We all could guess, easily, that any judge knows damn well that it is against the law to lie while testifying when under oath. Most judges will get you for that and cause unpleasant circumstances for your person and/or your bank account.
So . . . what do we do with a judge who blatantly lies while they are under oath? Should they be promoted to a higher position? Should they be charged with the felony and taken off of the bench completely? What?
The instant topic, of course, is Judge Sonia Sotomayor and her Senate hearing for the Supreme Court. According to Fox News yesterday:
She said her work as a judge for 17 years does not show any "liberal instincts" in the cases she officiated over. "If he was talking about the fact that I served on a particular board that promoted equal opportunity for people, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, then you could talk about that being a liberal instinct in the sense that I promote equal opportunity in America and the attempts to assure that," Sotomayor said.
Sigh . . . I guess she thinks that her opposition to Constitutional rights, like our Second Amendment rights, our right to freely contract, and her propensity for supporting special rights for special groups, doesn’t count as liberal positions for the purpose of the Supreme Court hearings.
Senate Republican turncoat Arlen Specter was quoted saying that his fear is that Sonia Sotomayor may say one thing at her confirmation hearing and do another as the next Supreme Court justice. Really? Wow, such insight from a Democrat, eh?
"Is there anything the Senate or Congress can do if a nominee says one thing seated at that table and does something exactly the opposite once they walk across the street?" he asked Sotomayor Wednesday during Day 3 of her confirmation hearings as she seeks to become the first Hispanic to sit on the high court.
Yes, Senator, there is something that should be done: Charge her with perjury for all the lies she has already told while under oath and kick her butt out of the judiciary forevermore. After all, she has an extensive written record to fall back on.
Have you no ethics whatsoever in the Senate? Don’t you even care when judges tell obvious lies while under oath?
Oh wait . . . I guess y’all answered my ethics question during the Clinton impeachment trial, huh.
2 comments:
The conduct of the House and Senate Democrates of late shows too little intrest in the citizens they represent and too much intrest in their political party. Party first is a bad way to go. I am to the point where I would like the govenors to go back to appointing senators. This would help allow the senators to actually represent their state instead of a party that supports their campaign.
I agree with both points.
Thanks for your comment.
Post a Comment