Rule of Law or Rule of Judges–Yakkety Yak–You Know–It Takes A Racist To Appoint A Racist–Respect!

Posted on May 26, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Economics, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Regulations, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |



“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”

~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes


“I am certain nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after the mirage of social justice.”

~Friedrich A. Hayek  


Tiny Toon – Yakkety Yak


Sotomayor: Judges make policy


Sonia Sotomayor: Courts make policy full clip


Obama appoints a racists to the supreme court


Obama on Supreme Court and other Appointees


Obama makes nomination announcement for Supreme Court


Sotomayor: A Supreme Case of Discrimination


Rush Limbaugh “Judge Sotomayor is a Reversed Racist”


Karl Rove on Sonia Sotomayor


Obama : Supreme Court Justices


Obama on Supreme Court Nominations, President Won Election Does Not Mean He Gets His Judge


JUST SURFACED! The Obama “Socialism” Interview Tapes


Judges should interpret the law and not legislate from the bench.

The rule of law is first and foremost about general rules known in advance concerned with human interactions.

Justice Holmes viewed his role as a judge was “to see that the game is played according to the rules whether I like them or not.”

Hayek makes a distinction between two types of law, law that is discovered and becomes the rule of law or legal framework and legislation that is designed and invented.

Most legislation today are directives or commands to bureaucrats:

“…Legislation, the deliberate making of law, has justly been described as among all inventions of man the one fraught with the gravest consequences, more far-reaching in its effects even than fire and gun-powder.  Unlike law itself, which has never been ‘invented’ in the same sense, the invention of legislation came relatively late in the history of mankind.  It gave into the hands of men an instrument of great power which they needed to achieve some good, but which they have not yet learned so to control that it may not produce great evil. …”

Friedrich A. Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty: Rules and Order (Vol. 1, 1973), p. 72:

While it is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret law, it is not the role of the Supreme Court to make policy or to legislate.

President Obama, as does his Supreme Court justice nominee, believes that judges should legislate from the bench and provide social justice.

This is not the traditional role of the court envisioned by the Founders.

The rule of law and not the rule of judges means that general rules are known in advance and are applied generaly to both the ruled and rulers.

The rule of law is incompatible with the rule of judges that seek to impose their own rules in regard to social justice and policy.

Judges who use their position to legislate from the bench are evading the limits of government power established by the Constitution of the United States.

Unfortunately, both President Obama and his nominee, want to subvert the constraints of the Constitution.

For this reason alone, the nominee should be opposed by all who believe in the Constitution and value their liberty.

Obama’s Supreme Court Pick, Sonia Sotomayor

When you add the nominee’s racist comments:

“…I 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.”

 President Obama’s reveals his own racism learned in the pews listening and applauding the black racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Jeremiah Wright (Barack Obama’s Mentor) – Hillary Clinton ain’t never been called….


Both Republicans and Democrats should oppose President Obama’s nominee for Supreme Court Justice. 


Tiny Toons – Respect


“When we know what the source of the law has said it shall be, our authority is at an end.”

~Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes

“…Nothing distinguishes more clearly conditions in a free country from those in a country under arbitrary government than the observance in the former of the great principle know as the Rule of Law. Stripped of all technicalities, this means that government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand — rules which make it possible to foresee with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge …”

~Friedrich A. Hayek 



Background Articles and Videos

SCOTUS pick: Sonia Sotomayor

By Michelle Malkin 

“…So, it’s Sonia Sotomayor. Identity politics triumphs. Here’s the bio/record info I shared at the beginning of the month:


“Judge Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court would be very concerning given her hard-left record on the Court of Appeals, where she is recognized by practitioners as one of the more liberal judges.

-Judge Sotomayor’s personal views may cloud her jurisprudence. As Judge Sotomayor explained in a 2002 speech at Berkeley, she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color” in their decisionmaking, which she believes should “affect our decisions.”

-Only just recently, in Ricci v. DeStefano, Judge Sotomayor was chastised by fellow Clinton-appointee Jose Cabranes for going to extraordinary lengths to dispense with claims of unfair treatment raised by firefighters. Judge Sotomayor’s panel heard a case raising important questions under Title VII and equal protection law, but attempted to dispose of the firefighter’s arguments in a summary order, until called out by Judge Cabranes. The Supreme Court has agreed to review the case.

-Substantial questions also persist regarding Judge Sotomayor’s temperament and disposition to be a Supreme Court justice. Lawyers who have appeared before her have described her as a “bully” who “does not have a very good temperament,” and who “abuses lawyers” with “inappropriate outbursts.”

And here’s the rundown on Obama’s SCOTUS choice from Wendy Long at the Judicial Confirmation Network: …”


Sonia Sotomayor


“… Sonia Sotomayor is a federal appeals judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit based in New York City. She was nominated to this position by Bill Clinton on June 25, 1997 and received her commission on October 7, 1998. [1]

On Tuesday, May 26, 2009, the Associated Press reported that Barack Obama will announce during the day that he has chosen Sotomayor for the seat on the Supreme Court of the United States that is becoming vacant because of David Souter‘s announced retirement.[2],[3],[4],[5] [6],[7],[8].

As of 9:30 AM-EDT on May 26, 2009 FOX News[9] and CNN[10] have confirmed AP reports that Sotomayor has been nominated. A 10:15 AM EDT press conference has been scheduled at the White House.

For a link to the press conference of the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor CLICK HERE

Sotomayor, who grew up in a public housing project in the Bronx, is of Puerto Rican descent. Her father was a manual laborer who did not attend high school and who died when Sotomayor was nine years old, a year after she was diagnosed with juvenile diabetes. Her mother, a nurse, supported Sotomayor’s educational goals. Sotomayor, who is divorced, has no children.[11]

If Sotomayor is appointed to the court, she will be the third woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court (after O’Connor and Ginsburg) as well as the court’s first justice of Hispanic descent.[12]

There is general agreement that Sotomayor would be a “reliably liberal” vote on the nation’s high court, if she is appointed. At the same time, she is not considered to be a “favorite of the left”.[13] Sotomayor has been described as both outspoken and “quite brash” on the bench–characteristics that could help her carve out a place in the high octane environment of the nation’s highest court.[12]

Oliver Wendell Holmes

“…Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. (March 8, 1841 – March 6, 1935) was an American jurist who served on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1902 to 1932. Noted for his long service, his concise and pithy opinions, and his deference to the decisions of elected legislatures, he is one of the most widely cited United States Supreme Court justices in history, particularly for his “clear and present danger” majority opinion in the 1919 case of Schenck v. United States, and is one of the most influential American common-law judges. …”,_Jr.


Friedrich von Hayek

Friedrich August von Hayek CH (8 May 1899 – 23 March 1992) was an Austrian (and, after 1938, British) economist, philosopher and intellectual known throughout the world for his arguments about the ability of prices to aggregate knowledge, promoting classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought. He is considered to be one of the most important economists and political philosophers of the twentieth century,[1] One of the most influential members of the Austrian School of economics and mainstream economics,[2] he also made significant contributions in the fields of jurisprudence and cognitive science.

He shared the 1974 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics with Gunnar Myrdal “for their pioneering work in the theory of money and economic fluctuations and for their penetrating analysis of the interdependence of economic, social and institutional phenomena.”[3] He also received the U.S. Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1991.[4]

Hayek lived in Austria, Great Britain, the United States and Germany, and became a British subject in 1938. …”


Advice on Consent
By the Editors

“…Judge Sonia Sotomayor is female, Hispanic, liberal, and mediocre. Conservatives should draw attention to the third adjective while understanding that the first two are likely to be politically decisive during her confirmation hearings.

Sotomayor’s liberalism would not constitute a reason for denying her a seat on the Supreme Court if it merely consisted of a set of policy positions identical to those of the Senate’s 15 most liberal members. Unfortunately, liberalism has for some time now incorporated a tacit judicial philosophy in which the goal is to impose policies as left-wing as a judge can get away with. Sotomayor seems to march to that beat. More to the point, perhaps, she has shown no signs of marching to any other one.

Judges who decide cases in this manner abuse their office and undermine the rule of law. They also generate policies that are harmful to our economy, dangerous to our national security, and destructive to our social fabric. Liberal activism on the bench has these effects even when the offending judges are geniuses. The nominee’s approach to judging is more important than her IQ, and it is on that subject that senators ought to be trying to shed light. And they should take their time doing it. Thanks to years of activism, Supreme Court justices have more power than most senators. We should spend at least as much time learning how they would exercise it as we do for Senate candidates. …”


Will GOP Senators stand up against Obama SCOTUS pick?

Rick Moran

“…We are probably just hours away from an announcement of a Supreme Court nominee by Obama and it’s not clear at this point just how vigorously the GOP will oppose the almost certain liberal pick by the president.

This Politico piece by Andy Coller and Daniel Libit points out the differing philosophies of the Republicans and Democrats when it comes to SCOTUS nominations:

Conservatives remember Sen. Ted Kennedy’s ferocious attack on “Robert Bork’s America,” the pubic-hair-on-the-Coke-can humiliations visited upon Clarence Thomas and the way that Samuel Alito’s wife cried after Sen. Lindsey Graham recounted the Democrats’ charges against her husband.

Echoing a widely held conservative belief, the Heritage Foundation’s Michael Franc says the two sides just do things differently. “Liberal senators come to a battle over judicial nominations armed with submachine guns,” he said, “and conservatives come with pen knives.” …”

Conservatives itching for SCOTUS fight


“…While conservatives know that they can’t defeat Obama’s nominee without massive Democratic defections, they nevertheless want to see their senators come out with their guns blazing.


“Republicans in the House have gone a long way [toward satisfying conservatives] with votes on the stimulus,” says Gary Bauer, president of the anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage group American Values. “But when it comes to the Senate, there are still a lot of people not convinced that … what people expect is for them to carry the banner of our philosophy as boldly and with as much confidence as the other side does.”


“The other side does not agonize about whether they are going to give a Republican Supreme Court nominee a difficult time, they just do it.”

F.A. Hayek Volume 1

Friedrich A. Hayek’s libertarian treatise
Law, Legislation and Liberty:

“…Volume 1 deals with the relationship between law and liberty in a free society. The three main tenets of Hayek’s discussion are: there are differences between the spontaneous order that exists within society as opposed to the “made” order of organizations; the laws and rules imposed by organizations limit the freedom of individuals when juxtaposed to the natural laws that exist within a larger society; and autocracy develops when organizations attempt to impose “made” order into society. In short, Hayek asserts, “freedom can be preserved only by following principles and is destroyed by following expediency.” …”


The Supreme Court high hurdles contest

By Michelle Malkin  •  May 27, 2009 09:33 AM





Able to leap tall life obstacles in a single bound!

Not all “compelling personal stories” are equal
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2009

“…Clever. Challenging Sotomayor’s credentials and extreme views on race and the law is not merely anti-Hispanic. It’s anti-American!

More significantly, Sen. McCaskill waved the high-hurdle card after being asked to defend Sotomayor’s infamous statement at a 2001 University of California at Berkeley speech asserting brown-skin moral authority: “I 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.” McCaskill actually denied that Sotomayor had make the remarks, then argued the words were taken out of context.

You want context? It’s even worse than that soundbite. As National Journal legal analyst Stuart Taylor reported, “Sotomayor also referred to the cardinal duty of judges to be impartial as a mere ‘aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.’ And she suggested that ‘inherent physiological or cultural differences’ may help explain why ‘our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.’” The full speech was reprinted in something called the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal. “La Raza” is Spanish for “The Race.” Imagine if a white male Republican court nominee had published in a law review called “The Race.”

The selective elevation of hardship-as-primary qualification demeans the entire judiciary. If personal turmoil makes one “incredibly qualified to pass judgment on some of the most important cases in our country,” let’s put reality-show couple Jon and Kate Gosselin on the bench. Millions of viewers tune in to watch their “compelling personal story” of life with eight children on television. It’s a “richly, uniquely American experience” of facing obstacles and overcoming the odds. Get them robes and gavels, stat. …”



The Case Against Sotomayor by Jeffrey Rosen
Indictments of Obama’s front-runner to replace Souter.
Post Date Monday, May 04, 2009

“…But despite the praise from some of her former clerks, and warm words from some of her Second Circuit colleagues, there are also many reservations about Sotomayor. Over the past few weeks, I’ve been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court. Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative.


The most consistent concern was that Sotomayor, although an able lawyer, was “not that smart and kind of a bully on the bench,” as one former Second Circuit clerk for another judge put it. “She has an inflated opinion of herself, and is domineering during oral arguments, but her questions aren’t penetrating and don’t get to the heart of the issue.” (During one argument, an elderly judicial colleague is said to have leaned over and said, “Will you please stop talking and let them talk?”) Second Circuit judge Jose Cabranes, who would later become her colleague, put this point more charitably in a 1995 interview with The New York Times: “She is not intimidated or overwhelmed by the eminence or power or prestige of any party, or indeed of the media.” …”



Sotomayor: “Empathy” in Action

by Thomas Sowell

“…The Supreme Court of the United States is in effect operating on the heart of our nation– the Constitution and the statutes and government policies that all of us must live under.

Barack Obama’s repeated claim that a Supreme Court justice should have “empathy” with various groups has raised red flags that we ignore at our peril– and at the peril of our children and grandchildren.

“Empathy” for particular groups can be reconciled with “equal justice under law”– the motto over the entrance to the Supreme Court– only with smooth words. But not in reality. President Obama used those smooth words in introducing Judge Sotomayor but words do not change realities. …” 


Obamas Fascists America


Levin on Obama and Supreme Court Justices 1


Levin on Obama and Supreme Court Justices 2


Levin on Obama and Supreme Court Justices 3


Levin on Obama and Supreme Court Justices 4


Levin on Obama and Supreme Court Justices 5


Barack Obama: The US Constitution Is “Imperfect”






Supreme Court Nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s Statement


BARACK OBAMA Pastor ANTI-AMERICAN Rev Jeremiah Wright Racism


Part 1: Rev. Jeremiah Wright In His Own Words


Part 2: Rev. Jeremiah Wright In His Own Words


Part 3: Rev. Jeremiah Wright In His Own Words


Charles Krauthammer on Jeremiah Wright


Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Rule of Law or Rule of Man–Supreme Court Cracking The Constitution?

Obama–Ayers–Chicago Annenberg Challenge–ACORN–Radical Socialists–Terrorist Bombers–Videos

Outting Obama: Radical Racist Rabble Rouser Reader

Voters Beware: The Radical Rules of Saul Alinsky and Leftist Democrats

Obama–ACORN–CRA–Congress–Democratic Party–Fannie Mae–Freddie Mac–Bailout–Socialism– Just Say No!

ACORN–Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now–Obama’s Red Shirts

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Barack Obama: The First Previable Puppet Presidential Candidate!

Barack Obama–A Reader Not A Leader!

Barack Obama–Damaged Goods–Birds of A Feather Flock Together

Make a Comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

2 Responses to “Rule of Law or Rule of Judges–Yakkety Yak–You Know–It Takes A Racist To Appoint A Racist–Respect!”

RSS Feed for Pronk Palisades Comments RSS Feed

[…] Rule of Law or Rule of Judges–Yakkety Yak–You Know–It Takes A Racist To Appoint A Racist–Re… […]

[…] Racist! John Romano, Big Hollywood: Race Only Matters When it Favors Democrats Pronk Palisades: Rule of Law or Rule of Judges–Yakkety Yak–You Know–It Takes A Racist To Appoint A Racist! Politico: White House urged to address ‘racist’ charge Greg Gutfeld, Big Hollywood: […]

Where's The Comment Form?

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...

%d bloggers like this: