Thursday, May 28, 2009

The Larger Vehicle is Always at Fault

A long time ago in a…

Back when I was a young police officer I turned in a report on a traffic accident which I’d been dispatched to investigate. A little later I was called to the Accident Division where my work came into question by one of the supervisors. He wanted to know why I’d found the driver of a small car at fault in the accident and issued him a ticket instead of finding the dump truck driver at fault.

I explained how the dump truck driver hadn’t done anything wrong, that the small car had changed lanes trying to make an illegal turn in front of the truck. I was told, “The larger vehicle is always at fault.”

I had sense enough not to argue and left it up to the supervisor to make what ever changes he figured needed to be made to the report. That was over thirty years ago and I still hold to my belief, idiots float to the surface and become supervisors because they haven’t the sense to be street officers.

We have a president of the United States of America pushing for a replacement to the Supreme Court; but he wants to make it clear that the downtrodden will be represented by one who has empathy for them. Exactly what does that do for the rule of law and the premise that justice is blind?

Maybe Obama believes, as did that idiot supervisor in Accident Division, “The larger vehicle is always at fault.” Obama has been apologizing all over the place for the evils caused by America, the super power. Obama wants to alter the landscape of America with “Change”.

During Obama’s run for the Oval Office he blurted out a line which I tucked away in my file box, a curious thought which should make anyone not strung out on drugs sit up and take notice of his intentions.

“My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.”

I recognize how our nation has drifted away from the original intent of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights; a little loss of individual rights here and there, government’s whittling away God given individual rights in favor of wealth redistribution from those who have earned that wealth to entitlements to those who believe that class envy is more important than paying your own way. The degradation of private ownership toward collectivism in order to satisfy greed and power has empowered those in office by taking advantage of the premise that lazy people will vote for those who promise the most entitlements for the least amount of effort.

The balance of powers established to keep the legislative branch, executive branch and judicial branch in check has been eroding steadily; almost as if they were meeting in a back room to keep the public from being able to keep tabs. If these three branches fail to police themselves the fabric of our Constitution and Republican form of government has little chance of survival.

The legislative branch long ago quit trying to write laws which fit within the confines of the Constitution. The judicial branch quit trying to enforce the limiting effects of the Constitution as bill after bill got rubber stamp approval even though these bills disregarded individual rights in favor of “making life better for the little guy who never had a chance”, evening out that which was, as the wealth envy strategists have successfully promoted, disproportionally and unfairly lined the pockets of the rich at the expense of the poor.
The Executive branch has jumped in feet first with the idea of replacing the rule of law with “empathy”, another nail in the coffin of individual liberty which has all but destroyed the foundations upon which America was established.

You wanted “change”; well, it sure looks like a train wreck to me. So, who should get the blame; remember, “The larger vehicle is always at fault.”

Contrary to the old sign, “The buck stops here”, a sign on President Truman’s desk; the job of protecting individual rights lands squarely on the Supreme Court’s determination to have the legislative branch and the executive branch adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. If these folks are not steadfast in their duty to protect individual rights under the Constitution, without showing favor one way or the other; then we as a nation are doomed to the consequences.

It’s bad enough having a congress with an approval rating lower than the local dog catcher and a president willing to sell the country into monetary slavery for the next hundred years; but a line in the sand must be drawn when it comes to Supreme Court justices.

That brings me to the problematic issue of Sonia Sotomayor being considered for appointment to the Supreme Court. I think it’s wonderful how she has risen to positions of respectability within the judicial system through hard work and self determination; however, and please don’t play the race card for my next statement, her being Hispanic or a female should have absolutely nothing to do with qualifying for a seat on the Supreme Court.

I find Sotomayor’s politically charged statements alarming and consider them as automatically disqualifying her for any consideration to a position which is charged, by oath, to support the Constitution. With that same set of values, the oath to support the Constitution; where is the demand for impeachment of President Obama for having declared a desire to undermine that same Constitution by his bold request to have impartiality replaced with “empathy” for those less fortunate and of humble birth? Isn’t that the same as saying, “The larger vehicle is always at fault”?

Sonia Sotomayor has been quoted as saying; a self qualifier for a seat on the Supreme Court, if you will:

“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.”

Where’s the outcry from national news media outlets screaming at the outlandish racism included in such a statement? What if, as Gregg over at Rhymes With Right posted earlier , this same sort of statement were uttered by a white person seeking appointment to the Supreme Court? There would be riots in the street after the drive by media eviscerated and crucified any non minority individual for such a blatantly racist remark.

“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Hispanic woman who hasn’t lived that life.”

I apologize for being so ignorant; it’s perfectly acceptable to be a racist bigot as long as your skin isn’t white. What was I thinking?

I don’t care if you’re a conservative, liberal, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or Independent; if you value the most basic Constitutional protections afforded individuals here in the United States of America, the last person any of us wants sitting on the Supreme Court would be a political activist who has already stated for the record how she intends to interpret the Constitution, with a preamble to include a bias for the down trodden or persons of color.

Do we really want a Supreme Court justice determining important issues with partiality based on the color of an individual’s skin, perceived standing in the community based on the amount of money they make, religious belief or any other issue outside the facts as pertain to the written law of the land?

I don’t know about you; but I’d prefer to keep the blind fold on “lady justice” as that would seem the only way to preserve what’s left of the law and the Constitution.

No comments: