Tag Archives: morality

Again, Racism on the Supreme Court

Posted on by
Reply

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is at it again.

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor rejected on Sunday the notion that alternatives to affirmative action such as income or residency could achieve similar results in diversifying the nation’s colleges and universities.

And

Sotomayor strongly backs affirmative action and wrote the dissent in April in a 6-2 decision that upheld a state’s right to outlaw the use of race in determining admissions.

Because Sotomayor insists on using race as a useful, somehow, discriminant in getting ahead.

She added, in so many words, that mere merit, just being actually qualified isn’t enough; she used “legacy” questions as her excuse [emphasis added]:

Look, we have legacy admissions. If your parents or your grandparents have been to that school, they’re going to give you an advantage in getting into the school again. Legacy admission is a wonderful thing because it means even if you’re not as qualified as others you’re going to get that slight advantage.

Because adding a second wrong corrects both wrongs. Of course we should have equal outcomes, regardless of qualification. Of course who you know and what color your skin is should be included in the determining factors. Minorities, this minority Justice insists, just don’t have what it takes to succeed without that special treatment.

It doesn’t get any clearer than this.

The Ground Zero Cross and Atheists

Posted on by
Reply

American Atheists filed suit three years ago against having this symbol included in the National September 11 Memorial Museum, which officially opened late last month. Their suit was tossed forthwith as baseless; US District Court Judge Deborah Batts wrote

No reasonable observer would view the artifact as endorsing Christianity. [The museum curators] have not advanced religion impermissibly, and the cross does not create excessive entanglement between the state and religion.

The group appealed to the Second Circuit which responded by instructing American Atheists actually to make a case and not just bellyache, and to do so by 14 July. In so instructing, the Appellate Court cited an amicus brief provided by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty which argued among other things that

Courts should not allow people to sue just because they claim to get “dyspepsia” over a historical artifact displayed in a museum.

As Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel for Religious Liberty noted,

Taking personal offense is not an injury that warrants invoking the power of the courts to shut down everything you disagree with. The Constitution is not a personal tool for censoring everyone’s beliefs but your own.

Indeed.

IRS and Internal Emails

Posted on by
Reply

Like a lot folks, I’m skeptical about the…accuracy…of the IRS’ lately claim that they can’t find Lois Lerner’s emails from before 2011.

My skepticism flows from a number of sources:

  • Why are they only now discovering the loss, a year after all that documentation was subpoenaed by House oversight committees?
  • The IRS claims a hard drive crash is at the heart of the loss—on what basis are we to believe that a single hard drive held all those documents?
  • The IRS’ hard drives—actually, the material stored on them—like all government hard drives/data, and like all such materials in the private, competitive sector, are backed up nightly: what are we to believe happened to all those backups?
  • Are we expected to believe that a professional IT crew would be so careless as to leave a single hard drive at the core of such a critical system? That they would leave all those backups at mercy of a single point of failure?

Note to those of you who believe the IRS’ claim: perhaps I can interest you in some beachfront property north of Santa Fe.

Iraqi Drama Catches US Off Guard

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the headline of a Wall Street Journal article, and I stole it. It’s here, too, because the headline says it all.

The quickly unfolding drama prompted a White House meeting Wednesday of top policy makers and military leaders who were caught off guard by the swift collapse of Iraqi security forces, officials acknowledged.

And

US military leaders said they had thought that Iraqi security forces’ efforts would be enough to slow ISIS’s advance. But those assumptions were proven wrong when Iraqi troops largely abandoned their posts.

Yet it’s not just about establishing ISIS in Sunni Iraq. Having moved to within a few 10s of miles of Baghdad, ISIS has announced its intent to move on and seize Shia Karbala and Najaf, hosts of two of the holiest shrines for Shiite Muslims, for the humiliation of the Shia in Iraq. And for the added fertile agricultural territory.

Why was the US caught off guard by this Iraqi collapse in the wake of the collapse going on in next-door Syria? Because no one in this administration has any clue at all concerning what’s going on—and why—outside the little choir of “advisors” President Barack Obama maintains in his coterie.

John Kerry’s False Dichotomy

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State John Kerry defended the trade of five top Taliban “generals” for the terrorist hostage Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl this way:

To leave an American behind, in the hands of people that torture him, cut off his head, do any number of things, and we would consciously choose to do that? That’s the other side of this equation. I don’t think anybody would think that is the appropriate thing to do.

Indeed, no one was thinking that, much less arguing it. The thrust of the criticism of the trade has centered on the trade, not on the idea of getting one of our own back; Kerry’s ascription to the contrary is facially false.

For instance, we could have worked a different deal, trading other prisoners, not from Gitmo, for the hostage Bergdahl.

We could have worked a different deal, trading something else for the hostage Bergdahl.

There’s reason to believe that we knew where Bergdahl was being held with enough specificity to just go get him.

Of course, Kerry knows that, which makes his “choice” a cynical and dishonest offering. The question is what does he gain with such claims? What can his boss, President Barack Obama do for him for this support of a bad effort? What does Kerry get directly for this?

Hmm….