Unlike Democrats during the Alito and Thomas hearings, Republicans are ensuring that Sotomayor is being candid about her jurisprudence (which she isn't). Not one Democratic ally, that I know of, was cautioning Democratic senators on the Judicary Committee to tred lightly in their treatment of Justice Thomas. They tried to derail that man before he sat down in front of the dais, led by the NAACP and the paragon of women's rights, Bob Packwood (R-OR), was right there to oppose Thomas. I just wish liberals would be honest with not only themselves, but with the public and agree with Sotomayor's opponents, that she's not qualified. They can cry all day long about white men scared of their diminishing power, but I notice these arguments were absent when the nominee was a minority of a different political persuasion.
Have a great day...
Well, it's refreshing to see liberals championing women again. I'm sure Sarah Palin, Condi Rice, and Janice Rogers Brown would have welcomed the change a little sooner than later. Pam Spaulding, of Pam's House Blend, is criticizing "pale males" who have the audacity to question Sonia Sotomayor on her tendency to champion the minority over the white guy. As I mentioned before about many in the pro-Sotomayor crowd, they haven't noted Sonia's reversals and backtracking on her words. They are highlighting Jeff Sessions' testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986, to try and distract people from the truth about Sonia.
At least Pam Spaulding has now admitted that a strong woman makes men like Chrissy Matthews and Barack Obama jealous. But of course, none of her criticism is directed at the likes of those in the media who were airlifted to Juneau on September 30th, 2008. It will be even more refreshing when Pam gets her friends in the media to collectively admit that Palin, and Hillary Clinton, were treated shamelessly by them. When Condoleeza Rice and Sarah Palin voiced opposition to the savagery they faced, Pam slammed Rice for distracting from Senator Boxer's alleged main point about the sacrifice of military families and encouraged Katie Couric to take the gloves off when she interviewed Governor Palin last year. So it seems disingenuous for Ms. Spaulding to issue caution warnings to GOP senators on the Judiciary Committee after calling on Palin and Rice's opponents to take "the gloves off" when talking to conservative women.
As I have always said, liberals view any policy differences personally, which is why they don't see the Republican senators questioning Sotomayor as legitimate. This confirmation process is less about race, and more about whether Sonia is qualified for the court. Liberals are making this about Sotomayor's race, as she did, when she made her comment about being a "wise Latina." They highlight Jeff Sessions' alleged racial bias, by relying on the testimony of one J. Gerald Hebert, and believe that Senator Sessions, like the other white Republicans, are threatened by the slippage of a white majority. Obviously, they haven't heard the same confirmation hearings I have. None of the Democratic senators have taken the view their base has in these hearings. I'm sure someone as uncouth as Charles Schumer and Al Franken would have pointed that out.
Unlike Democrats during the Alito and Thomas hearings, Republicans are ensuring that Sotomayor is being candid about her jurisprudence (which she isn't). Not one Democratic ally, that I know of, was cautioning Democratic senators on the Judicary Committee to tred lightly in their treatment of Justice Thomas. They tried to derail that man before he sat down in front of the dais, led by the NAACP and the paragon of women's rights, Bob Packwood (R-OR), was right there to oppose Thomas. I just wish liberals would be honest with not only themselves, but with the public and agree with Sotomayor's opponents, that she's not qualified. They can cry all day long about white men scared of their diminishing power, but I notice these arguments were absent when the nominee was a minority of a different political persuasion.
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)