Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Sotomayor to SCOTUS?

CNN and MSNBC are reporting that President Obama will nominate 54-year-old federal appeals court judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace retiring Justice David Souter.

Sotomayor, who would become the first Hispanic member of the Court if confirmed, was appointed to the federal bench by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and to the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals by President Clinton in 1997. She was widely considered a leading candidate when the Supreme Court vacancy was announced, but was the target of harsh criticism from mostly anonymous sources early on in the selection process.

UPDATE: Additional sourcing on the nomination can be found here. The last couple of sentences are interesting: I'd never thought of Justice Cardozo as being Hispanic; but according to the article, "some scholars contend" that he was. It would seem to be a fairly simple question to resolve, but apparently there's some doubt.


Cossio said...

Told you so. Hispanic AND Female. That puts two check marks in the liberal PC checklist.

I know how these people think.

Why choose someone who knows what they are doing when you can choose an average appellate judge who writes lackluster opinions? Who got to fill that quota.

This is Affirmative Action being imposed on the Supreme Court itself.

Anonymous said...

Cossio - take a moment to read Tom Goldstein's post regarding the nominee on SCOTUSBlog. My hunch is your argument does not stand on principle, but on a more mundane foundation. Any time I see the phrase, "You people," or "Those people," I recognize the following argument most likely stems from preconceived notions or bias, and not coherent reasoning. There may be real disagreement concerning the nominee's judicial philosophy, but to credit her nomination to affirmative action overlooks her impressive accomplishments to date. Likewise, until someone proves to me, objectively, that she is an "average appellate judge who writes lackluster opinions," I'll asume this is merely the parroting of subjective viewpoints from those who just do not want to see her on the bench.
I cannot say yet whether I support Judge Sotomayor's nomination, but I can say I will be honest and objective in making that decision.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Hispanics were invented until sometime later in the 20th Century.

Anonymous said...

***Any time I see the phrase, "You people," or "Those people," I recognize the following argument most likely stems from preconceived notions or bias, and not coherent reasoning.***

Either this is a high level of sarcasm or you have some thinking issues.

For the last three weeks we have seen all sorts of high level leaks from the Obama White House about how Soto will check off two blocks.

The woman herself has made comments that are both racist and sexist. Even worse, she has indicated that she will rule from the bench as a hispanic woman.

I, and most military/justice people, believe in one standard before the law no matter the race or gender of the party. Soto does not. She is 'one of those people'.

Cloudesley Shovell said...

Wow. Two, possibly three comments out of four that do more to reflect upon the character of the commenter than anything else. I think it is a new CAAFlog record.

I'm just hoping for something else big and exciting to happen to take some attention off the appalling expense account scandal in Parliament (prompting the first Speaker resignation since 1695). Maybe the Denedo opinion will do the trick.

aew said...

Some of Cardozo's ancestors were Portuguese Jews who immigrated to Britain's North American colonies in the 1740s and 1750s from Portugal via the Netherlands and England.

Anonymous said...

She currently has Arar v. Ashcroft under consideration, re: money damages sought for a conspiracy to commit torture abroad. It's an en banc panel of the 2d Circuit.

Does she still get to vote in that? If the en banc oral argument is any indication, it will be a split decision over whether the national security interests are sufficient to sustain a 12(b)(6).

Cossio said...

I would imagine if Ashcroft isn't taken care of it'll be a standard..." XXX did not participate in this opinoin" or " XXX participated prior to assignment" as you see in other jurisdictions, I do not think she is obligated to put her two cents in.

I am excited that a couple of Anons came to my defense.

Let's be clear: This woman has made rascist remarks that Latinos make better judges.

Now imagine if Chief Justice Roberts said that whites make better Judges, I wonder how for he would have went into conformation.

This radical is clearly an activist Judge who thinks judges should Ursurp the role of the legistlator.

Now interesting enough, this rascist Judge in a one-paragraph opinoin dismissed a case of reverse discrimination dealing with white employes:


Possible Obama Supreme Court Pick Slapped Down Reverse Discrimination Case in One-Paragraph Opinion
Friday, May 08, 2009

(CNSNews.com) – U.S. Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, mentioned as a possible Supreme Court nominee, voted to deny a racial discrimination claim in a 2008 decision. She dismissed the case in a one-paragraph statement that, in the opinion of one dissenting judge, ignored the evidence and did not even address the constitutional issues raised by the case.

Read More


So in response to the one Anon, yes, I know all too well about these people's lackluster opinoins.

Leftist are usually hypocritical.

Cossio said...

Not to mention that she's probably gay too.

Cossio said...

Now Now, Now, it's really school yard antincs to post a comment under my name.

If the Admin would kindly remove the last statement, it would be much obliged.

Cossio said...

No, he's the imposter! Remove him!

Anonymous said...


She has been has been descibed as pretty left wing. Usually those types are pretty pro-criminal rights, don't you think that will help you in your appeal? Surely, she is more favorable than Scalia, Roberts, or Alito?


John O'Connor said...

I'm with Anon 2055.

We can't have any lefty justices because they're for wealth redistribution. But, say, Cossio, weren't you convicted of a slightly more direct form of wealth redistribution?

Anonymous said...

Are you referring to conviction #1 or conviction #2?

Anonymous said...

I think JOC was referring to court-martial #1....In court-martial #2 Cossio was wrongly convicted of unlawful threats....He was of course totally framed; because, I myself couldn't image Cossio threatening anyone??

Anonymous said...

He terrorizes the English language every time he posts. Zing!

Christopher Mathews said...

Commenter aew is correct that Justice Cardozo was of Portuguese descent. According to this article, however, Cardozo can't be counted as the first Hispanic member of the Court.

The term "Hispanic" apparently is reserved by the OMB for "persons who trace their origin or descent to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, Central and South America, and other Spanish cultures." Portugal, while located on the Iberian peninsula, is not a "Spanish culture."

Discerning denizens of our fair blog will no doubt immediately spot the Brazil-sized hole in the OMB definition, but I think my ability to care about this issue has run out.

Anonymous said...

But, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines Hispanic to include, "persons of Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Dominican, Central or South American, or others Spanish or Portuguese culture or origin, regardless of race."

This definition has been adopted by the Small Business Administration as well as many federal, state, and municipal agencies for the purposes of awarding government contracts to minority owned businesses.

The 1970 Census was the first time that a "Hispanic" identifier was used and data collected with the question.

Anonymous said...

As many people here know, for college sports (the NCAA) the racial vetting panel is the Black Coaches and Adminstrators (BCA). I believe that for most of the American public they are the highest priority racial judgment panel.

In the University of Michigan Football Coach interview case, the panel ruled that although they follow the 'one drop of hispanic blood' rule, there is no evidence that any of the Head Football Coach Rich Rodriguez's family had mated with any Central or South American peoples and that therefore he has no hispanic blood.

That meant that the University violated NCAA race rules by failing to interview a hispanic for the job, because the job was offered directly to RichRod.

Unknown said...

How this nominee will view criminal cases is the most relevant issue for discussion on this forum. I haven't seen a lot of Judge Sotomayor's decisions. I was intrigued by the description of her as "pro-criminal", I went to Lexis and looked up some cases. What I found is not exactly the work product of a advocate for criminality.

Prior to serving on the bench, Judge Sotomayor had an extensive background as a prosecutor. She was nominated to the Federal trial bench by that notorious liberal, George H.W. Bush.

A sampling of the criminal cases that have been before her either in the trial court or appeals court show her:

- rejecting a criminal defendant's attempt to apply Apprendi retroactively in a collateral challenge to his conviction by habeas.

-having been overturned by the appellate court for ordering restitution in a tax case where the PTA did not include restitution-apparently she was too mean to the defendant.

-Being the subject of a sec 1983 claim by a criminal defendant who thought she maliciously prosecuted him when she was a deputy prosecutor.

- in which she was found to have properly declined to downward adjust a defendant's sentence.

- properly rejecting another judge's decision to release on bail drug defendant's whom she decided were a risk to the public.

I will no doubt look at more of those decisions.

Dew_Process said...

Strange that one of the leading Republican, conservative judges on the Second Circuit, Judge Richard Wesley, gives her a glowing review:

"Sonia Sotomayor is an exceedingly bright human being who has the ability to see component parts of complex legal issues and understand the relationships," Wesley said. "She certainly shows how the face of America is changing. Sonia is the face of emerging America in the 21st century."


I concur with ANON 26 MAY 1010's opinion - get the "facts" not political talking points from the SCOTUSBlog.

She was a tough prosecutor, which strangely seems to have been ignored, not a defense lawyer, which is reflected in her opinions, if you've ever read any of them.

Anonymous said...

Lt Col Soto, you are white, correct? Yes

And the defendant is Hispanic? Yes

And you gave an interview to the magazine “The White Race”? Yes

And you stated that the white view in making decisions is better than the Hispanic view? No, I said whites reach better conclusions because they have richer, better lives.

I move to strike the member for cause.

Christopher Mathews said...

Unfortunately, Anon 1631, that's not what Judge Sotomayor said:


"Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

"Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

"However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage ...

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate."


Agree or disagree as you see fit, but what the nominee actually said is considerably more nuanced than your post suggests.

Cossio said...

Hmmm...Well the Hispanic Issue is confusing, but then again the term "Hispanic" like "latino" is a recent invention.

The CIA fact book shows what races are mixed in what country.

I posed the same question to other Hispanics (I am myself Hispanic). Brazil is usually considered "latino" but not Hispanic - Depending on who you go by.


John O'ConnorIt would suprise you that our political views are similar, and indeed are views in Justice to be in the like.

I believe in Punishment, so much so I took it upon myself to punish those who escaped prosecution.

Here we had an individaul who stole $1,000 from his girlfriend, in the same barracks (Dorms in the AF) and lied about it in court and got away with it.

He also had 4 prior worthless check Nolos (which I found out myself - the basis of our last Appeal under Brady)

So yes, I am for redistribution of wealth when it pertains to scumbags who get immunity.

Speaking of Scumbags,

Anon 2105 and Anon 2122
You totally misstated the case, which I understand that for Amatuer Lawyers like yourselves is common practice.

Court 1 dealt w/ Larceny and threats.

Court 2 dealt with Emails I obtained that concerned court 1.

I will not go into the Polygraph which I passed, the fact that it was his word against mine, and the other evidence that would diminish guilt that I ever told this POS that "I can put you in a Coma".

Apparently the CCA thought the evidence in that charge was "overwhelming", or maybe they only looked at the larceny charge.

Anyways, they threw out the last appeal because the Discovery Violations "probably" wouldn't had affected the outcome.

So I never used the word "framed" you scumbag. The witness just lied.

Like you he is a liar.

But don't worry, with your ability to misstate/ignore evidence and flat out lie, I see a Bench on a CCA in your future.

And if you hate white males (or even love 'em in a special way) then you can be a federal Judge on the Obamanation's highest court.

If you're interested send resumes to Chairman Obama - He's in the Oval Office printing more money and stealing our children's future.

Anonymous said...

Humble apologies...My mistake for mixing up your courts-martial, it's just hard to keep them straight, and remember which one was for unlawful threats and which one was for Disrespect to an Officer.

Cossio said...


The Disrespect to an Officer was an added charge in the second courts-martial.

Also I "disobeyed and order", a no-contact order from my old unit which was 18 months old, as the prosecutors testified in my Article 10 motion: "[Was the order] Clearly legal? No."

I refer to these as "anchor charges".

I wrote on the SJR that Major WAD (her initials) recommendation for my first courts-martial "sucked" and I called her "silly".

Well I was punished with a D and A board and lost 5 days of good time.

Fast forward to the email fiasco and you'll see a desperate legal office pile on charges which a) I was already Punished and (b) not really crimes at all.

If you are a Military Lawyer you should know the RCM that deals with prior punishments on minor charges ("minor" being anything a year or under - which disrespect is)

It took me 5 minutes of legal research to pull out US v. Voorhees (sp?) in the Old CMR's i think 11 at 121 - wow, I can't believe I'm remembering this stuff.

Anyways, it was an old case dealing with prior punishments in a D&A Board. The court affirmed convictions dealing with attempted escape but added that Army regulations/UCMJ prohibits double punishment for minor offenses.

Anyways, TC was unaware that I was prior punished, but seemingly the legal office didn't care as they continued to pile on charges that they knew they couldn't prove:

"You can make a philosophical argument that no crime was committed at all"

- Major TEP, Then Deputy SJA Hurlburt Field FL, testifying at my Article 10 Motion.

I understand that I had (2) court martial and another new trial - Basically three trials. It is very hard to keep up with my crime spree, isn't it? But then when you are using Article 134 Clause I to charge reading emails and making up phony phishing websites, it doesn't really look much like a crime spree at all.

Anonymous said...

Can you please give us the full version of events, that abbreviated recount doesn't tell us enough about what really happened. Much appreciated.

Cossio said...

Well, there's a lot of information to cover but here it goes:

- MAY-JUL 2003 SrA MHT steals $1,000 from SrA CEW

- Around this time period SrA MHT had worthless check Nolo Pleads

- Jul 2003, I return from Africa and find out about the threat

- Aug 2003, Invite SrA MHT to tag along with me and CEW to a concert (he had a DUI, couldn't drive)

- Returned, SrA MHT and I have an amicable discussion about school, deployments, etc. Told him that when I first found out about it I felt like hitting him. He told me that he did not blame me for how I felt.

- Sept 2003 find out SrA MHT stole more money (approx $100) Affidavit from SrA MA confirming.

- Nov-Dec 2003 SrA MHT makes allegations that I threatened him by saying "I could put you in a coma" Investigation completed, no paperwork. Investigator asked CEW about theft, CEW wouldn't answer.

- Jan 2004 Using Air Force/Mil programs obtained SrA MHT's ssn, and redirected funds ($755) to a Children's Charity in Russia

- Mar 2004, received orders for ETS/Hon discharge

- Apr 2004 OSI investigation/Admin hold past ETS

- Dec 2004 US v. Cossio on larceny/computer/threat charges, government failed to notify us of SrA MHT's Nolo convictions

Sentenced to 10 months, fine of $755, bust to e-1, contingent confinement if fine not paid, BCD.


- In confinement wrote letter to Major WAD that her recommendation sucked, she was silly, and the name "Wendy" came from Peter Pan.

- Given D&A Board loss of 5 days good conduct time, seg for two weeks, extra duty, attend anger management.

- On same day, 5 minutes after my D&A Board Capt. Brown/TSgt Gardnier (the AF Prosecutor/Paralegal that conspired to murder) were brought in pretrial confinement.

- Two weeks before release obtained information from another inmate about CEW/MHT and others.

Cossio said...

- Then Major Thomas Edward Posch, Deputy SJA Hurlburt, sends a letter forwarding my complaint of perjury/larceny to my appellate lawyer, killing the investigation.

- IG complaint against Posch, Posch stated that these were "BALD ALLEGATIONS" and little evidence to convict SrA MHT.

- Legal review on wiretap laws, phishing, created trap to obtain emails.

- Phishing site discovered by com employee on so-called "google" search. (REALLY THERE WAS NO WAY HE COULD HAVE GOTTEN IT THROUGH A SEARCH ENGINE. He worked as comm - must of been hacking himself)

- Posch sends OSI Goon-Squad to grab me. They obtain a search warrant, but no arrest warrant. (Note to Self: Always have an Arrest Warrant when grabbing a military member in a private dwelling).

- Put in pretrial, after conferring with US Attorneys, other JAGs, and a Law Professor from Mississippi, the legal office came up with (drum roll):

- Attempting to Disobey a regulation not to read people's emails/copy images.

- Disobeying a No-Contact order that wasn't valid in the first place.

- Disrespecting Major WAD.

- Impersonating a Federal Employee (the webmaster).

- Although ready in two weeks the legal office decided not to prefer charges until DCFL concluded their investigation.

- Charged nearly 2 months later

- Judge tosses case on article 10 motion. Posch testified that they did have enough to prosecute SrA MHT despite lying to the IG and saying the opposite 6 months before. Makes other contradictory statements.

- Me and Defense Council talk about the case coming back (we knew that AFCCA would reverse based on their - ah, tendency to do whatever is in the interest of the Government)


- At this time discovered Nolo convictions of MHT, called council for original copy of discovery request, called appellate counsel, called Ghostbusters.

- Also made-up MySpace Profiles of CEW and MHT, emailed both pretending to be the other. They made statements indicating perjury.

- US v. Cossio II. Charges dropped to 134, PTA for time served, no BCD.

- General tries to execute BCD from Cossio I. Ah, but I was ready for that one.

- Filed Writ of Error Coram Nobis/Writ of Prohibition to stop execution of BCD.

- AFCCA denies writ. Uses "Judge alone trial...Probably wouldn't affect the outcome..." excuse

- CAAF Denies review.

- Finally got SrA MHT investigated on Perjury charges after fight with SJA who tried once again to kill the investigation.

- Filed FOIA request to obtain results.

- Waiting on Denedo/FOIA request to see if I have enough for an appeal.

- 8 June 2009 - Take LSAT

Anonymous said...

A little more detail please. Maybe you can cut & paste the record of trial.

Anonymous said...


I, for one, wish you good luck on the LSAT. It is always nice to see a person, like you, who displays a passion for the law, keen intellect, and the skills of a master debater choose the legal profession. However, I think you may want to talk to Norbs about the bar application process with a conviction on your record before you go too far down this road.

Anonymous said...

LSAT eh? You struck me more as a computer hacker type. What makes you want to become a lawyer? Is the main reason you want to be a lawyer so you can continue to pursue your case....Diabolical!

But, it's hard to understand why you are so obsessed with these bad checks. Even if you got this guys bad acts into evidence in a new trial it seems to me you still would be convicted. Heck, you have admitted doing pretty much everything. All your blog pots would also be used by the trial counsel in a new trial.

The one thing that you have denied is making the threat, but, really, based on all the threats you've made on this blog your denials don't seem very believable.

Anonymous said...

Cossio, What I suspect is missing from your posts is the MOTIVE. What drove you to commit your crimes? Was it a crime of passion? A crime of the heart?

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of posts (probably all from one person) complaining about how the nominee was only picked because she was hispanic and a women. However, they should keep in mind that the absoulte worst case of using affirmative action to pick a SC nominee was done by Bush. Harreit Meirs on the Supreme Court? What a joke. Her pick was a case of good old fashion affirmative action--Being a crony/family of the person making the decision. Of course this type of affirmative action also was key factor in Bush's career.

Anonymous said...

I love a good train wreck as much as the next person, but why CAAFlog finds it to be necessary to blog the news of the day beyond military justice matters is beyond me. How to chose between this and say the CA Sup Ct 6-1 decision to uphold Prop 8, they are both about as relevant to the professed focus of the blog.

But since its here, I'll pour a little fuel on the fire. Find the fact that HWB first appointed the nominee to the court unpersuasive that she must not be a "liberal" jurist given that he also appointed Sup Ct Justice Souter who huddles together with Ginsberg, Stevens, and Breyer at the far left end of the bench.

Second, I think its fair commentary to point out the hyprocrisy of left for finding her ignorant (better than racist?) comments to be acceptable when if made by nominee Alto, would have brought a firestorm of criticism from the likes chuckie Shummer or Leahy.

Anonymous said...

I already admitted to the "larceny" the relevence would be for the threat charge and sentecing case where mht cried about financial impact when he was writing bad checks.

TC argued that tree was an "honest guy...came clean about stealing money from cew, so he's telling the truth that he was threatened."

As far as the "threats" on this blog you must be talking about my ability to look up ip addresses of these anons.

Not much of a threat, I'm sure you jags make worse legal threats everyday

- cossio

Anonymous said...

I don't know if it would really even effect the sentencing case. Even if the guy was stealing and writing bad checks, he can still cry and say how the larceny made his bad situation get even worse. (This is just shooting from the hip)

Now that you're more experienced in the ways of the legal system would you do it again? Or would you just use your considerable intellect to just report his theft to OSI?

Mike "No Man" Navarre said...

I think this whole controversy over the judges remarks proves one point, no matter what you make the text of her comments out to be:

Judges, and 99.9% of all lawyers, should leave comedy to professionals.

Mike "No Man" Navarre said...

I think this whole controversy over the judges remarks proves one point, no matter what you make the text of her comments out to be:

Judges, and 99.9% of all lawyers, should leave comedy to professionals.

Anonymous said...

By the way, what is the record number of posts on this blog for one article?...Just asking...

John O'Connor said...

"By the way, what is the record number of posts on this blog for one article?...Just asking..."

I would say the high comment count on this post is attributable to the importance of a Supreme Court nomination . . . but almost all of the comments have careened far off that path and into other (entertaining) areas.

Christopher Mathews said...

I'm quietly gloating over all the comments. Not bad for a current events blurb.

Cossio said...

"I don't know if it would really even effect the sentencing case. Even if the guy was stealing and writing bad checks, he can still cry and say how the larceny made his bad situation get even worse. (This is just shooting from the hip)"No, you're right, that is certainly a valid argument. Then again if the Judge knew the "victim" was lying, well that may have affected the outcome.

I never understand the "this was a judge alone trial...error harmless" excuse. But anyways, I understand and am aware of "the otherside's" view.

If you were in my position, certainly you would give it a shot.

To me it's easier to change one person's mind (i.e. a judge) then a Panel.

"Now that you're more experienced in the ways of the legal system would you do it again? Or would you just use your considerable intellect to just report his theft to OSI?Another good question! I think of that too.

I reported the theft to SFS when dumb-dumb made up the threat charge. SFS did follow but CEW refused to tell them anything.

If I didn't tell OSI/anyone anything I would never had been "caught". There was no other evidence, the IP address lead to the chow hall, that's all they had other than the well known fact I didn't like the guy.

I would have reported the theft to OSI first thing, and not waited until MHT launched a "preemptive strike".

When I was in first grade I remember throwing rocks at a kid. The Kid pushed me, and I ran and told Mrs. Miller. The kid was punished with a time-out. But then Mrs. Miller found out I started it and punished me.

Likewise being the oldest of four Brothers I can tell you how irratating it is to have your little Brothers pick on you, you hit them back, and they go tell Mom and Dad, and you get punished despite being provoked.

Here, as adults, we see logic that would infuriate a first grader in our courts.

A person makes a baseless allegation, the other person has hard evidence that the person lied, or committed worse crimes.

But because the Big Wheels of justice were already in motion, the less culpable is punished for not being a snitch first.

Going back, no I wouldn't do it again. I'm more mature now and try not to let other people's actions get to me....Which I know may come to a surprise to others reading my previous post. When I "mess" with someone I keep it within the confines of the law.

Cossio said...

Let's get back on track though, I like the idea that this site should have covered prop 8.

The California Court, save for one radical, overwhelmingly sided with democracy by affirming the will of the people.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right. Anything where you get a license is a privilege subjected to regulations. Driver's license, medical, education, or law certification.

Each is a "privilege". The left seems to think that Gay Marriage is a "right".


Funny how these people would take away the right to vote on laws, carry guns, and practice religion, which is a clear right, and instead leave these non-elected people to write their own law, which can rarely be challenged.

But we know that you only have a right to freedom of speech only if its what they want to say.

If the left is so big on separation of church and state (taken out of context in Jefferson's letters by the KKK judge Black) then why do they want the government telling religious institutions who they should wed.

What will stop someone bringing a lawsuit against the Catholic Church for not marring same sex couples if these people have their way?

Prop 8 passed because the silent majority, in the privacy of the voting booth, away from the hate filled pink fascist, voted against a lifestyle which most people abhor.

And about Thomas Jefferson. The left likes to quote him so much, how about quoting him on Judicial restraint?:

Cossio said...


"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

—Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."

—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

—Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

Anonymous said...

Is this the real COSSIO or just another right wing political group posting propaganda....I know Cossio, I've read Cossio's comments in the past; And Sir, You are no Jose Cossio!

I had high expectations for Bush/Cheney, but us in the military/veterans actually like to WIN wars!! (double exclamation point)

Anonymous said...

No Man,

Some of this is actually funny, especially when Tony Bologna is making persuasive (in his mind) arguments.

BTW, can you contact Mr. McClean III and see if I can get a NIMJ membership application from him?

Cossio said...

The monkeys in my head also hate Brazilians!

Judge Sotomayor said...

Cossio, can we please get back to discussing MY qualifications to be on the Supreme Court? This string is supposed to be about ME!

Guinness Book of World Records said...

We have received reports at our headquarters of an alarming rate of posts on an obscure subject string regarding a Supreme Court nominee and are tracking the rapid acceleration of posts with great anticipation.

Cossio said...

"Lay Down Sally."

—Thomas Jefferson to Sally Hemmings, 1789. ME 15:277

-Eric Clapton to Slowhand, November, 1977. Polydor.

John O'Connor said...

Cossio clearly isn't a wise Latina, or he wouldn't have taken us off on this tangent.

Anonymous said...

This is the real Jose Cossio. I am getting a little angry that people keep on posting comments under my name, it is grade school.

Unfortunately on this blog it is rather easy to grab people's Anon ID's:

div class="r"/div/dd dt id="c6713424435350045222"
img src="/img/blank.gif" class="comment-icon anon-comment" alt="Anonymous"
span dir="ltr"Cossio/span
The monkeys in my head also hate Brazilians!/p
p class="comment-timestamp"Fri May 29, 07:27:00 AM EDT/p


Now, let's see what I can do with this information....I'm sure I can find the little dirtbag(s) posting under my name.

Really quite simple, "view source" allows me to peek at your coding.

Let's see if this can lead to an IP. I am guessing, yes of course, you have a static one.

Anonymous said...

"Judge Sotomayor said...
Cossio, can we please get back to discussing MY qualifications to be on the Supreme Court? This string is supposed to be about ME!"

Ok, you have none. You were picked becaused you were female and hispanic, a two-fer-one.

Your opinions are meager at best.

You are an activist that believes you make the law, and do it better than any white male.

In the minds of liberals these are "qualifications".

However you are not the worst that Chairman Obama could have picked, you are actually in the bottom 5.

Anonymous said...

Harriet Miers was so much better qualified to be on the SC. Not only was she female, but she was also a very strong christian and president, at one time, of her local bar organization. Scalia also publicly endorsed her -- I don't see him doing that for the current nominee! But most importantly she was Bush's crony. And basically that was her most important qualification.

John O'Connor said...

Sadly, one more post by the admins and this thread will drop off the first page. /tear

Anonymous said...

Anon, your straw man that I would have supported Harriet whats-her-face ammuses me.

You wrongly believe that because I am Conservative I support Bush and the trainwreck he wrought on this country.

Bush is not a Conservative, he was a Republican.

- Cossio

Anonymous said...


You posted that? You really should use your name or always be an anon. When you do both its hard to keep track of the strings of thought.

Also, this is a good way to practice lawful ways of dealing with a frustrating situation. You are understandably upset that someone is posting in your name, right? So instead of trying to figure out their IP address and then making vague threats about what you can do with that. Why don't you instead just sign up for a blogger account and establish a profile? Then they wouldn't be able to do that?

Heck, you post enough, isn't it about time you established an account anyway?

Anonymous said...

You know what, you are right, I'll look into getting a profile

- Cossio

Anonymous said...

Is it wrong to gratuitously post a comment at this late date just to push this thread over the 60-comment threshold?

Oh, wait ...

Anonymous said...

Speaking of affirmative action, I have a vague memory from the Marine Corps that 12-6-6 got down played after one of the Commandants got busted in the media for saying blacks were making the quota because they can't swim.

It would have been a long time ago.

I can't find it by googling.