The United States Senate, to its great discredit, confirmed to the nation's highest court, probably the most unpopular Supreme Court justice an American president has ever nominated.  Today, by a margin of 68-31, the Senate confirmed Barack Obama's left-wing nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, to the United States Supreme Court.  Even President George H. W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee, Clarence Thomas, was more popular amongst the American people than is Sonia Sotomayor.   

Obama's nominee received the highest number of no votes for any nominee to the Supreme Court picked by a Democrat president since 1894, some 115 years ago.  The remarkable fact is that Obama has a 60-vote majority in the United States Senate.  On the other hand, Chief Justice John Roberts, President George W. Bush's nominee to the top court, received 78 yes votes.   

Mentioned in a memorandum distributed by the Judicial Confirmation Network today is the fact that just two months after Obama nominated Sotomayor to the Supreme Court, the American people have turned against Obama's nominee by astounding numbers.  Fewer than half of Americans support Sotomayor being elevated from the federal circuit court of appeals to the Supreme Court, with just as many Americans opposing her elevation.  Hispanic voters were just about equally divided after her 3 days of disastrous Senate Judiciary Committee hearings.  

Just to show that the people who want to force a government takeover of our healthcare system will miss no opportunity...

Below is an email I received from the Obama campaign today (Yes, I'm on their email list...it pays to know what the other guys are up to).  In it, they're asking supporters to commit to giving them one dollar each day we don't have a health care "reform" bill signed into law by Obama.  The email subject line was "Something unusual".  I'll say.

If you haven't done so yet, be sure to visit our new Health Care Action Center to get the latest info on the ongoing health care "reform" debate.

We've got news and opinion links and videos.  We also have a Health Care Fact Sheet page that breaks down some of the most essential points that conservatives need to keep in mind while the battle rages.  It's also available in PDF format so you can print, copy and distribute the old-fashioned way if you wish.

There are also quick links for Twitter and Facebook users, allowing you to send a custom message about the Action Center on to your friends.

Most importantly of course, is the online petition and the link to contact your elected officials.

Remember, if you don't speak out, they can always say that they never heard from you.  Don't let that happen. 

The American people are beginning to get scared.  The Congress is piling up unprecedented levels of debt and annual deficits. President Barack Obama's programs have already quadrupled the deficit for this fiscal year (2009) with his stimulus package and his deficit for this year will be a whopping $2 trillion.  President Obama's $3.6 trillion budget will have created more debt that all the previous 43 presidents put together.

That is why the American people are alarmed and why the president's approval ratings are dropping like a rock.  Some 51% of the American people have no confidence in the president's ability to fix the economy.

The Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of over 100 conservative Republicans in the United States House of Representatives, Georgia Congressman Tom Price, said this week about President Obama's policies: "After six months, it's now clear that President Obama's economic policies aren't producing an economic recovery.  In addition to the $787 billion so-called stimulus package, the Democrats have handed billions of taxpayers' dollars to the auto industry, the mortgage industry, financial institutions, and more.  All the President has to show for his efforts are mounting job losses and the largest deficit in history, an estimated $1.85 trillion in Fiscal Year 2009."

I came across this article in the Wall Street Journal about Obama's Congressional Budget Office Director, Peter Orszag, and how he's basically becoming one of the key point men to help "sell" Obamacare, since everyone (including many Democrats) wants to know where the money is coming from.

Understandable enough.  But that wasn't what was interesting.

What jumped out at me was this sentence:

...he sent a letter to Capitol Hill detailing a proposal he had been more quietly pitching for weeks -- creating a new agency with power to cut spending and implement changes in Medicare, the giant health program for the elderly. He also attached proposed legislative language. It was the most specific that the White House, which has tried to articulate principles and leave details to lawmakers, has been on any aspect of the legislation.

OK, now how many of you out there can just imagine the howls of protest we would be hearing from Democrats if something like this had been proposed by the Bush administration - or any Republican. 

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, has historically been proven to have been a racist and a supporter of Hitler's program of eugenics.  Planned Parenthood is the organization which has ended the lives of a large number of the 50 million unborn babies killed in abortions since the United States Supreme Court made abortion-on-demand legal in America with its infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.

One would have thought that after Margaret Sanger died and Hitler's eugenics programs were ended, that that would be the end of the subject of eugenics.  So it was very surprising to recently hear one of the most prominent women leaders in America, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, say the following in an interview with "The New York Times":  "Yes, the ruling [in Harris v. McRae that the federal government does not have to pay for elective abortions] surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

In the 1800's, voters in the South who only voted for Democrats were called Yellow Dog Democrats.  They hated the Republicans because the Republican president, Abraham Lincoln and his Union troops, won the Civil War and these Southerners would rather vote for a yellow dog before they would vote for a Republican.  Hence, the term Yellow Dog Democrats.   

For the past couple of decades, a new term came up to describe certain Democrats who, in general, were fiscal conservatives. And that term is "Blue Dog Democrats," a term which came from "Yellow Dog Democrats."  They were previously known in the Congress as the "Boll Weevils."  They were among President Ronald Reagan's best friends as he passed his historic tax cuts, budget-cutting programs, and defense build-up which won the Cold War.   

There are 52 "Blue Dog" Democrats in the United States House of Representatives.  About 40 of them are from congressional districts which were won by President George W. Bush twice and by Senator John McCain last year.  Even so, the Blue Dog Democrats for the past several months have marched lock-step with their left-wing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and their equally liberal president.  However, cracks are beginning to show in the Obama/Pelosi united front in Congress.   

Who says people can't change (or flip-flop)?  Sotomayor has proven that you certainly can...especially when you get nominated to the Supreme Court and you've got some otherwise inconvenient statements or actions in your past that you need to have people overlook.

For example:

On impartiality, Sotomayor had previously suggested that "there is no objective stance"...

In the hearings she stated: "The process of judging is a process of keeping an open mind.  It's the process of not coming to a decision with a prejudgement ever of an outcome. (7/14/09)

But previously...

"There is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives...aspiration to impartiality...is just that, an aspiration..." (Women in the Judiciary, Women's Bar Association of the State of New York, 4/30/99)

On whether "predjudices" are appropriate, she said "predjudices are appropriate"...

In the hearings, she stated, "[I] Would Not Prejudge Any Question That Came Before Me If I Was A Justice On The Supreme Court."  And, "I Don't Pre-Judge Issues."

But previously...

"I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and gender but attempt...continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate." (Women in the Judiciary, 40th National Conference of Law Reviews. 3/17/94)

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor faced a full day of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday that focused largely on her past comments on the roles of race and personal experience in a judge's decision-making process. As the AP reports, Sotomayor "backed away from perhaps the most damaging words that had been brought up" since her nomination. Referring to her 2001 comment "suggesting that a 'wise Latina' judge would usually reach better conclusions than a white man," the nominee "called the remark 'a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.'" Sotomayor "also distanced herself from the man who nominated her." She said, "I wouldn't approach the issue of judging in the way the President does. Judges can't rely on what's in their heart." Sotomayor will return for another day of questioning today. The AP says there was "for all the pointed questioning," there was "little doubt" that Sotomayor would be confirmed.

In her bid to pooh pooh conservative fears (brought on by her judicial record) that she can't be relied upon to apply the law, instead of being a judicial activist, Sotomayor vowed "fidelity to the law" and told the Senate that she had not advocated for policy since she became a judge.

Of course, "advocating" for policy isn't necessary when you can "set policy", as she herself admitted that the Court of Appeals does.  And presumably she would know, since she's on the Second Circuit for the Court of Appeals.

In her statement to the Senate, she said:

"In the past month, many senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law," Judge Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"The task of a judge is not to make the law - it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court."