The following Candidate Survey was completed and provided to the Independence Caucus on 10 November, 2009. The questions and associated answers should provide significant insight for those interested in my positions concerning a wide variety of legislative issues.

Background on why two questions were answered No, and No Answer:

Question #12. No. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution states Congress shall have the power to “Regulate Commerce with Foreign Nations”.

Question #68. No Answer. I am concerned that U.S. Forces & State Department employees could be taxed on “Consumption” of their salaries simply because they are stationed overseas.

Click on the Following Link to view a pdf copy of the Candidate Survey.

I-Caucus 80VettingQuestions-With Answers

Every year across the U.S. we participate in a long practiced tradition of welcoming in a New Year. This is followed by reminiscing, contemplating, and evaluating the occurrences of the previous year. Deep and thought provoking questions are often asked in the first few days of each New Year, and Resolutions are developed and committed to by many of us; for a time anyway. Let’s apply that tradition to the arrival of the new fiscal year for the Federal Government which occurred on 1 October, 2009.

A year has passed since we were told by news reporters and our Federal Government that if they did not take immediate and drastic action, the entire U.S. economy would collapse and “Martial Law” would be required to address the resulting civil turmoil. Our elected and appointed officials warned us of pending economic doom that would lead to a global depression, greater than the one our nation experienced in the 1930’s. We have experienced a deep and troubling recession over the last year, but have seen no proof released by the government concerning the economic doom predicted by Washington D.C. and Wall Street. Where is the evidence that was so sound and compelling that it required our elected House and Senate members to act so rapidly on numerous legislative bills that they could not even take the time to read them? Why does this compelling evidence remain hidden, rather than being widely disseminated to the American Public? Wouldn’t the public understand the dire threat to our country and unite to overcome this economic threat of chaos? Why are Americans not demanding this compelling evidence be released?

Twelve months ago our House and Senate enacted the $700 billion “Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008”, more commonly referred to as TARP (Troubled Assets Relief Program).  They warned the public that the banking system was about to collapse and the funds would be used to buy up “Toxic Assets”.  Elected officials identified that this was a crisis driven bill that had to be acted upon immediately; there was no time for debate or deliberation. Polls at the time identified most Americans were opposed to this “Bail Out” bill. Congress enacted it against the will of the people. Looking back, it is not surprising that it has failed to accomplish its stated goals and that the banks and other institutions receiving the money did not use it as intended by Congress, and the average American can see no discernable improvement.

Seven months ago our House and Senate passed the $850 billion “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009”, often referred to as the Stimulus Bill. This was not a group of capital construction projects to rebuild transportation infrastructure, bridges, ports, federal buildings, or other public facilities.  Instead it was a bill that grouped many proposals that had been put forward as pet projects by Congressional members each year, but had been removed each year in debate and deliberation. Polls showed that most Americans were opposed to the bill because they perceived it as nothing more than pork, yet our House and Senate were so compelled to take action that it was created and passed against the will of the people.

Six months ago there was tremendous anger and turmoil as it was revealed that the insurance company AIG was paying out large bonuses to executives.  Normally this would be of little to no consequence to the average American, but in this case they resented the bonuses because our House, Senate, and Administration had previously taken an 80% ownership stake in AIG using Taxpayer money. Once again the American populace had overwhelmingly been against bailing out AIG with tax dollars, but now they were irate at the AIG executives receiving bonuses while employed in a failed company, and also at Congress for being so inept at legislation and oversight that this event could happen.

Five months ago we saw the finalization of the Federal Government takeover of a significant portion of the U.S. automobile Industry. Only Ford survived since they had declined to take the multiple Federal loans that had been given out to the U.S. Automobile industry previously.  General Motors and Chrysler were declared insolvent and forced into bankruptcy court. Although today the names for both remain, in reality they ceased to exist as the courts forced settlements that favored the Federal Government and Unions over the holders of priority debt, disregarding 200 years of U.S. bankruptcy and contract law.  Once again the American people had been strongly against the use of Taxpayer funds for the loans and bail outs going to the automobile industry, but their elected officials knew better.

The last four months of fiscal year 2009 can best be labeled as “The Summer of Discontent”. Americans, who were never politically active before, began to attend Town Hall meetings where they demanded their Congressional Representatives and Senators explain themselves and their policies. They loudly demanded their personal opinions and observations concerning Health Care, and to a lesser extent on Cap and Trade pending legislation, be heard. No longer could elected representatives hide in Washington D.C. and ignore the polls, e-mails, letters, and phone calls expressing the American people’s disagreement with their elected officials. In reaction many Congressional Representatives and Senators canceled or refused to hold Town Hall meetings, in some cases they restricted attendance to invited constituents only. As summer faded and elected officials returned to Washington D.C. they breathed a sigh of relief, believing that with time the American populace would return to their couches and potato chips. But it was not to be, for the American People had planned a party.  It started in Sacramento California and over a few weeks many tens to hundreds of thousands shared a little time with each other at a TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party. Some in the press reported that a few Right Wings Nuts arrived on 12 September 2009 at the Washington D.C. Mall. I suppose that the other unrecognized, but estimated at 2 million in attendance were simply God fearing, Tax Paying, and Patriotic Americans who were peacefully assembling and expressing their opinions.

During fiscal year 2009 many trillions of American Tax Payer dollars were taken from the middle class by the Federal Government who diverted these funds to Banks, Insurance and Car Companies, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and many other industries because each was “Too Big to Fail”. Our elected officials in Washington D.C. over the last 12 months actively decided to ignore the will of “We the People”. What are “We the People” going to do about it?

OPEN LETTER TO SENATOR HARRY REID

MAJORITY LEADER, UNITED STATES SENATE

September 24, 2009

Dear Senator Reid,

Four Marines were killed on September 8th as a direct result of the Administration’s  Rules of Engagement, because they were not given the air support they requested! A story appearing in McClatchy Newspapers, written by Jonathan S. Landay, provides a chilling account, detailing the circumstances surrounding the deaths of these four U.S. Marines.  A quote from that article follows:

“U.S. commanders, citing new rules to avoid civilian casualties, rejected repeated calls to unleash artillery rounds at attackers dug into the slopes and tree lines — despite being told repeatedly that they weren’t near the village.

“We are pinned down. We are running low on ammo. We have no air. We’ve lost today,” Marine Maj. Kevin Williams, 37, said through his translator to his Afghan counterpart, responding to the latter’s repeated demands for helicopters.

“Four U.S. Marines were killed Tuesday, the most U.S. service members assigned as trainers to the Afghan National Army to be lost in a single incident since the 2001 U.S.-led invasion. Eight Afghan troops and police and the Marine commander’s Afghan interpreter also died in the ambush and the subsequent battle that raged from dawn until 2 p.m. around this remote hamlet in eastern Kunar province, close to the Pakistan border. “

The full McClatchy Newspaper story can be read online at: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/336/story/75036.html

Unbeknownst to the American public at the time these Marines were killed, General Stanley A. McChrystal, U.S. Commander for Afghanistan, had submitted his assessment of the Afghanistan war to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on August 30, 2009, nine days prior to these four Marines’ deaths.  Thanks to Bob Woodward of The Washington Post, General McChrystal’s assessment was published in The Washington Post on September 21, 2009.  In that assessment, General McChrystal warns:

“…that without more forces and the rapid implementation of a genuine counterinsurgency strategy, defeat is likely. McChrystal describes an Afghan government riddled with corruption and an international force undermined by tactics that alienate civilians.”

The Washington Post describes General McChrystal’s assessment this way:  “The top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan warns in an urgent, confidential assessment of the war that he needs more forces within the next year and bluntly states that without them, the eight-year conflict “will likely result in failure,” according to a copy of the 66-page document obtained by The Washington Post.  The full Washington Post story can be read online at:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/20/AR2009092002920.html

I ask, what could possibly be more important than the very lives of our men and women in uniform serving in Afghanistan?  What issue before the Senate and House chambers could possibly take precedence over the lives of our service members serving in harm’s way?  In my humble opinion, absolutely nothing is more important.

The White House, House of Representatives and United States Senate must vigorously and immediately commence debate regarding our strategy in Afghanistan and make the determination as to whether or not our nation is going to support General McChrystal’s request for additional troops, additional equipment and additional funds to enable our service members to effectively and victoriously complete their mission in the Afghanistan, or whether we are going to withdraw our troops and conclude that they cannot succeed in their mission as defined by the Administration in March of 2009.  Time is critical in making this determination, and not one additional American service member should be sacrificed during this period of debate.  The situation in Afghanistan is of vital importance and is, literally, a matter of life and death.

I implore you to exercise your power as Senate Majority Leader to suspend all debate in the Senate on any issue other than resolving our national position in Afghanistan.  Health care reform, energy reform, climate change, financial reform, immigration reform … all issues currently considered urgent in Washington, D.C. … are all issues which, in reality, pale in comparison to determining how we most effectively protect the lives of our men and women serving in combat in Afghanistan.

My blood boiled listening to Mark Murray, NBC News Deputy Political Director, discussing the situation on Afghanistan on Wednesday, September 23, 2009, wherein he described the President as being in a “political box” as a result of the military’s assessment which requested additional troops versus the position held by many in his own political party.  Murray, unbelievably, went on to say “… you’re probably not going to get a decision until after health care is done, and that probably won’t be until November or so.”  That juxtaposition of priorities is wholly unacceptable, and I speak for the American people who do not believe nor want health care reform to take precedence over a determination that affects the lives of our sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, and brothers and sisters in uniform.  Our service members in combat deserve more attention from our elected officials and America will not stand for anything less.

I call upon you to show true leadership and immediately schedule Senate debate on the future strategy for the war in Afghanistan.  The lives of our service members must not be subject to political convenience; but rather, the decisions regarding our service members in combat are a matter of immediate national security.  The truth of the matter is, our service members in Afghanistan operate in unwarranted perilous danger due to lack of clarity from our leaders, and it is incumbent upon our elected officials to provide clarity at the earliest possible moment.

We must not repeat a Nixon-style “decent interval” where we allow our American troops to be sacrificed while a politically-palatable “defeat with honor” is contrived.   Our elected officials can either:  (1) support fully General McChrystal’s request in its entirety; (2) return all American forces to safe bases, establish a 35-mile perimeter around those bases and authorize unconstrained shoot-to kill engagement orders of anyone attempting to penetrate that perimeter; or (3) begin an immediate and orderly redeployment from Afghanistan.   We must not follow in the footsteps of policymakers from the Viet Nam era by deciding to lose in Afghanistan while, at the same time, continuing to feed our troops into a meat-grinder as a political foil.

This is your opportunity to do the right thing and call upon the United States Senate to honor those who serve in uniform and protect America.  If our elected officials in Washington, D.C. lack the commitment to wage and win this war, then we have a moral obligation to the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, and children of those service members serving in Afghanistan to remove them from harm’s way.

Sincerely,

Bill Parson

Candidate for U.S. Senate 2010

As a nation our use of health care services is continually expanding.  This expanded use of health care services is the second of eight significant contributing factors that are escalating costs in U.S. health care, but are not addressed in HR-3200 as I pointed out on the 10^th of September.  In my youth, a trip to the doctor was an infrequent event for members of my immediate and extended family and friends. A visit to the doctor or hospital was driven by an observable wound, injury, or unexplained condition that called for immediate action. I can remember as a child that hospitals were perceived as places where “People Went to Die”, or to get patched up if severely injured.  Doctors were highly respected and hospitals were highly esteemed institutions, but both were to be avoided if at all possible.

Our society has shifted its perception of health care services during the last fifty years away from a more narrowly focused but necessary reaction to wounds, injuries, and treating emerging illness. Today many Americans embrace health care as a means of maintaining a higher quality of life, identifying and addressing potential medical problems as early as feasible, and as an early intervention to support extending their lives as long as possible.   There is nothing wrong with this change in philosophy, but it comes with a price. This general shift has become a significant contributing factor to increased overall costs for health care within our nation.  If we are going to use greater and greater quantities of a commodity (even health care), then overall costs for expanding those services will escalate. In our personal lives, expanding choices for spending on health care must be offset by reduced spending elsewhere in our budgets.

We now have significant elements of our elected representatives in the House, Senate, and the Administration who advocate expanding even further the use of health care resources through wellness and early detection programs beyond that used today.  I am amazed that they postulate that expanding the use of a resource such as health care will result in a decreased cost. Of course I should keep in mind that these are the same people who continue to push our nation further and further into debt through deficit spending so we can once again become prosperous.  At best these supposed leaders are ignorant. At worst they are devious, deceptive, seek to bankrupt the country, and transform us into a Socialist Nation.

Controlling the expanded use of health care services by individual citizens through creation and administration of federal regulations and policies is not a sound solution. We will see the inevitable and wasteful dichotomies of federal government intervention emerge. A real example of this can be seen where one segment of the federal government subsidizes the growth and production of tobacco products, another rails about the evils of the product and the health impacts it brings, and yet another imposes huge taxes upon the product to enrich the federal coffers.  This is a single example from many where the federal government has proven repeatedly it cannot be trusted with the nation’s health care.

My strong commitment to Constitutional limitations on the Federal Government, State Sovereignty, and the Freedom and Liberty of individual American Citizens shapes the solutions I see available to us in this area.  Ideas for addressing the expanded use of health care services by Americans include:

• Recognize and honor that each citizen has freedom of choice to include decisions on how much, how little, and what type of health care is appropriate for themselves and their family without federal intervention
• Freedom requires responsibility, in the case of health care having choice means individuals must make the choices within their personal budgets and insurance options – there are no free health care lunches
• Attempts to federalize the health care system will result in fewer available services, rationing, and reduced satisfaction by individual citizens – there are no free health care lunches
• Prohibit the expansion of federal health care programs and services in any shape or form there are no free health care lunches
• Remove, reduce, and/or prohibit  regulatory barriers which inhibit entrepreneurs from entering the health care market to satisfy expanded health care services Americans seek, at reduced costs

Bill Parson

On 10 September I discussed that there were eight significant contributing factors that are escalating costs in U.S. health care, but are not addressed in HR-3200.  The first contributing factor is the aging Baby Boomers who have begun to place greater demands on the U.S. health care system. For those readers unfamiliar with the definition of a Baby Boomer, it is those citizens in the U.S. born in the 1940’s and 1950’s. They are your relatives, friends and neighbors in the ages of 45 to 65.  Graphically they represent a bulge in the population with both the previous and following generations being considerably smaller in population size. This is by no means a surprise since as nation our political leadership has been aware of this demographic condition since the 1950’s and 1960’s, but they did little except to kick the can down the road and let someone else deal with the problem.

As Baby Boomers age, they require greater levels of health care services when compared to their parents simply due to the sheer volume of numbers. Overall expenditures for health care as a part of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP) will increase as this large generation of citizens ages. Further compounding impact of the aging Baby Boomers is the secondary demographic reality that Americans are living much longer than they did 100 or even 50 years ago, further expanding the numbers of older Americans requiring higher levels of health care.  In 2010 we will see 49% of America’s population at an age of 40 or older.  Although the aging of America’s population is not the single issue driving U.S. health care costs, it is a significant contributing fact.  Market theory states that as demand for a service or commodity increases, the price will increase if more of the commodity or service cannot be provided.  In the case of health care, the Baby Boomer bulge will act as a market driver for higher costs since the following generation is smaller with fewer people, resulting in a reduced pool of workers to provide health care services unless higher compensation in that field draws them to pursue it as a career, or other external factors are introduced.

Certainly the solutions to these realities are not found in rationing or denying health care services to our older citizens. Political discussions in Washington D.C. to nationalize 1/6^th of our economy by government seizure and control of the health care system are also unacceptable.  Compromise proposals by some that would simply result in a slower rate of nationalizing the health care system are an affront to my belief in the Constitution, State Sovereignty, and to the Freedom and Liberty of individual Americans. How do we address this demographic reality without destroying our Republic?

Solutions can be found in restoring the ability of States and individual citizens to set their own course in life and in being accountable for themselves.  Since the current problem is often described as an ever increasing percentage of the nations GDP being spent on health care, we must look at both the Numerator (GDP) and Denominator (Health Care Cost) in the equation.  Follow on papers in this series will address controlling health care costs (Denominator) without resorting to direct or indirect (slowed) nationalization of health care.  Some ideas we can execute today to address the GDP portion of the equation are:

• Remove the off sets on Social Security income for seniors who desire and are able to work – many able to do so would reenter the market part time or even full time if these offsets were not present
• Encourage and train seniors who desire and are able to work in the health care field to take part time or full time positions – this will increase the health care work pool and mitigate at some level a smaller next generation work pool
• Review and revise hospital, clinic, outpatient, and pharmaceutical delivery to optimize services in a manner that recognizes the aging of America – engage seniors in this effort to identify and streamline services with associated cost control

Bill Parson

The Health Care debate moves back to Washington D.C. today after weeks of strong public interaction with House and Senate members using Town Hall Forums across the country.  Television station hosts, and self-appointed experts, are strongly advocating for compromise and bipartisan action in both houses of Congress To Get a Health Care Bill Passed. Yet, this is a totally opposite direction than what the American people have advocated over the last month. Once again we have an alliance of the Press, Wall Street, Congress, and the Administration exerting influence in direct conflict to the will of “We the People”. Why?  Put simply, extreme levels of expanded power and the transfer of wealth are at stake for those in this loose alliance. No less than control of 16% of the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the United States. They no longer believe the Federal Government answers to the People.

Gallup polls each year indicate that the majority of Americans are generally satisfied with their health care and the cost of that health care. They do express concern over the rise in health care costs and premiums each year. Unfortunately we are experiencing the unrelenting drive of powerful organizations and individuals as they attempt to impose a self serving solution, one that does not address the problems Americans are experiencing or perceive. The following are significant contributing factors for escalating costs in U.S. health care:

1. Aging Baby Boomers place greater demands on the U.S. health care system
2. Expanded use of health care services in general by Americans
3. U.S. scientific and technological advances provide more options, at higher cost
4. Lack of value/cost consciousness by consumers
5. Compliance with expanded federal regulations and policies
6. Health care industry labor costs
7. Malpractice insurance, lawsuits, and defensive medicine
8. Health care services for 11 to 20 million illegal aliens

My analysis of the 1018 page draft House Bill HR-3200 indicates that our elected officials in Washington D.C. are not addressing any of the above significant contributing factors. One might draw the conclusion that the first three areas could be indirectly addressed in the bill through the rationing of services, not exactly the solution Americans were looking for.  The current Bill and all of the proposed modifications and proposed “Compromises” are nothing more than the dilution of individual Americans Freedom through the nationalization of the health care system. Current debates by our elected officials are obtuse in nature, but in essence they revolve around how much Freedom Americans will surrender, and at what rate. We as Free Citizens must continue to send a loud and resounding message to our elected officials in the House, Senate, and Administration saying:  Just Vote NO on Current Health Care Legislation!

In the next few days I will release additional papers identifying what specific actions can be taken to address our escalating health care costs without robbing Americans of their Freedom, Liberty, and control of the government. These papers will share specific concepts on how we can address the eight significant contributing factors above, while remaining true to the U.S. Constitution, State Sovereignty, and individual Freedom and Liberty.

Bill Parson

The resignation of Van Jones as the Administration’s Green Jobs Advisor (often referred to as a Czar) is receiving considerable press from all sources.  After several months of in depth analysis by numerous conservatives regarding Jones’ past statements, writings, and interviews, the pressure became so great that his public departure was the only option.  Many conservatives and constitutionalists will be highly encouraged by this victory, but it must be viewed in context with the overall radical agenda America is being subjected to.

The departure of Jones is being hailed as a major victory, when in reality it is a small success in a minor backwater skirmish.  We must remain focused on the radical socialist agenda to force redistribution of middle America’s individual wealth under the guise of initiatives such as Health Care reform, Cap and Trade legislation, and the takeover of private businesses and the financial industry. These proposed bills will not be imposed as temporary solutions for short term challenges, but rather they will be implemented as the permanent transformation of American Society if we allow them to occur.

We, as concerned citizens must demand that our elected officials make no compromises on Health Care or Cap and Trade legislation; only total defeat of these legislative bills is acceptable.  We must demand the federal government divest themselves of ownership and control of private businesses, cease TARP and Stimulus expenditures, and renounce deficit spending.  We must not be diverted by minor successes of little importance, rather each of us must vow to keep the pressure on our elected officials to attain these goals, and replace those politicians who do not.

This morning the Labor Department released the U.S. Unemployment rate for August.  At 9.7% it is the highest rate seen since 1983.  The 9.7% rate represents a constant month to month increase in unemployment over the last sixteen months starting at 5.0% in April 2008, with the exception of a single month, July 2009. The Federal Government and Wall Street have downplayed the level of unemployment during the last few months stating it is a lagging indicator behind emerging economic growth.  Although it is a repeatedly proven reality in each recession during the last 100 years that reemployment lags a recovery, it can only be demonstrated to be true after the recovery has occurred and unemployment has dropped.  There is no proof our current recession is over, only positive projections by some economists, legislative, and administration officials (spin?).  We remain at significant risk that this recession will continue for some time, if for no other reason than the large numbers of pending defaults in Commercial Real Estate, Jumbo House, and Zero Interest Loans that will emerge in the next 18 months.

The central question becomes:   What to Do?  The Federal Government must implement the same solution used by families across the country,  Stop spending.

Current congressional  and administration goals to expand the size of the federal  government,  create  a new massive health care program, implement a Cap and Trade scheme,  and proposals for creating additional Stimulus and Bail Out packages will not resolve our unemployment situation, except in some unique situations, and only for short term periods.  Small businesses have been the only real source of employment growth in the U.S. for some time.   Unfortunately small businesses have no choice currently but to contract in response to government legislation, increasing taxation, and the chaos of uncertainty created by federal meddling.   We are in a slow downward spiral and many seem unaware, or worse, self serving and uncaring.

Photo by Don Davis

A May 19th Article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal entitled Polls Say: Nevadans Not Wild About Harry paints an encouraging picture, but as the Zen Master in the movie “Charlie’s War” said, We will See.

I have traveled across the State during the last 6 weeks speaking with Nevada residents, and this poll validates my personal experiences and observations. The “Anti-Reid” sentiment I have encountered was actually much higher than indicated in the poll, but I have not yet engaged in meeting the people in strong hold areas where Mr. Reid receives his die-hard support.

I believe in personal accountability, and Harry Reid must accept direct responsibility for where our countries fiscal woes originated. 80.4% of the U.S Debt ($9.056 trillion) has been created in the 22 years since Reid joined the Senate in 1987. 23% of the U.S. Debt ($2.591 trillion) was created in only 28 months (Jan 07 to May 2009), the period Reid has been Senate Majority Leader; and it is growing faster than we can count! The proposed 2010 budget forecasts $1.75 trillion more to be added to the debt in a single year. Harry Reid’s enthusiastic support for the prolific sending of the Congress and the President in the first 120 days of 2009 casts doubt that even this horrific level can be stabilized.

Beating Harry Reid will be an uphill battle. The polls are against him currently, but there are multiple candidates who have announced campaigns to run or explore running against Harry Reid (myself being one who has filed with the FEC to run), and others may still join the contest of ideas, values, and vision for our future. In my six weeks of pursuing this campaign and engaging Nevadan’s one on one and in small groups I have established a strong belief that success in November 2010 will only be achieved by abandoning the “Centrist” style campaign that has been waged over the last 20 to 30 years. Success will require a candidate with an unwavering commitment to constitutional governance, a core dedication to a fiscally conservative agenda, and a commitment to reduction (not slowing) in the size our Federal Government. Fortunately for me, these are all principles I have held my entire life, not areas that I should move to to accommodate the tone of voters.

Removing Harry Reid from the Senate is my personal commitment, but it will be only one element of a greater battle for the return of our country to Constitutional principles of governance. The deep commitment of many of our citizens to removing Harry Reid from office must also extend across this great nation to removal from office in 2010 all of the members of the House and Senate who have participated in bringing this great country to the brink of financial collapse. Those long term career House and Senate members who participated in setting the stage for bank collapses, hyper-inflation of the housing market and the associated bubble bursting, and the throwing of Tax Payer money at failed businesses which are now declaring bankruptcy. Our Nation’s future requires that in 2010 we reestablish a strong constitutionally sound and fiscally conservative House and Senate.

I am confident that “We the People” will rise up and take our Nation back. Beating Harry Reid and other self-serving career politicians in the House and Senate will require support from the citizens of Nevada and all across our nation in the form of volunteering, donations, and voting. We must come together and work in an unified front over the next 18 months.

The nomination of Judge Sotomayor to replace Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court has set the stage for debate not only in the in the Senate confirmation process, but also within the Press and citizens across the Nation.  Fox News has provided video where Judge Sotomayor states:

“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.”

The quote (repeated by Judge Sotomayor in several variations over the years) has driven a highly charged debate in the press and across the country with racial discrimination charges from both Conservatives and Liberals (Progressives).  Her ancestry and sex should be immaterial in her nomination and the confirmation process, yet it is the center of attention.  What has not occurred yet, and should be the focus of discussion, is a determination if Judge Sotomayor is qualified.

The constitution does not provide specific qualifications for Federal Judges and Supreme Court Justices; rather it places the responsibility for determining the makeup of the Supreme Court and the creation and requirements for Subordinate Federal Courts in the hands of Congress. The Congress has expanded, and even decreased the size of the Supreme Court over our history. The Senate confirmation process for judges and justices has been highly politicized for most of this Nations existence. Given the virtual silence of the Constitution on the qualifications and confirmation of Supreme Court Justices; the determination of qualification must be established by evaluating other law as established by Congress.

An oath or affirmation of Office is specifically required by the Constitution of the United States.  Article 6 addresses debts, supremacy, and oaths. The last section reads:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Judges and Supreme Court Justices are required to be bound by an Oath or Affirmation, the constitution does not provide the verbiage for oaths of office, rather Congress has established these with minor modification throughout the history of the United States. The current oath of Office for Justices and Judges is identified by Congress in 28 U.S.C., § 453, Oaths of Justices and Judges. Release date: 2003-05-15. Each justice or judge of the United States takes the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office:

“I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

This oath or affirmation drives a basic question, “Does an oath of office retain any relevance for elected officials and appointed positions in today’s United States?” It is a constitutional requirement, but one that seems to have become a Performa ritual by many in public office rather than the statement of a deep felt commitment of responsibility and accountability for those who would lead and serve our nation.

If we as citizens continue to view the oaths of office for our elected and appointed officials as binding; then we must ensure that they are honored and enforced.  In the case of Judge Sotomayor, I believe she is unqualified to serve as a Justice on the Supreme Court.  Her repetitive statements over the last two decades indicate that Women, and Latina Women in particular, are superior to others (such as White Men). This calls into question her ability to honor her oath of office as a judge to “…   do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and…“. Her public statements indicate an inability to views others impartially and equitably, and by extension can she act impartially as a Justice?

Judge Sotomayor has also said:

“The saw is that if you’re going into academia, you’re going to teach, or as Judge Lucero just said, public interest law, all of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with court of appeals experience, because it is — court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know — and I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don’t make law, I know.”

This leads me to the observation that if confirmed to the Supreme Court she will become an activist justice making policy from the Supreme Court bench.  An activist judiciary by definition cannot uphold his or her oath of office, particularly the last part of that oath reading: “…that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

The constitution does not provide for the Judiciary to make policy or make law. If it did provide for that capability there would be no need for the Legislative or Executive branches of our Federal Government. If the judiciary were legitimately able to make policy and law there would be no checks and balances in our Federal Government. Our constitution would be meaningless, a document that can be simply dismissed as irrelevant by a Supreme Authority that makes law and policy as it sees fit.