Morning Coffee (153)

Greetings, Coffee Drinkers. It has been too long, by far. I have not been inspired to Brew in a long time, and I hope that my Drinker-ship will forgive my insolence. But I've been working on some other projects here and there. Needless to say, a lot has happened, and there's no way to cover it in one Brew. Hopefully you've checked out Publius's "Observation Post," as he's back up and running as well.

Supreme Court Nomination:
Certainly, you've heard about this SCOTUS nomination business. And I'm sure you've heard that Obama has nominated 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor. Prior to this nomination, you'll remember that much was made of Obama's alleged desire for a judge with "empathy." But this Brew isn't about whether or not she has "empathy," whatever that might mean for Justice.

Here's an introduction to the news on Judge Sotomayor:

"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." - Judge Sotomayor, 2001.

Sotomayor's quote is troubling. For one, it presents false logic. This being the case, it doesn't speak too highly of her intellect, which Robert Gibbs defended the other day by saying that her detractors, who argue that she hasn't the first class intellect necessary to be a Justice, didn't graduate summa cum laude from Princeton. I shouldn't have to point to the absurdity of Gibbs' argument as well, but I will. Very few people in history have graduated second at Princeton. This doesn't mean that they don't get to question the intellect or ability of someone serving for life as a Supreme Court Justice. Let me say that again: For Life. Back to the issue, however, Sotomayor's comment about the "richness of her [a Latina's] experience" is an intellectually insufficient explanation for someone's ability to come to any given, or in this case a better, conclusion.

Secondly, and I know that it's very difficult to even get around the inability to present a logical argument, were such a statement made by a pre-Chief Justice John Roberts, or any white male judge, their political careers would be effectively over. This would easily be a racist comment if made by the aforementioned demographic. But in this case, we're told (i.e. scolded) by Gibbs and others that everyone had better tread carefully. Gibbs says, "I think it is probably important for anybody involved in this debate to be exceedingly careful with the way in which they've decided to describe different aspects of this impending confirmation." Of course, the unspoken second clause to that sentence is, "unless you want to lose any gains you made in securing the Latin American vote, and appear to be a racist." This is a prime example of how you're a racist if you criticize, rightly or wrongly, a minority, but you're lauded if you criticize the "wisdom" of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Interesting double standard, if I do say so.

This is the entire point. Sotomayor may or may not be a so-called "activist judge," but one thing is certain: she was picked partially because to fight her confirmation would be politically inadvisable, or at the very least, must be done so in a very delicate manner. She's a perfect candidate, but maybe not in the usual sense; she's a perfect political candidate. She's a woman, Hispanic, relatively young (remember: lifetime appointment), and if you believe the news reports, has more judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the past 70 years (or 100 depending on the source). There are probably a dozen or more candidates who are equally qualified, but very few with Sotomayor's "unique" qualifications such as ethnicity, sex, and Cinderella story. But it's the ethnicity that makes it so hard for Republicans to fight her confirmation, or to do so with any zeal. Too much criticism and they will be labeled racists, and will lose any Hispanic votes they have gained, and will be unable to gain any more. You're seeing this label already.

I don't have a say in whether or not Sotomayor is confirmed, so I have no impetus to research her and make a coherent argument against her, although were she to be proven to have a history of statements like the one above, I'd question her ability to be a Justice. Thankfully, I'm not a GOP Senator, but if I were, I'd be hesitant to dig too deeply, like I might with a white male nominee. No one wants to be labeled a racist. But I will say that to avoid a rigorous discussion, even a heated one, about the confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice who will serve for life simply because our elected officials are afraid is absurd. It's another symptom of a broken, diseased system.

I've noticed a trend lately. A number of articles have stated that great discretion and deference is given to a President's choice for Judicial nominees. Charles Krauthammer, a conservative, has said as much, saying that Republicans should:

"Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds -- consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama -- that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences."

I agree that elections have consequences. And I respect Krauthammer's ability to write, and I respect some of his opinions (and frankly, he's a far better man to represent the GOP than is Rush Limbaugh). But the notion that the President should be given deference in his nominations is ludicrous. The Constitution says nothing about granting deference to a President in this regard. It doesn't even imply deference. This is what Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution says:

[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

This clause does not say, "The President shall nominate and the Senate should sorta mull the situation and then confirm the President's first choice." It's the Senate's duty to rigorously investigate any Supreme Court nominee by any President. This means to take the above illogical statement made by Sotomayor in 2001, and consider that in the context of her entire career. Anything less and they've failed us, their employers. Anything less and they're not fit for their jobs as Senators.

This article by David Paul Kuhn describes some of the issues at play with this nomination, but also with what some call "positive discrimination", which is basically white males not getting jobs they're otherwise qualified for were it not for being white and having a penis. One could argue that this happened in the Ricci v.DeStefano, a case upon which Judge Sotomayor ruled.

Speaking of ethnicity and sex, see this article about a group at the University of Chicago called Men in Power. It's somewhat interesting.

Power to the Powerful:
Would you like another sign that our system is showing advanced signs of decay? Read this article.

In it, you'll get to read about how the President (any) travels to political functions, and we taxpayers, or those of us forever in debt bondage, pay for it. This week President Obama attended two fundraising events, one for Harry Reid in Las Vegas and another for a donor dinner in Los Angeles. For those counting, that's two different cities in two different states. But this is all classified as official travel, because in between those events he attended some public event where he spoke about energy. Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union (can they organize a strike?) estimated that the "non-public" portion of the trip from Vegas to LA and back cost at least $265,000. This is because the President's travel package consists of Air Force One, the back up AF1, and a C-17.

The rules governing travel are sort of convoluted. The Air Force pays for the cost of operating the aircraft, but the government reimburses for airfare, etc. Strange. Equally strange is the fact that the reimbursements never equal the actual costs. For example, campaign stops by Bush and Cheney incurred $6.5 million in expenses, of which their campaigns reimbursed to the government $198,000. We taxpayers paid the rest, or roughly $6.3 million. We're paying for their reelection, and not through regular political donations. In other words, I am paying the President's bill to go stump for Harry Reid. I'm paying for Reid's campaign, to some degree. Just the same, I was paying for Bush and Cheney's reelection (and other Republicans), despite not giving their campaigns one red cent.

As the article states, "watchdog groups don't suggest that the President shouldn't travel, or even that he shouldn't travel to political events." Well, they might not say it, but I will. Taxpayer dollars should be spent solely for the business of the government. Reelection funds, campaign speeches, dinners, etc, are not government business. How is this so hard for watchdog groups to understand? I don't want the White House to be more forthcoming with travel expenses, as does Pete Sepp's group. I want the President to be legally barred from attending any such events on the taxpayers' dime. If he wants to attend, he can do so out of his own campaign funds or by using his own money, and he can charter a plane to do so. Air Force One should not be used for such things, even if the Air Force is completely reimbursed. I will grudgingly concede that safety is an issue, so if Air Force One is necessary, then the President must reimburse in total. Harry Reid's challengers haven't the ability to have their supporters flown in on taxpayer funded aircraft.

All told, the stops, one of which cost couples $30,400 to attend and was followed by a cheaper event so that the plebeians could also give money to their leaders, pulled in $5-6 million for Reid and the Democratic Party. Not a bad haul; all the President needed to do was make some minor remarks on energy policy and it was all official business.

So Convoluted, Even the President Can't Understand it:
Our government bureaucracy is so mind-numbingly complex that even the Commander in Chief doesn't know about all the agencies which make it up. Yesterday, the President took a trip to a burger joint and had a brief exchange with Walter (LNU) during which Obama asked Walter what he did for a living. Here's the exchange:

Obama: What do you do Walter?
Walter: I work at, uh, NGA, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency
Obama: Outstanding, how long you been doing that?
Walter: About six years
Obama: Yea?
Walter: Yes.
Obama: You like it?
Walter: I do, keeps me...
Obama: So explain to me exactly what this National Geospatial...uh...
Walter: Uh, we work with, uh, satellite imagery..
Obama: Right
Walter: [unintelligible] ...support systems, so...
Obama: Sounds like good work.
Walter: Enjoy the weekend.
Obama: Appreciate it.

Intelligence professionals will know what NGA is and what the agency does. I'm conflicted about whether or not a President should know. He is, on one hand, the boss of this agency (and many, many others). Is it important if he doesn't know? Probably not. I just found it humorous, is all.

Personal Reflections:
For those of you who read regularly, you'll know that the Brewer only rarely delves into his personal life. I find that it's generally not important to the task at hand, that is Brewing Coffee. I am also of the opinion that you don't come here to read about me. This is fair, and this is how I'd prefer it to be.

But today I am going to make a brief exception. I would like to talk about my uncle, with whom I have been fairly close most of my life. He and my father were together my heroes growing up. Holidays were complete only after hearing them regale me with stories of youthful bravado; their stories were the stories of my clan; their legacy to me. I would be enthralled, enchanted by hearing them speak of their youth. The three of us spent a lot of time together, around the table talking drinking coffee, mine with milk and sugar. But also outside, hunting and fishing. Virtually everything I know about the outdoors is because of my father and my uncle.

My uncle is also among the funniest men I've ever known. His repository of jokes, many of which are dirty, must number in the millions. I am a poor teller of jokes, for I can almost never remember them. But my uncle can tell them all day long. He captures you in the story, and hits you with the punchline. Rarely has he told the same joke twice, but when he did, it was like the first time you'd ever heard it.

He also loves kids. Far more than I do. And kids love him. Growing up, there were always plenty of kids around, and my uncle always made them laugh. I'll never forget the smile on his face when I showed him a picture of my newest son.

I'm writing though, because my uncle has terminal cancer. He is 59. There really isn't much else to say at the moment. I am not a religious man, and will never pretend to be. But I ask that you might keep him in your thoughts. Pray for him if you like. Sacrifice a pig or a bull if that's what you choose. More importantly, appreciate the time you have with those who you are close to. Build up those fond memories like an unbreachable fortress, for when you must see them off, your fond memories are what remain.

Word of the Day: Iniquitous (adj): Characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

On This Day in History: Andrew Jackson kills Charles Dickinson in a duel (1806). The Lincoln Memorial is dedicated (1922). The remains of two unidentified American servicemembers are buried at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in Arlington National Cemetery (1958).

"Told me you loved me, that I'd never die alone. Hand over your heart, let's go home. Everyone knowed it, everyone has seen the signs. I've always been known to cross lines. I never ever cried when I was feeling down. I've always been scared of the sound. Jesus don't love me, no one ever carried my load. I'm too young to feel this old. Here's to you, here's to me, on to us, nobody knows. Nobody sees. Nobody but me." - "Cold Desert," Kings of Leon.