Monday, February 11, 2013

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR PROMISES OBAMA NO LEGAL NEED APPLY - VIVA LA RAZA SUPREMACY?


SONIA SOTOMAYOR SHOULD HAVE RECUSED  HERSELF FROM VOTING ON THIS MATTER AS SHE’S A MEMBER OF THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA, AND AN  ADVOCATE FOR OPEN BORDERS, NO E-VERIFY AND LA RAZA SUPREMACY!
FROM HIS VERY FIRST DAY IN OFFICE, OBAMA HAS LIED TO THIS NATION AS HE SERVICED HIS BANKSTER DONORS, AND BUILT HIS LA RAZA “THE RACE” PARTY BASE of ILLEGALS!
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS INFESTED WITH CRIMINAL BANKSTERS, LIKE TIM GEITHNER, AND LA RAZA SUPREMACIST, LIKE OBAMA’S SEC. of LABOR HILDA SOLIS, OR LA RAZA V.P. CECELIA MUNOZ.
OBAMA’S CANDIDATE FOR THE SUPREME COURT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PANDERER TO THE SPECIAL INTERESTS, AND LA RAZA PARTY MEMBER! HE FOUND SUCH A CANDIDATE IN THE SELF-STYLED “WISE LATINA” SOTOMAYER, A MEMBER of THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA! ON THE BENCH, SOTOMAYER REFERS TO ILLEGALS NOT AS LAWBREAKERS, BUT AS “UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS”. OBAMA REFERS TO ILLEGALS AS HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE OF “UNREGISTERED VOTERS”!
*
BARACK OBAMA FROM THE FLOOR of the SENATE – STATE of the UNION MESSAGE:
“I’m not here to punish banks!” ONE OF THE FEW TRUTHS THIS MAN HAS EVER TOLD!                                                                                                                                                           
“Illegals are not including in Obamacare” A LIE
*
OBAMA’S DEPT. of LA RAZA JUSTICE HAS CAUTIOUSLY DANCED AROUND THE PROSECUTION OF ANY OF OBAMA’S CRIMINAL BANKSTER DONORS, BUT HAS RABIDLY FOUGHT AGAINST AMERICAN INTERESTS, OUR LAWS, BORDERS AND VOTING LIMITED TO AMERICAN CITIZENS!
OBAMA HAS SUED FOUR AMERICAN STATES ON BEHALF OF HIS LA RAZA PARTY BASE.
OBAMA HAS SUE ARIZONA, AN AMERICAN STATE THAT HAS ATTEMPTED TO PUSH BACK THE MEX INVASION, CRIME STATE, WELFARE STATE, AND NARCOMEX INVASION!
OBAMA HAS SUED TO STOP E-VERIFY TO ASSURE HIS PARTY BASE OF ILLEGALS A QUICK PATHWAY TO OUR JOBS, AND VOTING BOOTHS.
OBAMA HAS SUED AMERICAN STATES TO STOP THESE STATES FROM REQUIRING I.D.S TO HALT THE LA RAZA GET OUT THE VOTE!
OBAMA HAS TURNED OVER MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO THE MEXICAN FASCIST PARTY of LA RAZA TO HELP THEM ORGANIZE ILLEGALS INTO VOTING!
VIVA LA RAZA?
WHILE OBAMA HAS DONE FUCKING NOTHING FOR BLACK AMERICA, HE’S GROVELED AT THE FEET OF HIS BANKSTERS AND LA RAZA FROM DAY ONE!!!
 
VOTERS). SOTOMAYER VOTED AGAINST MAKING E-VERIFY MANDATORY NATION WIDE!
*
The fundamental social division is class, not race or gender
28 May 2009
The introduction of Sonia Sotomayor as President Obama’s first selection for the US Supreme Court took place at a White House media event of a completely choreographed and stereotyped character. Such ceremonies have become an essential part of how America is governed. The less the political system is capable of actually responding to the needs and aspirations of working people, the more it must put on the pretense of concern, using biography as a substitute for policy.
As always on such occasions, the nomination’s “roll-out” was an unrestrained exercise in public tear-jerking. Led by President Obama, who based his own campaign on the marketing of a compelling personal “narrative,” Sotomayor’s elevation was presented as a triumph over all manner of adversity. There were tributes to the humble origins of the future Supreme Court justice, noting her hard-working immigrant parents, her poverty-stricken childhood in a South Bronx housing project, the death of her father when she was nine years old, and even her struggle with juvenile diabetes.
No doubt, it has not been an easy personal journey for Judge Sotomayor, and there can be little doubt that she is as tough as nails. However, amidst all the tributes to Judge Sotomayor’s triumph, one cannot help but think about the conditions that confront the hundreds of thousands of South Bronx residents whom she left behind.
There is another element of Sotomayor’s nomination that deserves analysis. Media coverage of the nomination, and the bulk of the political commentary, liberal and conservative, approving and hostile, focused on the fact that she would become the first Hispanic and third woman to take a seat on the highest US court. The premise of both supporters and detractors was that Sotomayor’s gender and ethnic origins were of decisive importance in evaluating her nomination and determining her likely course on the court.
Totally obliterated in this flood of commentary is the most fundamental social category in American society: class. Sotomayor will go to the Supreme Court, not as the representative or advocate of Hispanics, women or the socially disadvantaged more generally, but as the representative of a definite social class at the top of American society—the financial aristocracy whose interests she and every other federal judge, and the entire capitalist state machine, loyally serve and defend.
Only one “mainstream” bourgeois publication focused on this critical question. That was the Wall Street Journal, whose editorial page serves as a major voice of the ultra-right—denouncing the Sotomayor nomination in strident tones—but whose news pages explored her record as a well-paid commercial litigator and federal judge, on issues of direct interest to big business, including contract law, employment and property rights.
The newspaper quoted several Wall Street lawyers describing Sotomayor as a safe choice for corporate America. “There is no reason for the business community to be concerned,” said one attorney. Barry Ostrager, a partner at Simpson Thacher LLP who defended a unit of J.P. Morgan Chase in a lawsuit over fraudulent pricing of initial public offerings, cited Sotomayor’s role in an appeals court ruling barring the class-action suit. “That ruling demonstrated that in securities litigation, she is in the judicial mainstream,” he told the Journal.
Barack Obama is the culmination of this process. Celebrated as the first African-American president, he has overseen the greatest handover of resources to the billionaires and Wall Street speculators in history. In the restructuring of the auto industry, with ever-escalating demands for cuts in jobs, pay and benefits for auto workers, he has set the stage for the greatest assault on the working class since the Reagan administration smashed the PATCO air traffic controllers strike in 1981 and gave the signal for a nationwide campaign of wage-cutting and union-busting. In this, Obama demonstrates that the class he serves, not the color of his skin or his social origins, is the decisive political factor.
The political development of the American working class requires, first and foremost, the direct and open discussion of the class realities of American society. No country in the world is as deeply and intractably divided along economic lines as the United States, where the top 1 percent of the population owns 40 percent of the wealth and monopolizes 20 percent of the income. Any analysis of the political issues facing working people that does not take these class divisions as the fundamental reality is an exercise in deception and political stultification.
Patrick Martin
*
“The stimulus plan purports to address the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression without examining its underlying causes or the social interests that underlie the crisis. This is no accident, since the fundamental premise of all of the measures taken in response to the crisis, by Obama no less than Bush, is the defense of the interests of the financial elite.”
*
Records show that four out of Obama's top five contributors are employees of financial industry giants - Goldman Sachs ($571,330), UBS AG ($364,806), JPMorgan Chase ($362,207) and Citigroup ($358,054).
*
OBAMA SELECTED LA RAZA SUPREMACIST HILDA SOLIS TO ADVANCE THE OBAMA AGENDA OF KEEPING WAGES DEPRESSED, AND BUY THE ILLEGALS’ VOTES BY MAKING SURE ILLEGALS GET OUR JOBS! THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THIS IS TO SABOTAGE LAWS PROHIBITING THE EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGALS. OBAMA, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THE OBAMA DEPT. of LA RAZA JUSTICE, AND THE LA RAZA DEMS ARE SABOTAGING E-VERIFY ALL OVER THE NATION!
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Friday, June 5, 2009

Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor faces new questions about her views on group and identity politics... after it became clear she has a long history of making race-and-gender based remarks. We’ll have a special report. Sotomayor’s views on our Second Amendment rights are the
subject of our face off debate tonight.
 
*

From the Desk of Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

Sotomayor Evasive, Disingenuous During Confirmation Hearings
The eagerly anticipated confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor got underway this week. And how did she do?
Let’s start with Sotomayor’s rambling and constantly shifting explanation for one of her most controversial statements – that she “would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.” This racist remark was made during a speech Sotomayor delivered to students at Cal Berkeley in 2001. The reason it is getting so much attention is that it calls into question Judge Sotomayor’s impartiality – and she made the remark repeatedly through the years. (Judicial Watch addressed this comment and many other troublesome statements and activities by Sotomayor in a letter to Senators Patrick Leahy, D-VT, and Jeff Sessions, R-AL, last week. You can read it by clicking here.)
During the hearing, at first, Sotomayor dismissed the statement as a “rhetorical flourish” that “fell flat.” However, under subsequent questioning Sotomayor attempted to defend her remarks, indicating that it was an attempt to “inspire” her audience. Of course Sotomayor quickly added that the comment has nothing to do with her attitude towards dispensing justice, which she claims is firmly rooted in the rule of law. (Action by the Supreme Court might argue this point, given that the High Court just overturned the decision she helped make in the Ricci racial discrimination matter. Click here for more.)
Sotomayor also tried to justify the comment by comparing it to allegedly similar ones made by Justice Alito and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. And in another explanation she said her words shouldn’t be taken literally.
“I think she just made it more muddled,” said Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee. In sum, Judge Sotomayor tried to deny the plain meaning of her “wise Latina” statements. This disingenuous approach may pass muster in Washington, but most people would be troubled by her lawyerly evasions.
Can you recall a Supreme Court nominee in recent years that has had to spend so much time defending their impartiality as a judge? I can’t.
On the issue of abortion Sotomayor said that she feels Roe v Wade is “settled law.” According to The Associated Press: “Supreme Court aspirant Sonia Sotomayor said Tuesday that she considers the question of abortion rights is settled precedent and says there is a constitutional right to privacy...Answering a question later from Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Sotomayor said that “all precedents of the Supreme Court I consider settled law…” This doesn’t mean much, as the Supreme Court regularly overturns its precedents.
Judge Sotomayor said she had no idea why one of her former colleagues at the New York law firm Pavia & Harcourt would say, "I can guarantee she'll be for abortion rights." Maybe he knew of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund’s radical pro-abortion agenda when she helped run the organization? But Judge Sotomayor professed to have no clue about the legal positions of her former group, despite the fact that she set the group’s litigation agenda.
Senator Lindsey Graham also initiated a tough, dramatic line of questioning with respect to Sotomayor’s temperament. In fact, Senator Graham flat out asked her: “Do you have a temperament problem?” (Sotomayor has been described as a “bully” on the bench.) Sotomayor attempted to defend herself against the charge but the issue was still left hanging in the hearing room.
Sotomayor’s problem for this hearing was a big one. She has had to defend the indefensible. She did this by reversing course, professing fidelity to the law, disavowing her radical judicial philosophy as described in her many speeches and writings, and by misleading the committee on one some of her more controversial decisions.
The judge went so far as to disavow President Obama’s lawless “empathy” standard for picking judges. Judge Sotomayor said that she would apply the law to the facts. She said, “Judges can’t rely on what is in their heart.”
In the end, she sounded like the most conservative nominee to the Supreme Court by a Democratic president in thirty years. (It is interesting that, even in the age of Obama, liberal jurists must pretend to be conservatives to gain Senate approval. It confirms the victory of conservatives in framing the public policy debate over liberal judicial activism. Even Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court must pretend to reject judicial activism.)
There is no question, given all of her “wise Latina” and other radical statements and her long-term connection to groups such as the far-left Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, that Judge Sotomayor is the wrong judge for a seat on the Supreme Court. I don’t believe her confirmation conversion to “fidelity to the law.”
Unfortunately, Republicans seem resigned to the fact that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed with little debate, but it’s not too late to change the situation. You must make your voices heard! Even liberal Senator Feinstein (D-CA) admitted this week that she had received calls of concern on the Sotomayor nomination. These calls matter. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard today at 202-224-3121, and let your senators know your thoughts.
Some in the press have characterized the Sotomayor hearings as “grueling.” I attended them for a bit and I found them interesting – in how a nominee can evade questions, deny her record, and largely control the room in the face of questioning by hapless senators. A well-prepared lawyer like Judge Sotomayor can do these types of hearings in their sleep.
There have been some tough questions for sure, but without an underlying commitment to carefully making the case against this nomination too many of the questions amounted to nothing more than “rhetorical flourishes” that “fall flat.” As a result, Americans may end up with a biased, activist justice on the Supreme Court.
*
VIVA LA RAZA?
AMERICA: No Legal Need Apply!
 
Sonia Sotomayor opposes E-Verify requirement
True to form, she said it was illegal to make employers e-verify citizen status of new hires.

Interesting, she says a state cannot force employers to check if employees they are hiring are illegal. Thankfully the court ruled 5-3 supporting law. But now we know for sure just how extreme far left Obama's choice was. We cannot afford Obama to get another term, or you can bet this country will be overrun by illegals. I don't want this country to be poor and corrupt like Mexico, which it will if illegals overrun the country.
*
Obama Administration Challenges Arizona E-Verify Law
The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to strike down a 2007 Arizona law that punishes employers who hire illegal aliens, a law enacted by then-Governor Janet Napolitano.  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief).  Called the “Legal Arizona Workers Act,” the law requires all employers in Arizona to use E-Verify and provides that the business licenses of those who hire illegal workers shall be repealed.  From the date of enactment, the Chamber of Commerce and other special interest groups have been trying to undo it, attacking it through a failed ballot initiative and also through a lawsuit. Now the Chamber is asking the United States Supreme Court to hear the case (Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), and the Obama Administration is weighing in against the law.
To date, Arizona’s E-Verify law has been upheld by all lower courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit, in particular, viewed it as an exercise of a state’s traditional power to regulate businesses.  (San Francisco Chronicle, June 2, 2010).  Obama’s Justice Department, however, disagrees. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in his filing with the Supreme Court that the lower courts were wrong to uphold the statute because federal immigration law expressly preempts any state law imposing sanctions on employers hiring illegal immigrants.  Mr. Katyal argues that this is not a licensing law, but “a statute that prohibits the hiring of unauthorized aliens and uses suspension and revocation of all state-issued licenses as its ultimate sanction.”  (Solicitor General's Amicus Curiae Brief, p. 10).  This is the administration’s first court challenge to a state’s authority to act against illegal immigration, and could be a preview of the battle brewing over Arizona’s recent illegal immigration crackdown through SB 1070. 
Napolitano has made no comment on the Department of Justice’s decision to challenge the 2007 law, but federal officials said that she has taken an active part in the debate over whether to do so. (Politico, May 28, 2010).   As Governor of Arizona, Napolitano said she believed the state law was valid and became a defendant in the many lawsuits against it. (Id.).
 Sotomayor’s record: A judicial pragmatist and defender of corporate interests
By Don Knowland
17 July 2009
As a nominee to the US Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor is reliable defender of corporate interests, siding with big business, government authority and the police far more than with the poor, the arrested or the oppressed. With 17 years on the federal courts, the most of any Supreme Court nominee in more than half a century, she is anything but an unknown quantity.
In her five years as a federal district court trial judge, Sotomayor issued hundreds of written decisions. In 12 years on the appellate court, she has been the principal author of over 150 opinions. She joined in the majority opinion in over 350 cases.
A survey of her written decisions reveals a jurist firmly wedded to the bourgeois mainstream, particularly when business interests are at stake, and not given to sweeping formulations. The New York Times legal correspondent assigned to cover the Supreme Court wrote that Sotomayor’s opinions “reveal no larger vision, seldom appeal to history and consistently avoid quotable language.”
A Congressional Research Service analysis found that Sotomayor’s rulings could not be easily categorized in ideological terms, and “showed an adherence to precedent, an emphasis on the facts of a case, and an avoidance of overstepping the court’s judicial role.”
According to one of Sotomayor’s former law clerks, “She is a rule-bound pragmatist-very geared toward determining what the right answer is and what the law dictates...” Sotomayor herself has professed to follow a narrow “just the facts” approach to judicial decision-making, a style described by some as judicial minimalism.
However, when important issues arise that affect more fundamental interests of the ruling elite, such as national security matters or big economic questions, Sotomayor comes down invariably on the side of the establishment, at the expense of the majority of society.
A law-and-order judge
As with most former prosecutors, Sotomayor has a negative if not hostile view of the rights of those accused of crimes. Encomiums from her former associates at the Manhattan District Attorney’s office and various New York and national police organizations were read into the record of her confirmation hearing.
According to Leroy Frazer Jr., first assistant district attorney in Manhattan and a former colleague of Sotomayor, she “has contributed greatly to law enforcement in New York” as a judge. John Siffert, an attorney who taught appellate advocacy with Sotomayor at New York University School of Law for ten years, confirms that she is loath to overturn criminal convictions. “She was not viewed as a pro-defense judge” while she sat as a trial judge, Siffert told the press.
One decision Sotomayor authored as an appellate judge upheld the use of evidence police seized mistakenly, thinking they had a warrant. The Supreme Court’s five-justice conservative bloc came to the same conclusion this year, over the dissent of the court’s four moderate justices. Jeffrey Fisher, a Stanford Law School professor who was on the losing side of the January Supreme Court decision, said Judge Sotomayor’s ruling displayed her “willingness to give police the benefit of the doubt.”
One case decided by Sotomayor as an appellate judge involved the timeliness of the habeas corpus petition filed by a prisoner convicted of murder and rape. Congress had only recently passed President Bill Clinton’s Anti-Terrorism-Effective Death Penalty Act, which imposed a one-year time limit on such petitions. Confusion existed in the federal courts regarding how the new law would be applied to pending cases. Following the advice of a court clerk, the defendant’s attorney mailed in rather than filed the appeal the day it was due.
Sotomayor and her colleagues on the case refused to consider the petition, ruling that it was untimely and that its lateness was not excusable. They also summarily brushed off the defendant’s claim to innocence, even though guilt was based on a confession the police coerced when the defendant was 17. The defendant then spent six more years in jail before DNA testing conclusively established his innocence.
Capital and labor
While frequently dissenting against reactionary rulings on issues involving democratic rights, the four-justice moderate bloc on the Supreme Court has increasingly tended to join the court’s right wing in favoring big business over workers and consumers where their economic interests are explicitly counterposed, as in cases involving punitive damage awards against giant corporations.
Sotomayor is unlikely to buck that trend. She currently sits in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which hears the most important appeals affecting Wall Street and the financial industry. That court’s 2006 decision strongly favored Wall Street in a group of cases involving thousands of investors suing dozens of the largest banks and investment houses, including Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, Deutsche Bank and the now defunct Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. The plaintiffs charged massive fraud involving manipulation of the market for initial public offerings of company shares. Such schemes played a major role in inflating the dot.com and telecom bubbles.
As a practical matter, the plaintiffs in the case could proceed only if they could band together for class actions. The appellate ruling dismissed the cases on the basis that questions as to what information and assurances individual plaintiffs relied on in purchasing shares precluded finding sufficient commonality to permit the cases to proceed on a class action basis. This amounted to an extremely strained reading of the rules regarding class action suits and reduced the value of the plaintiffs’ recovery by many billions of dollars.
Sotomayor’s most well known decision as a district court judge involved her issuing an injunction in 1995 against baseball team owners during the longest strike in baseball history, which followed an owner lock-out of players. Sotomayor ruled that the National Relations Labor Board had cause to believe that baseball owners committed unfair labor practices by eliminating free agency and salary arbitration provisions of the expired collective bargaining agreement. She ordered the owners to bargain in good faith on those issues. The strike then ended.
As an appellate judge, Sotomayor has favored working class plaintiffs mainly in disability cases. In one case, Sotomayor ruled that New York did not sufficiently accommodate a dyslexic applicant taking the bar examination.
Sotomayor dissented in a 2003 case brought by the federal Equal Opportunity Employment Commission against a major trucking company relating to discrimination against drivers who took medication that the company believed impaired driving. Federal regulations provide that discrimination occurs if a company perceives that a worker or workers have an impairment as to a “class of jobs” compared to average persons of comparable skill, as opposed to single jobs. The majority dismissed the case, saying that the evidence showed only that the employer perceived the drivers as incapable of long-distance, stressful driving jobs. Sotomayor argued that there was sufficient evidence that the employer perceived the impairment to extend to any truck driving jobs, an entire “class of jobs,” such that the case should proceed to trial.
Constitutional rights
Outside of the criminal case context, Sotomayor has shown some favor toward suits challenging violation of the Fourth Amendment probable cause and warrant requirements and due process rights.
In a 2002 case, Sotomayor wrote that New York City’s policy of seizing and then keeping for an extended period of time, sometimes for years, vehicles used by alleged drunk drivers or in other misdemeanor crimes violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
The City’s ordinance permitted it to file a civil case seeking the forfeiture of vehicles of those found guilty. But the forfeiture cases were often deferred for many months or even years, while the underlying criminal cases were resolved. Sotomayor’s ruling required a meaningful hearing at a meaningful time as to whether the vehicle’s owner could recover it. Her decision reversed the trial court ruling of then-District Judge Michael Mukasey, who later became George Bush’s last attorney general.
In a case seeking damages for a house search based on a flawed warrant, Sotomayor dissented in order to challenge the formulation used by the majority to define when a police officer is entitled to “qualified immunity” from suit for such a violation. The Supreme Court excuses an officer from such constitutional violations unless the law is so clear that an objectively reasonable officer could not believe his conduct is lawful. Sotomayor objected to her circuit’s formulation of this defense that gave police officers extra latitude in meeting that standard.
Sotomayor wrote a 2006 opinion approving suspicionless searches of passenger carry-on luggage and car trunks before boarding a ferry, based on the government’s purported interest in deterring terrorist attacks on large vessels engaged in mass transportation. She joined another decision that struck down a portion of the Patriot Act relating to disclosure of National Security Letters on First Amendment grounds.
In a 2002 case, Sotomayor authored an opinion that gave prison officials wide latitude to infringe prisoner First Amendment rights by withholding incoming mail if they could articulate some security justification for such action. In other cases, Sotomayor has granted latitude to prisoners in exercising religious rights.
Wsws.org… get on their free daily emails for updates on corporate rape and pillage
*
Lou Dobbs Tonight
Thursday, July 9, 2009

And Harvard economics professor JEFFREY MIRON will weigh in on the state of the U.S. economy—and why the only plausible argument for bailing out banks crumbles on close examination.
*
 
HECTOR TOBAR IS THE L.A. TIMES LA RAZA SUPREMACIST
From the Los Angeles Times
Latina lawyer learned law at Harvard, gains wisdom in Compton ( COMPTON, MEX GANGLAND!)
Attorney Luz Herrera hopes that Sonia Sotomayor, if confirmed to the Supreme Court, can get across the message that the Latino experience is already 'a part of the fabric of U.S. society.'
Hector Tobar

June 2, 2009

I made a pilgrimage to Compton last week in search of wisdom, to a little storefront with bars over the windows and a liquor-grocer next door.

Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court nominee, set me off on this quest with her oft-repeated observation that "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male . . . "

Southern California is home, arguably, to more wise Latinas than any other place in the United States. The only Latina in Obama's cabinet (Labor Secretary Hilda Solis) is from here. And I personally know dozens more, starting with my mother, my wife, my mother-in-law and assorted professors, activists and sharp-minded stay-at-home moms.

But Judge Sotomayor was referring, specifically, to the law. So I thought I should go find a smart Latina attorney and ask her if she thought that was true. Does American jurisprudence look different from a Latina woman's eyes, and if so, what does she see in the United States that a wise "white male" does not?

Until recently, Luz Herrera, 36, ran a solo law practice in Compton. She was born in Tijuana to Mexican parents and raised in heavily Latino neighborhoods of unincorporated West Whittier. But she'll be the first to tell you that her background alone didn't make her wise. Neither, she says, did Harvard Law School, from which she graduated in 1999.

"I learned to think like a lawyer there," she said of Harvard. "I learned how to be a lawyer here. That's what Compton gave me."

What Sotomayor can bring to American justice, Herrera told me, is something that Herrera longs for every day: the understanding that the Latino experience is already "a part of the fabric of U.S. society" and that this truth should be reflected in our legal system. PART OF THE FABRIC WE NEED TO RID OURSELVES OF!!!!
*
From the Los Angeles Times

Speeches reveal more about Sotomayor's thoughts on race

The Senate Judiciary Committee receives a file on the Supreme Court nominee's life from Princeton onward. She has spoken on other occasions of ethnic identity and her hopes about 'wise Latina' judges.
By David G. Savage

June 5, 2009
Reporting from Washington — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, already facing controversy for a 2001 speech on the virtue of having "a wise Latina" as a judge, made similar comments in a series of speeches released Thursday.

She said the nation is "deeply confused" about the proper role of race and ethnic identity, and she maintained that her identity as a Latina shaped her life and her work in court. She hoped "a wise Latina" would reach a "better conclusion" than a white male, she said on several occasions.
Since her nomination, conservative activists have cited the comment as evidence that she would rule based on her ethnic identity.
President Obama sought to defuse the criticism last week. "I'm sure she would have restated it," he said, adding that she was "simply saying that her life experience will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through."
The speeches were among a thick file, including court opinions and financial documents, that the White House sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. They cover 35 years of Sotomayor's life, from her days as a Princeton student through her time as a prosecutor, corporate lawyer, trial judge and appeals court judge.
She reported a net worth of $740,000, consisting mostly of her $1.1-million condominium in New York City. She has a $381,000 mortgage and about $31,000 in the bank. She reported owning no stocks, bonds or mutual funds.
She said that White House Counsel Gregory Craig first contacted her about the Supreme Court vacancy on April 27 -- five days before Justice David H. Souter publicly announced he was retiring.
In a speech at Princeton in 1996, she said: "I began a lifelong commitment to identifying myself as a Latina" while at Princeton, "taking pride in being Hispanic, and in recognizing my obligation to help my community reach its fullest potential in this society."
She added: "I underscore that in saying this I am not promoting ethnic segregation. I am promoting just the opposite: an ethnic identity and pride which impels us to work with others in the larger society to achieve advancement for the people of our cultures."

"America has a deeply confused image of itself that is a perpetual source of tension," she said at a 2006 gathering of Latino students at Yale Law School. "We are a nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence. Yet we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race- and colorblind way that ignores those very differences that in other contexts we laud."

She said that the Supreme Court was "just as fractured" as society over the role of race in public decisions, such as college affirmative action.

"This tension leads many of us to struggle with maintaining and promoting our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about to how to deal with its differences," she said.
Sotomayor repeated that she disagreed with a comment attributed to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor that "a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion" in deciding cases. "I'm not so sure that I agree with the statement," she said at Seton Hall Law in 2003. "I would hope a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
Two years earlier, at the UC Berkeley law school, she said she hoped the "wise Latina" would reach "a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."




*

THERE ARE ONLY EIGHT (8) STATES WITH A POPULATION GREATER THAN LOS ANGELES COUNTY, WHERE HALF OF ALL JOBS ARE HELD BY ILLEGALS USING STOLEN SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS. TO BLOCK THE USE OF E-VERIFY, THE LA RAZA CONTROLLED STATE LEGISLATURE PASSED A LAW SIGNED BY LA RAZA DEM JERRY BROWN MAKING IT ILLEGAL FOR EMPLOYERS TO USE E-VERIFY!!! THIS SAME COUNTY PAYS OUT $600 MILLION PER YEAR IN WELFARE TO ILLEGALS, AND HAS A TAX-FREE MEXICAN ECONOMY CALCULATED TO BE MORE THAN $2 BILLION PER YEAR!

VIVA LA RAZA?

 

OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders!

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”

 


 

* Obama soft on illegals enforcement


 

Arrests of illegal immigrant workers have dropped precipitously under President Obama, according to figures released Wednesday. Criminal arrests, administrative arrests, indictments and convictions of illegal immigrants at work sites all fell by more than 50 percent from fiscal 2008 to fiscal 2009.

The figures show that Mr. Obama has made good on his pledge to shift enforcement away from going after illegal immigrant workers themselves - but at the expense of Americans' jobs, said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the Republican who compiled the numbers from the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE). Mr. Smith, the top Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, said a period of economic turmoil is the wrong time to be cutting enforcement and letting illegal immigrants take jobs that Americans otherwise would hold.

While Sens. Feinstein and Boxer Hispander to Illegals, Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer Works for Americans (Legals)


PLEASE SUPPORT NEBRASKA U.S. SENATOR DEB FISCHER AS SHE SUPPORTS AMERICANS (LEGALS) AGAINST THE GROWING TIDE OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE MEXICO  AND THE DEMS HAVE CREATED IN OUR BORDERS AND AT OUR EXPENSE.

Nebraska Senator Deb Fischer Stands Up for Americans (legals) and Against Obama's Agenda of LA RAZA Supremacy and Open Borders


PLEASE SUPPORT NEBRASKA U.S. SENATOR DEB FISCHER AS SHE SUPPORTS AMERICANS (LEGALS) AGAINST THE GROWING TIDE OF LA RAZA SUPREMACY AND THE MEXICAN WELFARE STATE MEXICO  AND THE DEMS HAVE CREATED IN OUR BORDERS AND AT OUR EXPENSE.

 02-11-2013

Fischer will not support pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants
U.S. Senator Deb Fischer says she cannot support an immigration reform proposal that has a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. A bi-partisan immigration reform proposal from a group of eight Senators and President Obama's proposal both include a method for the undocumented immigrants to meet certain requirements to be citizens.

Fischer says while she is reserving judgement until she sees legislative language, she made it clear to reporters during her weekly conference call she cannot support a pathway to citizenship for people illegally in the country.

Fischer said, "We have a country that always supports the rule of law. Until we have undocumented immigrants stepping forward, we don't know who is in this country."

Fischer added." nce we start that process of some kind of legal status to have people in the country, we are going to have to deport people who are criminals."

Fischer said she was pleased the proposals do stress border security as one of their chief priorities.


*


 MEXICAN DRUG LORDS NOW SEND THEIR WOMEN OVER OUR BORDERS TO GIVE BIRTH TO ANCHOR BABIES = 18 YEARS OF WELFARE… THERE IS NO END IN SIGHT OF MEXICAN LOOTING!

*

“Through love of having children, we are going to take over.” 

AUGUSTIN CEBADA, BROWN BERETS, THE LA RAZA FASCIST PARTY 

2003: Mexican population in U.S. reported to have increased 10 percent in just three years, mostly as a result of illegal immigration. Mexicans encouraged to breed at all costs. "A baby a year" Mexican pride slogan emerges

 Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. GEORGE WILL on ANCHOR BABY WELFARE IN LA RAZA-OCCUPIED LOS ANGELES
*

MEXICANS ARE LOOTERS.

ONE OF MEXICO’S BIGGEST EXPORTS NEXT TO DRUGS ARE ANCHOR BABY BREEDERS. LA RAZA DEM POLITICIANS ARE DOWN ON THE BORDER WELCOMING PREGNANT WOMEN TO HOP OUR BORDERS FOR “FREE” ANCHOR BABY BIRTHING = 18 YEARS OF WELFARE.

THIS CHILD OF ILLEGAL LOOTERS WILL BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND ALSO STILL A CITIZEN OF MEXICO.

THE LA RAZA POPULATION IS EXPLODING! AMERICANS ARE BEING FORCED TO PAY FOR MEXICO’S ANCHORING OF THEIR OCCUPATION AND WELFARE STATE IN OUR BORDERS!

FROM JUDICIAL WATCH – get on their E-NEWS!

Mexican Drug Lords Have U.S. Anchor Babies

October 18, 2012 | No Comments

A Texas newspaper column known as “Narco Confidential” reveals that the women in a renowned Mexican drug lord’s family like delivering their babies in the United States, further fueling the already heated anchor baby controversy.

The story comes up because last week the pregnant daughter of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, got busted trying to enter the U.S. from Mexico at San Diego’s San Ysidro border crossing. Guzman is the head of the Sinaloa Cartel and the U.S. government has offered a multi-million-dollar reward for his capture. He’s considered one of the world’s most wanted drug lords and his heavily-armed cartel controls trafficking along much of the U.S. border with Mexico.

The drug king’s daughter, Alejandrina Gisselle Guzman Salazar, wants to have a U.S.-born child with automatic American citizenship and all the benefits that accompany it. When illegal immigrants like Guzman Salazar have children in the U.S., the kids are known as anchor babies. The term was adopted because the U.S.-born children not only automatically qualify for a variety of benefits, they provide permanent residency for immediate family members – mother, father and siblings – and the link to future citizenship.

Guzman Salazar admitted to federal authorities that she intended to go to Los Angeles to give birth. She has been charged with fraud and misuse of visas, permits and other documents. No further information has been provided about what will happen to her.

Last year El Chapo’s wife, Emma Coronel, gave birth to twin girls at a southern California hospital. Other Mexican drug lords, such as Ramon Arellano Felix, have sent family to the U.S. to give birth to anchor babies, according to news reports. Clearly, the nation’s generous policies are being exploited by hardcore criminals and American dream seekers alike.

This has been going on for years and it’s not just our neighbors to the south creating this anchor baby crisis in the U.S. The Chinese are doing it too. A large number of upper-class Chinese women who have the resources to enter the country legally, do so to deliver their offspring and essentially purchase American citizenship. A loophole in American law allows the rich to travel to the United States to give birth, according to a Chines anchor baby news report.

Not surprisingly, most anchor babies are born to Mexican illegal immigrants. This costs U.S. taxpayers astronomical sums just to educate them in the nation’s public school system. In fact, a few years ago a study determined that Americans pay around $52 billion to educate the children of illegal aliens and that the figure is sure to skyrocket because the number of anchor babies nearly doubled in just a few years and will likely keep growing. It costs the government tens of millions more to provide the kids with welfare benefits like healthcare and food stamps.

And how do these anchor babies thank Uncle Sam for his generosity? They take him to court! A few years ago dozens of anchor babies, represented by a coalition of immigrant advocacy groups, sued the U.S. government to prevent their illegal alien parents from being deported. Only in America!

*

Drug lord’s family seems to like giving birth in the USA

Tuesday, October 16, 2012


The United States seems to be a good place to be, if your dad or granddad is a big-time Mexican drug lord.

The news out of San Diego is that the pregnant daughter of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, Alejandrina Gisselle Guzman Salazar, was arrested trying to enter the United States from Mexico at the San Ysidro border crossing. (See the court paper posted below)

This comes on the heels of a report last year that Guzman’s wife, Emma Coronel, gave birth to twin girls at a Los Angeles area hospital.

Guzman is the reputed head of the Sinaloa Cartel and the subject of a $5 million reward offered by the U.S. government.

He is, without a doubt, the most wanted man in the hemisphere.

Why would they do it? Being born in the United States means automatic U.S. citizenship for the child, and as they grow up, gives them the option of fleeing enemies in Mexico for the relative safety of the United States.

The word is that other major drug lord’s such as Ramon Arellano Felix, also sent family to the United States to give birth.

Here is the San Diego Union Tribune’s take …

SAN DIEGO- Alejandrina Gisselle Guzman Salazar, who is the daughter of the leader of the cartel of Sinaloa “El Chapo”, was detained on Friday at the San Ysidro entrance, accused of fraud, illegal use of visas, permits and other official documents.

Guzman Salazar informed U.S. authorities that her father was Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, which then the officials alerted the Mexican authorities about the detention.

The two U.S. agents who made the detention, only made declarations under the condition of maintaining themselves as anonymous.

*

“A recent Pew poll indicated that a very large percentage of Americans of Mexican descent regard themselves as Mexicans. Not Mexican-Americans, not American-Mexicans. Just Mexicans.”

*

AN AMERICAN SEES & SPEAKS – Comments Posted on Washington Post

One of the reasons anchor babies are such a burden to the US is the practice of chain migration. That baby gets to bring in his parents, siblings and in some cases grand parents and no one needs to be economically "sponsored" so all are eligible for the welfare state bennies. Parkland Hospital in Dallas recently went bankrupt due to the maternity ward where most, perhaps all the babies were born to illegals and their cost of care never paid. While it is quite understandable that some one from a poor country or any country for that matter might like to give the gift of citizenship to their offspring, it is the sole right of the sovereign nation to grant that gift. We exploit the poor and undocumented and it is time to stop. Your cheap cleaning lady or lawn guy is very expensive for the nation as a whole. Pay a living wage for what you don't want to do and the problem may, in part, disappear.

3/30/2010 9:58:56 PM

*

An argument to be made about immigrant babies and citizenship

 

GEORGE F. WILL


Sunday, March 28, 2010; A15

A simple reform would drain some scalding steam from immigration arguments that may soon again be at a roiling boil. It would bring the interpretation of the 14th Amendment into conformity with what the authors of its text intended, and with common sense, thereby removing an incentive for illegal immigration.

To end the practice of "birthright citizenship," all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment's first sentence: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." From these words has flowed the practice of conferring citizenship on children born here to illegal immigrants.

A parent from a poor country, writes professor Lino Graglia of the University of Texas law school, "can hardly do more for a child than make him or her an American citizen, entitled to all the advantages of the American welfare state." Therefore, "It is difficult to imagine a more irrational and self-defeating legal system than one which makes unauthorized entry into this country a criminal offense and simultaneously provides perhaps the greatest possible inducement to illegal entry."

Writing in the Texas Review of Law and Politics, Graglia says this irrationality is rooted in a misunderstanding of the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." What was this intended or understood to mean by those who wrote it in 1866 and ratified it in 1868? The authors and ratifiers could not have intended birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants because in 1868 there were and never had been any illegal immigrants because no law ever had restricted immigration.

If those who wrote and ratified the 14th Amendment had imagined laws restricting immigration -- and had anticipated huge waves of illegal immigration -- is it reasonable to presume they would have wanted to provide the reward of citizenship to the children of the violators of those laws? Surely not.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 begins with language from which the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause is derived: "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." (Emphasis added.) The explicit exclusion of Indians from birthright citizenship was not repeated in the 14th Amendment because it was considered unnecessary. Although Indians were at least partially subject to U.S. jurisdiction, they owed allegiance to their tribes, not the United States. This reasoning -- divided allegiance -- applies equally to exclude the children of resident aliens, legal as well as illegal, from birthright citizenship. Indeed, today's regulations issued by the departments of Homeland Security and Justice stipulate:

"A person born in the United States to a foreign diplomatic officer accredited to the United States, as a matter of international law, is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. That person is not a United States citizen under the 14th Amendment."

Sen. Lyman Trumbull of Illinois was, Graglia writes, one of two "principal authors of the citizenship clauses in 1866 act and the 14th Amendment." He said that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant subject to its "complete" jurisdiction, meaning "not owing allegiance to anybody else." Hence children whose Indian parents had tribal allegiances were excluded from birthright citizenship.

Appropriately, in 1884 the Supreme Court held that children born to Indian parents were not born "subject to" U.S. jurisdiction because, among other reasons, the person so born could not change his status by his "own will without the action or assent of the United States." And "no one can become a citizen of a nation without its consent." Graglia says this decision "seemed to establish" that U.S. citizenship is "a consensual relation, requiring the consent of the United States." So: "This would clearly settle the question of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens. There cannot be a more total or forceful denial of consent to a person's citizenship than to make the source of that person's presence in the nation illegal."

Congress has heard testimony estimating that more than two-thirds of all births in Los Angeles public hospitals, and more than half of all births in that city, and nearly 10 percent of all births in the nation in recent years, have been to mothers who are here illegally. Graglia seems to establish that there is no constitutional impediment to Congress ending the granting of birthright citizenship to those whose presence here is "not only without the government's consent but in violation of its law." 
*

A recent Pew poll indicated that a very large percentage of Americans of Mexican descent regard themselves as Mexicans. Not Mexican-Americans, not American-Mexicans. Just Mexicans.

OBAMA’S AMERICA: Open & Undefended Borders AS HE SQUANDERS BILLIONS PROTECTING THE BORDERS OF MUSLIM DICTATORS

“What we're seeing is our Congress and national leadership dismantling our laws by not enforcing them. Lawlessness becomes the norm, just like Third World corruption. Illegal aliens now have more rights and privileges than Americans. If you are an illegal alien, you can drive a car without a driver's license or insurance. You may obtain medical care without paying. You may work without paying taxes. Your children enjoy free education at the expense of taxpaying Americans.”