<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>mikesoh.com &#187; justice</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.mikesoh.com/tag/justice/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.mikesoh.com</link>
	<description>conservative thoughts in a liberal world</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 20:12:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Did Sotomayor commit perjury?</title>
		<link>http://www.mikesoh.com/2010/07/did-sotomayor-commit-perjury/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=did-sotomayor-commit-perjury</link>
		<comments>http://www.mikesoh.com/2010/07/did-sotomayor-commit-perjury/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 13:30:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[scotus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[second amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[sotomayor]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikesoh.com/?p=495</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[During her confirmation hearings, VT Senator Patrick Leahy asked Judge Sonya Sotomayor many questions having to do with her beliefs and various rulings already made by the Supreme Court.  Many conservatives voted her down because of how slippery her answers were.  And now that she is a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>During her confirmation hearings, VT Senator Patrick Leahy asked Judge Sonya Sotomayor <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/07/sonia-sotomayor-hearing-transcript.html">many questions</a> having to do with her beliefs and various rulings already made by the  Supreme Court.  Many conservatives voted her down because of how  slippery her answers were.  And now that she is a Justice of the Supreme  Court of the United States, one must ask: was she being truthful in <a href="http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/287723-1">her testimony</a>?</p>
<p>In their <a href="http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/05be2967">monthly magazine,</a> the NRA cited how Justice Sotomayor stated one thing about gun rights  and then dissented in the recent McDonald v. Chicago decision.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sen. Leahy:</strong> Is it safe to say that you accept the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision as  establishing that the Second Amendment right is an individual right? Is  that correct?</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Judge Sotomayor:</strong> Yes, sir.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Leahy:</strong> Thank you. And in the Second Circuit decision, Maloney v. Cuomo, you,  in fact, recognized the Supreme Court decided in Heller that the  personal right to bear arms is guaranteed by the Second Amendment of the  Constitution against federal law restrictions. Is that correct?</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sotomayor:</strong> It is.</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Leahy:</strong> And you accept and applied the Heller decision when you decided Maloney?</p>
<p style="padding-left: 30px;"><strong>Sotomayor:</strong> Completely, sir. I accepted and applied established Supreme Court  precedent that the Supreme Court in its own opinion in Heller  acknowledged, answered the &#8212; a different question.</p>
<p>The  NRA points out that in the McDonald v. Chicago decision, she dissented  and agreed with her liberal colleague Justice Breyer.  He states in his <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf">dissenting opinion</a> (pg. 210), “In sum, the Framers did not write the Second Amendment in order to protect a private right of armed self-defense.”</p>
<p>If  Sotomayor recognized that the “personal right to bear arms is  guaranteed by the Second Amendment”, why did she agree with Breyer?   Normally, if a justice agrees in part, they will provide their own  dissent.  Sotomayor did not do this.  Stevens, who also dissented with  the majority opinion, filed his own dissent.  Sotomayor has filed her  own dissents before.  So why not in this case?</p>
<p>Somewhere,  she lied.  She either lied during her confirmation hearings or she lied  on the bench.  Either way, Congress should investigate and find out.   Hopefully, if the Republicans retake the House in November, they will  start impeachment proceedings.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mikesoh.com/2010/07/did-sotomayor-commit-perjury/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>US Department of Justice to change iconic motto on Supreme Court steps to “Equal Justice Under Law (As Politics Will Allow)”</title>
		<link>http://www.mikesoh.com/2010/07/us-department-of-justice-to-change-iconic-motto-on-supreme-court-steps-to-%e2%80%9cequal-justice-under-law-as-politics-will-allow%e2%80%9d/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=us-department-of-justice-to-change-iconic-motto-on-supreme-court-steps-to-%25e2%2580%259cequal-justice-under-law-as-politics-will-allow%25e2%2580%259d</link>
		<comments>http://www.mikesoh.com/2010/07/us-department-of-justice-to-change-iconic-motto-on-supreme-court-steps-to-%e2%80%9cequal-justice-under-law-as-politics-will-allow%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 15:00:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>mike</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Editorial]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[doj]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[election 2008]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.mikesoh.com/?p=492</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I’ve always said that peace cannot exist without justice.  Peace without justice is anarchy.  It is justice that allows peace to prosper.  Without justice, those who wish to do harm can do so without regard to its consequences.  Furthermore, justice provides the people with knowing that actions against them will be prosecuted to the fullest [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve always said that peace cannot exist without justice.  Peace without justice is anarchy.  It is justice that allows peace to prosper.  Without justice, those who wish to do harm can do so without regard to its consequences.  Furthermore, justice provides the people with knowing that actions against them will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.</p>
<p>The Attorney General of the United States <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405880.html">recently dropped all charges</a> against the Black Panthers for voter intimidation.  YouTube has a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+panther+voter+intimidation&amp;aq=7">few</a> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU">videos</a> of the voter intimidation.  Justice Department did not release an official statement but simply dropped the charges.  Most charges are dropped when there is not enough evidence to move forward with a trial, but with the video evidence, it seems like this is not the case.</p>
<p><span id="more-492"></span>The most disturbing aspect about this is the lack of communication from the White House or the Justice Department.  During the Bush administration, Justice Department officials cited plenty of evidence to move forward.  It is Obama’s Justice Department who has decided that there was “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/14/AR2010071405880.html">insufficient evidence</a>.”</p>
<p>The facts of the case are that two Black Panthers, both wearing camouflage fatigues and one carrying a night stick, were walking in front of the entrance of a voting place.  While the reports differ, the common denominator was that people felt frightened at the sight of the man.  The eye-witness reports range from outright barring of white people to simply “looking mean.”  Since the Justice Department has not released their investigation notes, it’s hard to say.</p>
<p>When the Justice Department dropped the charges, they have given permission for other groups to “look mean” at the polls.  Members of the KKK, in their robes, can stand outside polling places.  They don’t have to say anything.  They can even hold the door open for people.  If this is ALL that they do, they should not get charged.  Under the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">Fourteenth Amendment</a>, any “intimidation” that does not go beyond that of “looking mean” should be dismissed.  The sad fact may be that because the Obama administration is so adamant about flouting the Constitution and the law, Tea Partiers may end up being arrested and charged for simply wearing Anti-Obama shirts when they go to vote.</p>
<p>Of Obama wants to be the <a href="http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/77897-obama-says-he-would-rather-be-really-good-one-term-president">great president he says</a>, he should fire Eric Holder and conduct a special investigation into this case.  A dismissed charged does not attach jeopardy so the Black Panthers can be charged again.  Make the investigation transparent, open to the public, and independent.  Then again, the last time there was a special independent investigator, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Whats-behind-Obamas-sudden-firing-of-the-AmeriCorps-inspector-general-47877797.html">he was fired</a> for finding fraudulent activity between Obama and a supporter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.mikesoh.com/2010/07/us-department-of-justice-to-change-iconic-motto-on-supreme-court-steps-to-%e2%80%9cequal-justice-under-law-as-politics-will-allow%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

