Nouvelles en Langue Anglaise

Rappel du premier message :

Bonjour Biloulou

Il me semblait que cette nouvelle plairait!

Republicans Grill Sotomayor on Past Controversial Statements

Obama's nominee for U.S. Supreme Court justice, Sonia Sotomayor, faces tough questioning Tuesday from Republican senators about her ability to judge fairly.

FOXNews.com

Tuesday, July 14, 2009
After declaring that a "wise Latina" woman has no advantage in finding judicial wisdom, Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor faced tough questions Tuesday from the Judicial Committee's top Republican who accused the judge of changing her previous statement.
"My play on those words fell flat. It was bad," Sotomayor told Alabama Sen. Jeff Sessions, trying to defend her 2001 speech in which she suggested a "wise Latina" would usually reach better conclusions than a white man without similar experiences.
"I do not believe that any racial, ethnic or gendered group has an advantage in sound judgment," Sotomayor told the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, the second day of her confirmation hearing to become the first Hispanic to sit on the high court. "I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge."
The federal appellate judge said her 2001 remarks to students at the University of California Berkeley were meant only to to "inspire them to believe that their life experiences would enrich the legal system" and not to suggest that any one group was more likely to reach a better conclusion.
But Sessions, the senior Republican on the committee, asked how Sotomayor could make such a claim Tuesday that she was "agreeing" with Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor that a "wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases."
Sotomayor told students in 2001 that "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" and "I am not sure I agree with that statement."
"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 has not lived that life," Sotomayor had said in her remarks to students.
Sotomayor also responded to criticisms Tuesday over her ruling in the reverse discrimination case -- Ricci vs. Destefano -- that was later overturned in a 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court. Sotomayor said the case was about an examination for firefighter promotions --]
The judge also said her remarks in 2005 -- in which she said the Court of Appeals is where "policy is made [and] where ... the law is percolating" -- have been taken out of context by critics.
"As a judge, I do not make law," Sotomayor told Judiciary chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., during opening testimony.
At least one Republican senator vowed Tuesday "to expose" Sonia Sotomayor as "extremely liberal" when he gets to questioning the Supreme Court nominee.

...

Comme je le faisais remarquer il y a quelques temps, un juge americain se doit d'appliquer la loi pas de la mettre au gout du jour.

Tiens, il en etait question sur le fil de Re , Trois jours en Palestine: les lois d'imposition sur l'immobilier et l'art et la maniere dont certains proprietaires font preuve pour les contourner.

JULY 14, 2009

Keeping Up Appearances: London Turns Eye to Empty Mansions

Mr. Palmer, Property Sleuth, Makes Rounds; The 'Slumdog Millionaires' of Mayfair

By JENNIFER MARTINEZ
LONDON -- At an abandoned home with yellowing newspapers on its front stoop, Paul Palmer peeks through a mail slot to find letters and leaves carpeting the entryway. The house next door has a dead plant chained to its porch, which is covered in faded utility bills.

Paul Palmer

Mr. Palmer investigates abandoned homes for a living. But his turf isn't a poverty-stricken corner of this financial capital. It's the Mayfair district, home to wealthy financiers, celebrities, the U.S. Embassy -- and a few squatters.
In the city of Westminster, where Mayfair is located, homes can cost up to £50 million ($81 million). Yet Westminster is fifth among London's 33 boroughs in the number of unoccupied properties. In 2008, 1,737 homes had been vacant six months or more, the third highest number among all London boroughs, according to the Empty Homes Agency, a nonprofit group that seeks to put empty homes back into use.
Unlike people facing foreclosures in other neighborhoods around the world, Mayfair's homeowners aren't down on their luck. Rather, the properties serve as investments for owners who pay the bills to keep them empty -- something the neighbors and city object to when the homes fall into disrepair. Many owners decline to rent the homes due to local council tax rules, which tax properties at a lower rate if they are empty and unfurnished. That loophole frustrates Mr. Palmer. "We shouldn't be rewarding these people," he says.
As the Westminster City Council's empty-property officer, Mr. Palmer strolls the area's streets six hours each day to identify vacant homes and track down their owners. Under British law, local authorities have the power to seek an order to claim ownership of the ghost properties and put them up for sale.
...

Pas qu'en Afrique alors...

Roberts Redux

Are we examining Sonia Sotomayor or John Roberts?
By Jim Geraghty

With Roberts criticized both for using the umpire metaphor and for allegedly not living up to it, and with Sotomayor’s references to empathy and personal experience simultaneously justified and denied, the panel’s Democrats seemed to be throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks.

The fight before them a foregone conclusion, it appears that hubris, boredom, or unresolved issues with Roberts’s 2005 confirmation vote has driven Senate Democrats to refight old battles. Confident that Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process, they can now focus on tearing down John Roberts.

— Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.

No doubt, the judge was subjected to plenty of scrutiny and tough criticism on Monday. There were accusations that the judge’s thinking was far out of the mainstream, and senators pointed to past comments as examples of sloppy thinking and inappropriate metaphors. After a couple of hours, the opposition was clear, and the argument from a handful of implacably hostile senators was unmistakable: John Roberts is unfit for the Supreme Court. Of course, the Senate confirmed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts almost four years ago. But that didn’t stop Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee from giving him second billing on the first day of Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing, repeatedly invoking him as an example of a justice failing to live up to his professed principles. The opening statement from Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D., R.I.) was surprising for the degree to which he focused on Roberts’s decision-making instead of on the nominee sitting in front of him. Citing CNN legal commentator Jeffrey Toobin, Whitehouse argued that in every major case since becoming chief justice, Roberts has sided with “the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporatedefendant over the individual plaintiff.” He didn’t provide any details on how Toobin picked “major cases,” how many cases were involved, whether these were decided narrowly or by wide majorities, or even whether Roberts was in the majority or the minority. ... By the time Sen. Tom Coburn (R., Okla.) had his turn for an opening statement, he remarked to the nominee, “I thought this was your hearing, not Justice Roberts’s hearing.” ... With Roberts criticized both for using the umpire metaphor and for allegedly not living up to it, and with Sotomayor’s references to empathy and personal experience simultaneously justified and denied, the panel’s Democrats seemed to be throwing everything against the wall to see what sticks. The fight before them a foregone conclusion, it appears that hubris, boredom, or unresolved issues with Roberts’s 2005 confirmation vote has driven Senate Democrats to refight old battles. Confident that Sotomayor will sail through the confirmation process, they can now focus on tearing down John Roberts. — Jim Geraghty writes the Campaign Spot for NRO.

Toujours au sujet de Judge Sotomayor

Tiens, il etait question de tsar aujourd'hui...

Auto Czar Leaves Washington Admist Pay-to-Play Probe Involving Former Firm

The White House stood by Steven Rattner back in April when reports surfaced that he was tied to a deal being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. But his departure as auto czar is raising questions about the course of the investigation.
FOXNews.com

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

The peculiar timing of Steven Rattner's departure as White House car czar has raised questions about the course of an investigation that has scrutinized his possible dealings with the New York state pension fund.
The probe into pay-to-play schemes, part of a long-running and wide-ranging investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, reportedly has intensified as Cuomo's office seeks additional documents from a firm Rattner co-founded.
"Obviously he's been a player" in the probe, said a source familiar with the investigation.
The source confirmed to FOXNews.com that Cuomo has sought documents from Rattner's former firm, Quadrangle Group, though it's unclear when the most recent requests were made.
The Treasury Department announced Monday that Rattner was quitting as counselor to the treasury secretary, a post that made him head of a task force with a broad mandate to manage the bailout of General Motors and Chrysler Group.

...

Sonia Sotomayor contradicts Obama on judges
By JOSH GERSTEIN | 7/14/09 10:34 AM EDT
Updated: 7/14/09 5:21 PM EDT


Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday broke with the man who nominated her – President Barack Obama — saying she took issue with Obama’s statement in a 2007 speech that a judge’s “heart” would dictate the outcome in a small number of cases.

“I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does…Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the law. The job of a [judge] is to apply the law,” Sotomayor said, in response to question by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law.”

Sotomayor went on to say a judge’s feelings were irrelevant to the correct outcome in a case. “We apply law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts,” Sotomayor said.

Also Tuesday, after hearing two months of pointed attacks over her so-called “wise Latina” comments, Sotomayor publicly backed off the remarks Tuesday, describing them as “a rhetorical flourish that fell flat.”

“It left an impression that life experience commanded a result in a case but that’s clearly not what I do as a judge,” Sotomayor said under questioning by Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“I want to say up front, unequivocally and without doubt, I do not believe that any ethnic racial or gender group has an advantage in sound judging,” Sotomayor said. “I do believe that every person has an equal opportunity to be a good and wise judge regardless of their background or life experience.”

During the first day of direct exchanges between senators and the nominee at her confirmation hearings, Sotomayor said her “wise Latina” statement was only intended to inspire women and Latinos pursuing careers in the law and were not meant to suggest they would make better judges than others.

She said she was simply trying to colorfully layer her comments on top of former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s statement that wise old man and wise old woman would reach the same results in a case.

“I was trying to play on her words. My play fell flat. It was bad,” Sotomayor said.

Sotomayor was expounding on a variety of her past comments, most notably her statement in a 2001 address: “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.”

After Republicans seized on the remarks to suggest bias on the part of Sotomayor, the White House had said the Sotomayor had used a poor choice of words in making the “wise Latina” remark, but this was the first time Sotomayor herself backed away from it.

...

The 'Cap And Tax' Dead End
By Sarah Palin


Tuesday, July 14, 2009

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America's unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won't bring jobs. Our nation's debt is unsustainable, and the federal government's reach into the private sector is unprecedented.
Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:
I am deeply concerned about President Obama's cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.
Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.
In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.
The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.
The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will "necessarily skyrocket." So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.
Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, "poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity."
We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.
In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

1072 -

Citation :

“We apply law to facts. We don’t apply feelings to facts,” Sotomayor said

C'est le fondement de l'institution du juge dans notre tradition juridique occidentale.

Citation :

“I was trying to play on her words. My play fell flat. It was bad,” Sotomayor said.

Chère Sonia, bienvenue au club des "Pires Jeux de Mots Laids" !

C'est ce qui precedait qui m'avait interesse:

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor on Tuesday broke with the man who nominated her – President Barack Obama — saying she took issue with Obama’s statement in a 2007 speech that a judge’s “heart” would dictate the outcome in a small number of cases.

“I wouldn’t approach the issue of judging in the way the president does…Judges can’t rely on what’s in their heart. They don’t determine the law. Congress makes the law. The job of a [judge] is to apply the law,” Sotomayor said, in response to question by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) “It’s not the heart that compels conclusions in cases, it’s the law.”

Pas tant pour sa facon de juger qui semble en contradiction avec ce qu'elle annoncait hier, mais pour le point de vue de NP.

4 des 6 appels de ses jugements revus par la Cour Supreme ont ete renverses.

------

Quant au mauvais jeu de mot...

State TV: 168 Killed in Iran Plane Crash

By ALI AKBAR DAREINI Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran July 15, 2009 (AP)

State TV says 168 people were killed when a passenger plane crashed Wednesday in northwest Iran.

Iranian Civil Aviation Organization spokesman Reza Jafarzadeh had told state television that 153 passengers and 15 crewmembers were on the Russian-made Caspian Airlines jet that had been headed from Tehran to the Armenian capital yerevan.

Footage from the scene on state-run Press TV shows a deep trench smashed into an agricultural field by the impact, littered with smoking wreckage. It showed a large chunk of a wing, but much of the wreckage appeared to be in small pieces.

...

Dans la mesure où il évoque des gens qui croient ou font semblant de croire, convenances personnelles obligent, que le dioxyde de carbone est un dangereux polluant source de tous les maux, 0'Reilly a vraiment beaucoup de courage à leur faire plonger le nez dans leur... dans leur pollution !

OUI!

Republicans stepped up their criticism of House Democrats' Health care plan Wednesday, warning that the quality of care would decrease under the trillion-dollar proposal.


(Biloulou It's Baaaaack!)

House Democrats' health care reform bill would create a mind-boggling "web of bureaucracy," Republican critics charged Wednesday as they sought to block Democrats from hastily passing a costly and sweeping health package on orders from President Obama.

Stressing his point, House Minority Leader John Boehner unveiled a dizzying flow chart that he said would represent how health care coverage would look under the plan being pushed by House Democrats.

The chart shows the president and Congress at the top, with dozens of agencies and officials responsible for various slices of the health care program underneath.

The suggestion inherent in the chart is that the health care system would grind to a near-halt under the Democrats' plan.

"If anybody thinks that all of this bureaucracy is needed to fix our health care system, I plainly disagree," Boehner said. "What this is going to do is ration care, limit the choices that patients and doctors have and really decrease the quality of our health care system."

Estimates of the House Democrats' plan range from $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion over 10 years, with much of the cost offset by a surtax on the wealthy. As Republicans railed against the package, a Senate committee voted on another version of a health care overhaul, becoming the first congressional panel to do so.

"The proposal amounts to a government takeover of the American economy," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., said of the House version, pledging that his party would oppose it.
But Democrats, and especially Obama, are set on passing a health care overhaul soon -- whether Republicans are on board or not.

Obama plans to make a public statement on his goals Wednesday afternoon, as his allies on Capitol Hill press to pass a bill through both chambers in the coming weeks.

sylvette
il y a un truc que je comprends pas dans cette valse de gros chiffres sur les graphiques de la page précédente
c'est de savoir pourquoi ils comptent pas les dépenses de guerre?
(entre 400 et 500 milliards par ans, c'est tout de même pas une paille ....)
est-ce que c'est un budget qui n'a jamais de déficit?
(faudra me donner la recette, parce que le seul que je connais comme ça, c'est l'imprimante à billets)

jam a écrit:

sylvette
il y a un truc que je comprends pas dans cette valse de gros chiffres sur les graphiques de la page précédente
c'est de savoir pourquoi ils comptent pas les dépenses de guerre?
(entre 400 et 500 milliards par ans, c'est tout de même pas une paille ....)
est-ce que c'est un budget qui n'a jamais de déficit?
(faudra me donner la recette, parce que le seul que je connais comme ça, c'est l'imprimante à billets)

Jam

Sous les graphiques etait ecrit:

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above. Also, some Obama defenders are claiming the graphic above represents biased Heritage Foundation numbers. While we stand behind the numbers we put out 100%, the numbers, and the graphic itself, above are from the Washington Post. We originally left out the link to WaPo. It has been now been added.
CLARIFICATION: Of course, this Washington Post graphic does not perfectly delineate budget surpluses and deficits by administration. President Bush took office in January 2001, and therefore played a lead role in crafting the FY 2002-2008 budgets. Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for the FY 2009 budget deficit that overlaps their administrations, before President Obama assumes full budgetary responsibility beginning in FY 2010. Overall, President Obama’s budget would add twice as much debt as President Bush over the same number of years.

VIDEO: PETA parades playmates for Vegans


Desolee pour Eddie et Jam , pas de rousse.

Pour Tous et pour les hommes blancs en particulier:

Il y a une place de libre au Couvent d'Emma qui des messieurs concernes commence?

Pour la gauche americaine, s'appeller Sarah Palin ne donne qu'un droit: celui de servir de punching bag politique.

Senateur Kyl de l'Arizona, au vu des resultats peu encourageants de l'economie americaine, et qu avait vote contre les plans de relance, a ose demande a ce que l'argent non-encore depense soit utilise a d'autres fins que celles prevues, les consequences positives promises par NP ne s'etant de toute evidence pas concretisees.

Pas moins de 4 Secretaires d'etat ont envoye une lettre, menace a peine voilee au gouverneur de son etat, lui demandant si elle allait refuser l'argent prevu pour son gouvernement. Action bien evidemment mediatisee et qui ne manquera pas d'etre utilisee lors des prochaines elections.

Bien evidemment, les Democrates ne veulent absolument pas "revisiter" le probleme. Les Republicains sont donc pries de se tenir coi ou alors d'etre prets a en subir les consequences.

(ooohhh! ca va tellement mieux!)

Sotomayor Shows the Way

It would be a fine thing if we could take the judge at her word.
By Andrew C. McCarthy

Empathy shmempathy. Senator, it is absolutely wrong for judges to decide cases based on their personal feelings or subjective sense of justice. President Obama’s theory that the law only takes you “25 miles in the marathon and the judge’s heart take you the rest of the way” is hogwash. The judge’s only proper role is to apply “settled” law to the facts of the case.

Racialism? Senator, please! The notion that a “wise Latina” or a wise fill-in-the-racial/ethnic/gender group will make better decisions than judges drawn from other categories of Americans — especially white men — is repulsive. We must heartily agree with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s observation that a “wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases” — even if we’ve spent our professional lives denying that simple truth.

Opposing the death penalty because it “is associated with evident racism in our society,” promoting public funding for abortion, claiming that the denial of such funding to low-income women is tantamount to slavery? Senator, even if briefs making such absurd arguments happen to have been filed by an organization like Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund while I happen to have been serving, for more than a decade, as a board member and “top policy maker” — in fact, even if filing loopy tantamount-to-slavery briefs is something of a rite of passage for President Obama’s favored lawyers — you can rest assured that I never read them and certainly never encouraged them.

...

The lesson matters in these confirmation hearings, but it will matter a lot more in 2010 and 2012. If the Republicans in the Senate want to figure out what went wrong — why there aren’t enough of them to staff a tea party, much less to stage a filibuster — they should be listening to Judge Sotomayor and grasping that the country doesn’t want Democrat-lite — or Democrat, period. Americans are still fiscally and socially conservative. If anything, Obama is making them more so. All we need now is a party that looks more like America and less like the opposition.

Andrew C. McCarthy

Sylvette a écrit:

VIDEO: PETA parades playmates for Vegans

http://www.politico.com/singletitlevideo.html?bcpid=1155201977&bctid=29618411001

Desolee pour Eddie et Jam , pas de rousse.

C'est très rafraîchisant...

Oui, d'autant qu'elles sont tres pasteques.

Voila un des endroits ou l'argent du plan de relance de NP va se retrouver: 16.1 million de dollars pour sauvegarder une espece de souris.

Voila ce dont parlait le Senateur de l'Arizona entre autres, d'ou sa proposition de reviser les projets avant de continuer a transferer l'argent restant. (plus de 80% du total)

GOP hits Pelosi for nouse funds

By S.A. Miller


The tiny mouse that became a hotly disputed symbol of wasteful spending in the $787 billion economic stimulus bill has returned to pester House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The Obama administration revealed last week that as much as $16.1 million from the stimulus program is going to save the San Francisco Bay Area habitat of, among other things, the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse.

...