Obama Presidency Discussion Thread

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

Although better in my opinion, it forces big corporations to do something instead of just harming the consumers' wallets

And who do the corporations pass the costs onto?

I'm sure everybody will thank Obama for raising energy prices instead of putting a tax on fuel.

 

[FoolKiller]

And who do the corporations pass the costs onto?

I'm sure everybody will thank Obama for raising energy prices instead of putting a tax on fuel.

Yeah, increasing energy prices will also raise the cost of everything even more as energy increases are felt in more than just the transportation stage. Fuel taxes would only affect transportation of goods. This will cause higher prices at manufacturing, then higher prices for the store, so the end result is that a product on a store shelf has already had two increases to the price. Then the consumer, already paying a higher energy bill (in a market where energy bills have become crazy anyway) also has to pay an energy tax on almost every good they buy.


The other problem this creates is an inability for regions affected by this to get out. Unless President Obama wants to swoop down and tell the NIMBYs to shut up the coal reliant regions will remain coal reliant. A lot of these electric companies have been attempting to get out of this coal reliance for a while. They face challenges as hydroelectric, wind, or solar plants can't just be put up anywhere and when they do find a place that they can they inevitably have to fight with environmentalists because they will screw up some bird or fish's habitat. The easiest clean and high-yield power plant to put up wherever necessary is nuclear, but then the NIMBYs come out of the woodwork and start talking about Chernobyl.

The president is showing his total lack of care for Middle America, or knowledge of environmental economic dynamics, by pushing this without first leading a charge to make it possible for the system to be changed. Currently he is offering zero environmental difference and just charging a fee to Americans who happen to live in an area that is being held back by Obama's own supporters.

I also haven't even touched on what this will do to the coal industry long-term, but as a resident of Kentucky I can guarantee that this will not go over well in this area.

 

[Keef]

Although better in my opinion, it forces big corporations to do something instead of just harming the consumers' wallets

Forcing big corporations to do anything that hurts their bottom line has one very important negative side effect: it eventually lands you without a job, because somewhere along the line, the boss won't be able to pay you anymore because he's not making enough money to afford it. That's what's happening big time here in the States right now, and it's why I don't have a job. In a roundabout way the government has stripped me of a job. They'll never admit it.

 

[Solid Fro]

I'm starting to wonder if this whole Supreme Court nominee thing is all just another distraction?

Obama picked a Liberal. :gasp:

Republicans can't stop the nomination. :duh:

All the while North Korea detonates a nuclear device and shoots off some missiles aimed towards the US. Don't worry! Cause... you know, it's all about Hope and Change!

Really!

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, seriously. You have to wonder what the hell they're even doing over there. Korea and North Korea should be unified by now.

 

[YSSMAN]

The ROK and DPRK are still a very long way off from unification, based not only the questionable power structure of the DPRK, but also the strongly anti-DPRK President that the ROK has as we speak. Relations have been very tense between the two countries as of late, and I don't see that changing any time soon. The only actual path to unification would likely be some kind of collapse of DPRK power, and a subsequent security move by the ROK, but then you would have to question what exactly China would do in that situation. There are the obvious military solutions as well, but unless China and Russia support it, I do not see that happening any time soon. Until the leadership changes in the ROK, and the Sunshine Policy resumes, the path to unification is still very long.

Much of what will happen on the Peninsula will depend less on what the ROK or Japan want (the two with the largest security concern), but what China wants. They hold the cards on the security council, they still have the strongest ties with the DPRK, and they of course have the problem with loose nukes on the border, not to mention a near-certain refugee problem if the country becomes any more unstable.

 

[Omnis]

Yeah, Asia Times has good coverage of everything. I would expect China to stop sending Kim money now. But, it's not like there aren't political battles within each country. Nobody is dead-set on what they want to do except for the DPRK apparently. And they're just a leech of a country.

 

[Solid Fro]

C'mon Joe! You got better jokes than that, yes? If you can't make fun of Obama's fetish-like use of the teleprompter, then you just suck at comedy.

 

[Solid Fro]

The Messiah: Uh, I need.... um jalapenos, grey pu... uh I mean... normal American yellow mustard.

The Disciples: Yay! Obama, Obama, Obama! He's buying a hamburger, just like we do! Obama, Obama, Obama!

The Messiah: Um, how do I use this "dollar" stuff? Timmy told me to spend a lot of it and print most of it. Never thought I'd actually need to use it...

The Disciples: Hurceles, Hurceles, Hurceles!

The Messiah: Ummm... oh, hey! I'm number 41! Uh but... did I win something?

The Disciples: North Korea launces missiles towards Japan, US. Detonates nuclear device. Surpreme Court nomine racist statements. Unemployment 8.9%, 6 million out of work. Federal government owns 75% of GM, files for chapter 11. Obama buys a burger, yay!!!

 

[Keef]

C'mon Joe! You got better jokes than that, yes? If you can't make fun of Obama's fetish-like use of the teleprompter, then you just suck at comedy.

I thought it was pretty hilarious actually. That's one thing I like about that guy.

 

[Omnis]

Chinese students ftw.

 

[Solid Fro]

Oh, becoming a Glenn Beck fan? You know he's craaazy, right?

 

[Omnis]

Oh, becoming a Glenn Beck fan? You know he's craaazy, right?

Of all the talking heads, Glenn has always been the best. But, like I said, he's changed a lot for the better since having Ron Paul and the third party candidates on his HL show.

 

[Solid Fro]

BIG ASS CHAINS!

At least he's not bowing anymore. Maybe he can put that big ass chain on eBay and sell it to pay of his deficit spending?

 

[Keef]

Do yo chain hang low, do it wobble to da flo...

 

[Omnis]

BIG ASS CHAINS!

At least he's not bowing anymore. Maybe he can put that big ass chain on eBay and sell it to pay of his deficit spending?

Do yo chain hang low, do it wobble to da flo...

 

[FoolKiller]

Now the president proposes pay as you go.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/06/09/obama.paygo/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Spend a trillion or two and then start talking about government fiscal responsibility. Nice.

Obama proposes making 'pay-as-you-go' the law

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Obama on Tuesday proposed making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law.

The so-called PAYGO proposal requires Congress to balance any increased spending by equal savings elsewhere, Obama said in announcing the measure that now goes to Congress.

A previous PAYGO mandate helped erase federal budget deficits in the 1990s, and subsequent ineffective rules contributed to the current budget deficits, Obama said. Now the PAYGO rules should be the law, he said.

"Paying for what you spend is basic common sense," Obama said. "Perhaps that's why, here in Washington, it's been so elusive."

Republican leaders said the proposal comes after record spending initiatives by the Obama administration, such as the $787 billion economic stimulus program.

"It seems a tad disingenuous for the president and Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi to talk about PAYGO rules after ramming trillions in spending through Congress proposing policies that create more debt in the first six months of this year than in the previous 220 years combined," said Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the House Minority Whip.

However, a group of fiscally conservative Democratic representatives known as the Blue Dogs called Obama's proposal responsible and necessary.

"President Obama inherited an economy in free-fall and a $10.6 trillion national debt," said Rep. Jim Cooper of Tennessee, vice-chairman of the Blue Dog Budget and Financial Services Task Force.

"While short-term spending was necessary to get the economy moving again, our long-term fiscal problems became that much more urgent."

A White House statement said Obama's proposal calls for the Office of Management and Budget to maintain a ledger of the average 10-year budgetary effects of all legislation affecting mandatory spending or baseline tax levels.

Any extra cost that lacks payment authorized by Congress would require the president to find money within the budget to pay it, while any tax cut would require a corresponding increase in tax revenue.

Some costs would be exempt, including Medicare payments to doctors, the estate and gift tax, and tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2002, the White House statement said.

Part of me wonders if the part I highlighted isn't the real end goal, to justify even more unbalancing of the tax system, or even sin taxes. Tax breaks for the poor as you hike taxes on the tobacco and alcohol that they tend to turn to in their depressed state. Then campaign on your tax breaks, when you really taxed things that hurt those people more.

Or it could simply be that they will justify tax increases on the rich every single time they choose to implement a new program.

I also notice he doesn't call for balancing increased revenue by decreasing the amount taken. So, they can hike taxes on something and then when Republicans demand they cut it they, by law, must bring it in somewhere else.

I see a very big hole in his proposal. It needs to work both ways or not at all.

 

[YSSMAN]

Considering that these "rules" have been around since the GOP-dominated '90s, and never actually followed - I'm not sure if it will do any good at all, no matter who is in power. Although the basic premise of the idea is alright, knowing that when deficits begin to occur and cash has to be taken out of other programs... that creates a whole new mess of problems.

Anyone can talk about fiscal responsibility all they want, but when it comes to actually following through, neither the Democrats or the Republicans have much to talk about. John Bohner's comments had me giggling all evening, as usual.

 

[FoolKiller]

Considering that these "rules" have been around since the GOP-dominated '90s, and never actually followed - I'm not sure if it will do any good at all, no matter who is in power.

I think you missed an important detail.

making "pay-as-you-go" rules for federal spending into law

We know they don't follow rules, and I am sure once his administration is out it would get taken out again. Basically, it would make tax cuts without further equal revenue increases illegal.


But no matter what his intentions are, no matter how pointless this may be, the true irony is that the president with the largest debt growth in US history (record time to boot) is now talking about pay as you go.

I believe irony, and maybe hypocrite are terms that fit here.

 

[YSSMAN]

RE: Making it Into Law

Nah, I understood that. Whether or not it is a "rule" or a "law," it seems highly unlikely that either party will follow it based on previous experience. At least, that's my call on it.

As for the irony, it goes for everyone. Bohner and the rest of the GOP still can't figure their way out of a paper bag when it comes to spending, and whoever came up with this in the White House gets a nod for a nice political move, but not much other than that.

Early call: I could see it passing in the House, but not the Senate. Just a guess.





Just floating around the internet, I stumbled on a pretty good article from the NYT, "Sea of Red Ink: How it Spread from a Puddle"

I found this excerpt particularly compelling:

Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley, and an author of a widely cited study on the dangers of the current deficits, describes the situation like so: “Bush behaved incredibly irresponsibly for eight years. On the one hand, it might seem unfair for people to blame Obama for not fixing it. On the other hand, he’s not fixing it.”

“And,” he added, “not fixing it is, in a sense, making it worse.”

...Which I completely agree with. While having "PAYGO" flags flying up saying "HEY! Look what we're doing!" looks great on television, and may even play well politically, it still isn't addressing the problem as a whole. There is still a lot of stuff to pay for, stuff that we shouldn't be paying for (looking at the Mid-East, for example), or we need to have revenue for first. The economy isn't helping, that's for sure, but there are other things that should be addressed in the interim.

From the end of the article...

Mr. Orszag says the president is committed to a deficit equal to no more than 3 percent of gross domestic product within five to 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office projects a deficit of at least 4 percent for most of the next decade. Even that may turn out to be optimistic, since the government usually ends up spending more than it says it will. So Mr. Obama isn’t on course to meet his target.

But Congressional Republicans aren’t, either. Judd Gregg recently held up a chart on the Senate floor showing that Mr. Obama would increase the deficit — but failed to mention that much of the increase stemmed from extending Bush policies. In fact, unlike Mr. Obama, Republicans favor extending all the Bush tax cuts, which will send the deficit higher.

Republican leaders in the House, meanwhile, announced a plan last week to cut spending by $75 billion a year. But they made specific suggestions adding up to meager $5 billion. The remaining $70 billion was left vague. “The G.O.P. is not serious about cutting down spending,” the conservative Cato Institute concluded.

What, then, will happen?

“Things will get worse gradually,” Mr. Auerbach predicts, “unless they get worse quickly.” Either a solution will be put off, or foreign lenders, spooked by the rising debt, will send interest rates higher and create a crisis.

The solution, though, is no mystery. It will involve some combination of tax increases and spending cuts. And it won’t be limited to pay-as-you-go rules, tax increases on somebody else, or a crackdown on waste, fraud and abuse. Your taxes will probably go up, and some government programs you favor will become less generous.

That is the legacy of our trillion-dollar deficits. Erasing them will be one of the great political issues of the coming decade.

Oh, and they gave us a fancy picture too:

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't disagree with what the article has to say about the Bush Administration, however it loses all validity when it begins arguing that healthcare reform is the best way to reduce deficit spending. Before it is done it begins to promote healthcare reform and tax increases, but at that point it stops quoting any form of experts.

And I question the large chart. It is showing annual increases, which is fine, but it hides the total stimulus cost of over $700 billion and seems off saying the stimulus is adding $145 billion a year, yet the government already has $135 billion available to hand out according to Recovery.org. I don't think my math can be off that much to notice that at this rate it adds up to more than $145 billion this year, assuming it continues at this rate.


My Early Call: It won't ever be officially brought up because he's talking out his arse. If he honestly thought Pay As You Go was a good idea he would not have voted for the bailouts and he would not have even hinted at a stimulus and he wouldn't be meddling with our automotive industries in more ways than one. So far his plan has been Pay When Our Kids Get Older.

 

[YSSMAN]

I don't disagree with what the article has to say about the Bush Administration, however it loses all validity when it begins arguing that healthcare reform is the best way to reduce deficit spending. Before it is done it begins to promote healthcare reform and tax increases, but at that point it stops quoting any form of experts.

My eyebrow raised at that as well, but I have not been paying enough attention to the healthcare fight as I should. Some things need to be worked on, particularly as the baby boomers start to retire, but until I see a swath of viable answers laid out in a decent way - I'm not about to endorse anyone's plan fully.

 

[Solid Fro]

THE BEST THING YOU'LL SEE ALL WEEK




ALL THE PRESIDENT'S CZARS

 

[Omnis]

Charles Payne is an idiot, but the Judge rocks!

 

[Danoff]

 

[ExigeEvan]

That was a great vid 👍 Short, to the point, funny and oh so educational.

 

[FoolKiller]

Nice video. I have already emailed it out.


So, I opened my news reader today to find it was bash the president day. And only one of these (LP.org) actually came from my Opinion folder.

To start off with, to be appointed a CEO of a company by Obama requires no prior experience, or even personal confidence.

http://www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/obamas-new-gm-head-i-dont-know-anything-about-cars

Obama's new GM head: "I don't know anything about cars."
posted by Donny Ferguson on Jun 11, 2009

Edward E. Whitacre, Barack Obama's appointee to run General Motors, admitted to Bloomberg News Wednesday "I don't know anything about cars." Upon taking over GM in March, Obama forced out then-CEO Rick Wagoner, credited by many for stabilizing losses and cutting costs but criticized by political and environmentalist groups for cutting back on the production of poor-selling hybrids to stem financial losses.

That isn't doing much to instill confidence among some investors and analysts. CBS News reports telecom industry analyst Victor Schnee called Whitacre's appointment "bizarre." Although Schnee admits that Whitacre has accomplished a great deal, he does not have much confidence in his ability to run GM better than previous management, according to CBS.

Whitacre's White House appointment as GM CEO follows Obama's announcement of Brian Deese as the White House's new auto industry consultant. Deese, 31, is currently attending law school and has never been in an auto plant, but was a loyal Obama campaign staffer.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to let people who know the auto industry run the auto industry and produce the kind of cars Americans like, instead of turning the industry into a politically-run exercise in producing politically-correct but poor-selling hybrid cars and keeping an important Democrat Party financier (the UAW) afloat with taxpayer funds?

Goodbye old-school cronyism and say hello two new age cronyism. Change.


And as the government is trying to work its way into more and more business dealings, business groups decide to fire back and challenge the administration to show it is not hypocritical.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/webl...ss-groups-dare-obama-to-limit-pay-for-unions/

Business groups dare Obama to limit pay for unions bosses
By Amanda Carpenter on June 11, 2009

Business groups are daring President Barack Obama to impose pay caps on labor union bosses in light of indications the White House will limit how much corporate executives can be paid.

President Obama has argued “corporate greed” has contributed to the economic crisis and appointed a “compensation czar” to review executive pay for several companies receiving taxpayer bailout money Wednesday. Now White House officials have told the press legislation should be enacted to limit executive pay in private companies through nonbinding shareholders votes.

The Workforce Fairness Institute, which has lobbied heavily for the defeat of the Employee Free Choice Act to ease organization rules for labor unions, argues labor officials have acted just as poorly as the "greedy corporate executives" the President has blamed for the economic downturn. The groups points to a 2008 Hudson Institute study that suggests unions have short-changed benefits for their rank and file in favor or generous executive compensation packages and to pad the coffers of their political allies, who are mostly Democrats, as evidence.

“On average, the 21 largest unions pension plans had less than 70 percent of the funds that they would need to cover their total obligations, and none were fully funded,” the study said. “Seven were less than 65 percent funded. Yet 23 officer and staff funds from the same unions had 88.2 percent of the funding they would need to pay promise pensions, including seven full funded plans and another 13 with at least 80 percent of the required funds.”

Business leaders who oppose plans to limit executive pay say if it is to be passed, labor unions must be included as well.

“Given that union bosses’ job performances have yet to be scrutinized despite numerous, credible reports that they have engaged in ‘creative accounting’ and have mismanaged and underfunded worker pension plans, while wholly funding their own, is deplorable,” said Katie Packer, executive director of the Workforce Fairness Institute.

Creative accounting is only bad if you are non-union? Check.


In socialism part 3, the American Medical Association says Obamacare is a bad idea, because it will likely lead to an explosion of costs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11health.html?_r=1&hp

Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan
By ROBERT PEAR

WASHINGTON — As the health care debate heats up, the American Medical Association is letting Congress know that it will oppose creation of a government-sponsored insurance plan, which President Obama and many other Democrats see as an essential element of legislation to remake the health care system.

The opposition, which comes as Mr. Obama prepares to address the powerful doctors’ group on Monday in Chicago, could be a major hurdle for advocates of a public insurance plan. The A.M.A., with about 250,000 members, is America’s largest physician organization.

While committed to the goal of affordable health insurance for all, the association had said in a general statement of principles that health services should be “provided through private markets, as they are currently.” It is now reacting, for the first time, to specific legislative proposals being drafted by Congress.

In the presidential campaign last year and in a letter to Congress last week, Mr. Obama called for a new “public health insurance option,” which he said would compete with private insurers and keep them honest.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California said Wednesday that she supported that goal. “A bill will not come out of the House without a public option,” she said Wednesday on MSNBC.

But in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the American Medical Association said: “The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.”

If private insurers are pushed out of the market, the group said, “the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers.”

While not the political behemoth it once was, the association probably has more influence than any other group in the health care industry. Lawmakers seek its opinion and support whenever possible. It has repeatedly persuaded Congress to cancel or postpone cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, though it has not secured a “permanent fix.”

If the doctors are too aggressive in fighting the public plan, they risk alienating Democrats whose support they need for legislation to increase their Medicare fees.

The group has historically had a strong lobbying operation, supplemented by generous campaign donations. Since the 2000 election cycle, its political action committee has contributed $9.8 million to Congressional candidates, according to data from the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics. Republicans got more than Democrats in the four election cycles before 2008, when 56 percent went to Democrats.

Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said that in his address to the group next week, Mr. Obama would “outline the case for health care reform and make clear why we can’t afford to wait another year, or another administration, to bring down costs that are crushing families, businesses and government.”

Mr. Gibbs did not say whether Mr. Obama would discuss a public insurance plan, the most contentious issue in the debate.

The A.M.A., an umbrella group for 180 medical societies, does not speak for all doctors. One group, Physicians for a National Health Program, supports a single-payer system of insurance, in which a single public agency would pay for health services, but most care would still be delivered by private doctors and hospitals. In recent years, some doctors have become so fed up with the administrative hassles of private insurance that they are looking for alternatives.

Until now, stakeholders in the health care industry have generally muted their criticism of Democratic proposals. But as details of the legislation have emerged, the criticism has become more pointed.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, a lobby for insurers, said Tuesday that the government plan proposed by some Senate Democrats could “dismantle employer-based coverage and significantly increase costs for those who remain in private coverage.”

Under a proposal favored by many Democrats, doctors who take Medicare patients would also have to participate in the new public plan. Democrats say that requirement is needed to make sure the public plan can go into business right away with a large network of doctors.

The medical association said it “cannot support any plan design that mandates physician participation.” For one thing, it said, “many physicians and providers may not have the capability to accept the influx of new patients that could result from such a mandate.”

“In addition,” the A.M.A. said, “federal programs traditionally have never required physician or other provider participation, but rather such participation has been on a voluntary basis.”

In an interview, Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the American Medical Association, said she was delighted by Mr. Obama’s plan to address the doctors.

“Health care reform is as important to us as it is to him,” Dr. Nielsen said. “We will be engaged in discussions in a constructive way. But we absolutely oppose government control of health care decisions or mandatory physician participation in any insurance plan.”

Mr. Obama’s trip recalls a speech to the A.M.A. in Chicago on June 13, 1993, by Hillary Rodham Clinton. She proposed “a new bargain” in which the White House would limit malpractice lawsuits and free doctors from onerous rules if doctors supported her effort to overhaul the health care system.

The association agrees with Mr. Obama on some points. It says that individuals and families who can afford coverage should be required to obtain it.

Like Mr. Obama, the association wants Congress to cut payments to private Medicare Advantage plans. The White House says Medicare pays the private plans 14 percent more than it would cost the government to care for the same people in traditional Medicare.

So, my doctor's don't want this plan either? Hope?



I'm also curious what people think of Sotomayor. I've been iffy, but the info coming out about her tapes she gave to Congress is disturbing me. She is apparently proud to say she was the outcome of affirmative action, because she struggled due to testing that was culturally biased.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/us/politics/11judge.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Videos Shed New Light on Sotomayor’s Positions
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON — Judge Sonia Sotomayor once described herself as “a product of affirmative action” who was admitted to two Ivy League schools despite scoring lower on standardized tests than many classmates, which she attributed to “cultural biases” that are “built into testing.”

On another occasion, she aligned with conservatives who take a limited view of when international law can be enforced in American courts. But she criticized conservative objections to recent Supreme Court rulings that mention foreign law as being based on a “misunderstanding.”

Those comments were among a trove of videos dating back nearly 25 years that shed new light on Judge Sotomayor’s views. She provided the videos to the Senate Judiciary Committee last week as it prepares for her Supreme Court confirmation hearing next month.

The clips include lengthy remarks about her experiences as an “affirmative action baby” whose lower test scores were overlooked by admissions committees at Princeton University and Yale Law School because, she said, she is Hispanic and had grown up in poor circumstances.

“If we had gone through the traditional numbers route of those institutions, it would have been highly questionable if I would have been accepted,” she said on a panel of three female judges from New York who were discussing women in the judiciary. The video is dated “early 1990s” in Senate records.

Her comments came in the context of explaining why she thought it was “critical that we promote diversity” by appointing more women and members of minorities as judges, and they provoked objections among other panelists who pointed out that she had graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and been an editor on Yale’s law journal.

But Judge Sotomayor insisted that her test scores were sub-par — “though not so far off the mark that I wasn’t able to succeed at those institutions.” Her scores have not been made public.

“With my academic achievement in high school, I was accepted rather readily at Princeton and equally as fast at Yale, but my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates,” she said. “And that’s been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects.”

Judge Sotomayor’s approach to affirmative action has been the subject of intense scrutiny. Conservatives have criticized her remarks in speeches that her personal experiences will influence her judging, and they have focused on her vote to uphold a decision by New Haven to throw out results from a firefighters’ exam because not enough members of minorities scored well.

In the program, Judge Sotomayor also rejected the proposition that minorities must become advocates of “selection by merit alone.” She said diversity improved the legal system — like having a Hispanic judge in a case where a litigant and his family is Hispanic, and who can translate what is happening into Spanish.

“Since I have difficulty defining merit and what merit alone means, and in any context, whether it’s judicial or otherwise, I accept that different experiences in and of itself, bring merit to the system,” she said, adding, “I think it brings to the system more of a sense of fairness when these litigants see people like myself on the bench.”

Judge Sotomayor also mentioned her personal involvement in challenging testing in a 1994 interview. Reflecting on her 12 years on the board of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund before she became a judge, she recalled helping change its policy focus from voting rights and bilingual education to economic issues, like “cases attacking civil service testing and issues of union admissions.”

If she is confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would fill the seat being vacated by Justice David H. Souter, who has voted to uphold affirmative-action programs.

But in April 2009, Judge Sotomayor delivered a speech on how federal judges look at foreign and international law that suggested she might take a more conservative position on that topic than Justice Souter.

She said that individuals had no right to file a lawsuit to enforce a treaty and that ratified treaties were not legally binding unless Congress separately passed a statute to do so. Treaties usually have effect, she said, only if the president and Congress choose to respect such obligations as a matter of politics, not law.

“Even though Article IV of the Constitution says that treaties are the ‘supreme law of the land,’ in most instances they’re not even law,” she said.

That principle, she said, explained the outcome of a high-profile 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Medellin v. Texas, which involved an International Court of Justice ruling that some Mexican inmates on death row in Texas should get new sentencing hearings because the authorities failed to help them get help from the Mexican Consulate, contrary to a treaty the United States had ratified.

But the Supreme Court ruled that the international court’s decision had no legal force and that the treaty was not binding, because Congress never passed a statute explicitly making it domestic law.

The ruling, Judge Sotomayor said, “surprised many human rights groups and civil liberties groups” but was “premised on very traditional American law principles.”

Her remarks aligned her with the Supreme Court’s majority; among the three dissenting votes in that case was Justice Souter.

Still, Judge Sotomayor also criticized conservative attacks on Supreme Court decisions in recent terms that mentioned foreign law — including decisions striking down the death penalty for juveniles and striking down a Texas law barring sodomy.

“In both those cases the courts were very, very careful to note that they weren’t using that law to decide the American question,” she said. “They were just using that law to help us understand what the concepts meant to other countries, and to help us understand whether our understanding of our own constitutional rights fell into the mainstream of human thinking.”

How do you culturally bias a test used to measure standard knowledge of information learned in public school? How is it designed to favor white kids but hold back Hispanic kids from the same school?

If she honestly believes that you can word a question in a way that a person's skin color or genetic background will make them miss it then I do not believe she should be on any judicial bench.




But hey, I won't just bash on Obama. During the Bush administration it appears that the Fed was trying to get all into the banks' business too.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31238331/

BofA’s CEO: Fed pressured bank to buy Merrill
Lewis says Fed threatened to remove top execs if backed out of the deal
The Associated Press
updated 12:42 p.m. ET, Thurs., June 11, 2009

WASHINGTON - House lawmakers on Thursday accused the federal government of orchestrating a "shotgun wedding" between Bank of America Corp. and Merrill Lynch that cost taxpayers $20 billion, as a top bank executive said publicly for the first time that he was pressured into going through with the deal.

Bank of America Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis testified that the federal government threatened to remove board members at his bank if it reneged on a promise to acquire Merrill Lynch, despite Merrill Lynch's crumbling financial state.

"What gave me concern is that they gave that threat to a bank in good standing," Lewis told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The panel is investigating claims that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke pressured Lewis and urged him to keep quiet about Merrill Lynch's financial problems. Not divulging that information would have violated Lewis' fiduciary duty to the bank's shareholders.

Lewis said he did nothing wrong. In the end, the decision to go ahead with the acquisition — with the promise of government support — was in everyone's best interest, he testified.

"This course made sense for Bank of America and its shareholders, and made sense for the stability of the markets," he said. "We viewed those two interests as consistent."

Lawmakers on the committee said they remain troubled by internal e-mails and other documents provided to them by the Fed after they issued a subpoena.

One e-mail, by an employee at the Richmond Federal Reserve, said Bernanke had made it clear that if Bank of America backed out and needed financial assistance, "management is gone."

Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the panel's top Republican, said the documents also "show that the government sought to manage the public disclosure of Merrill's mounting losses in order to control the situation."

Democratic Committee Chairman Edolphus Towns of New York said serious questions remain as to the timing of events.

"Why did a private business deal — announced in September and approved by shareholders in December — with no mention of government assistance, end up costing taxpayers $20 billion in January?" Towns asked.

Bank of America has received $45 billion from the government's $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program. As part of that money, the bank received $20 billion in January after Lewis requested it to help offset mounting losses at Merrill Lynch & Co.

Just a few weeks after the deal was completed, Bank of America's fourth-quarter earnings report showed the hit taken by its balance sheet because of the Merrill Lynch transaction, which made Lewis the target of shareholder anger.

In January, Bank of America reported a $2.39 billion fourth-quarter loss, and Merrill Lynch disclosed a loss of more than $15 billion.


The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

As I keep saying: Both parties suck, particularly at this free market thing.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

How do you culturally bias a test used to measure standard knowledge of information learned in public school? How is it designed to favor white kids but hold back Hispanic kids from the same school?

If she honestly believes that you can word a question in a way that a person's skin color or genetic background will make them miss it then I do not believe she should be on any judicial bench.

Yeah, that was a stupid thing to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

How long until we drive into the ocean?

 

[Solid Fro]

Obama's electric sub-compact can't go 173 MPH. He must have slapped on some rocket boosters and Type-R badges.

 

[ledhed]

The more I read this the more I realise we elected our current president --like we do "American idol " contestants ...

No one listened to the WORDS he spoke ---just how he said them .

The Man has done almost all he said he would do ---and we STILL elected him.

I expect when the 2010 elections come up --many DEMS will be unemployed as the pedulum swings in reverse --now that many have found out what " " CHANGE " Really means .

Of Course by then we may all be living in a cardboard box and sending our children to China --to pay back the Muti Trillions we owe .

but hey --we wanted change we got socialism lite ...

Now that we ran out of money ---our granchildens --family will be still paying for our debts --if we ever get back to a free market economy --you know --the one that made the USA --the sole Superpower in the world ?

The beuty of our system is that we get to try new things --and fix them when they do not work --- The question is now --who is going to want to Clean up this mess ?

I doubt the US will be electing Democrats any time soon --as usual these cycles tend to last a while --and no one will every dispute the term " Tax and spend liberal " anymore ..lol

Remember when the really left wing was saying the would move Canada if GW was elected ?

Well now we are moving all our rich people who create Jobs to nice little tax sheltered islands --while they sit back and HOLD their cash ...

and the unemployment rate speeds to 10 % plus ...

do you know how LONG it takes to see a reduction in the Unemplyment Rate ?

Again --I wonder WHO would be willing to try to fix this mess ..

More important --can it BE fixed ??