Well she hasn’t ruled directly on any abortion rights.  However she has ruled in three abortion related decisions on the side that Pro-Life groups support.  In Center for Reproductive Law & Policy v. Bush, 304 F.3d 183 she ruled in favor of the Bush Administration’s policy of not giving money to foreign organizations that perform abortions.

The second case was Port Washington Teachers’ Association v. Board of Education. The teacher’s union was challenging a policy that teacher’s report student pregnancies to the parents.  The case was tossed out as it wasn’t a requirement that the reports be made and therefore the argument had no standing.

The third case was Amnesty America v. Town of West Hartford. In a nutshell a Pro-Life group was demonstrating and the police got involved. The demonstrators sued charging that the West Hartford Police Department used excessive force in actions taken against the demonstrators. Sotomayor ruled in favor of the Pro-Life group in a statement

“Because a reasonable jury could find that the officers gratuitously inflicted pain in a manner that was not a reasonable response to the circumstances…”

It was a ruling that really had little to do with abortion itself.  It was a ruling on the police department’s practices in regards to protestors/demonstrators.

Other than the first one that clearly allowed the Bush Administration the ability to withhold funds from groups that were preforming abortions, essentially ending those abortions,  I’m not sure that any of those cases really give a clear picture of her stance on abortion.   However all three rulings were heralded by Pro-Life groups.

I have looked for statements by Pro-Choice groups about Ms Sotomayor and her stance on abortion and they pretty much all say the same thing.  Their not sure about her and hope that she will respect precident.  Here are some quotes from Pro-Choice groups from an article from the AP.

From NARAL Pro Choice America president Nancy Keenan.

“We look forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor’s views on the right to privacy and the landmark Roe v. Wade decision as the Senate’s hearing process moves forward,”

From National Abortion Federation president Vicky Saporta.

“We don’t have enough information to take a position at this time. We’re waiting to learn more about Judge Sotomayor’s views on the constitutional right to privacy, including the right to choose.”

Hardly any ringing endorsements there.

Rachel Maddow, whom I’m not much of a fan of, hit the nail on the head with this one.

“A New Legal Regime” is what bothers me most about this whole statement.  Will this regime operate within the current legal framework or will they have a whole new set of laws outside the current Justice System and Consitution?  Will they be above the current Justice System?  Will a judge in the current system be able to review their rulings and be able to overturn them?  Or will they be above all others and answerable to no one?

Well is anyone really surprised?  I’m not.  Dispite the left’s claims it’s all for women’s rights and everyone else’s rights they just can’t stop letting their bigotry shine through.

The original page has been removed.  Here’s a link to the cached version.

Meet Rhiannon Marie Volpe, Barack Obama supporter and Feminist.  When word of these disgusting t-shirts first got out Ben Smith of politico was asked by people who was behind these shirts.  He got an answer from Rhiannon.  She is even selling the t-shirts online.  Warning lots of NSFW content!!

So if it’s acceptable for a female Obama supporter to distribute “SARAH PALIN IS A CUNT” t-shirts does that make it acceptable for a black McCain supporter to distribute “BARACK OBAMA IS A NIGGER” t-shirts?  Somehow I think that would receive far more coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3 and it would all be negotive.  Actually  should say it would receive coverage on CNN, MSNBC, and the big 3 as they are going to try and bury this story from their airwaves anyway they can.

Free Republic Article

When Jason R. Beatrice, 31 of Raynham took his 4 year old son to Market Basket he didn’t expect to have to protect him from molestation by an employee of the supermarket while using the restroom.  But that is exactly what happened.  Valerio Rodriguez, 71, of Providence reached under the bathroon stall partition and was touching the child’s leg while the child was standing on a bucket.  I am assuming he was using the bucket as a step stool.  Mr Beatrice threw open the stall door and punched Rodriguez in the mouth to stop him from molesting his son.

Guess who went to jail?  Remember it’s Massachusetts!

That’s right Beatrice went to jail.

I received a comment from Beatrice’s sister correcting me on his going to jail.  Beatrice was not arrested but was charged with assault and released.

Rodriguez, who is also an illegal alien, was given a court date to answer to the molestation charges but wasn’t even arrested.  the man confessed to police through a translator and they still didn’t arrest him.

In fact he wasn’t even fired by Market Basket.

A spokesman for Tewksbury-based Demoulas’ Supermarkets, owner of the Market Basket chain, said Rodriguez “has been suspended pending investigation by law enforcement authorities.”

This is what Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley had to say about it.

“We can’t have people taking the law into their own hands. The father should have waited for the police.”

That’s right, if someone is in the act of molesting your child don’t stop them. Call the police and wait!!

Here is Martha’s contact info. Let her know what you think.

E-mail:
office@marthacoakley.com

Phone:
617-628-4200

Mailing Address:
Martha Coakley Committee
PMB #312
One Kendall Square, Building 600
Cambridge, MA 02139

Office Address:
Martha Coakley Committee
56 Roland Street
Suite 207-C
Charlestown, MA 02129

Also since Market Basket won’t fire the illegal alien molester even after he confessed I think a boycott of Market Basket stores is in order.  I am trying to find contact information for their main office but it isn’t wasy.  Their main website(www.mbfoods.com) is currently not working.  But I didn’t find a contact form here.

UPDATE – July 17, 2008
Raynham Police Chief Lou Pacheco doesn’t understand what anyone is upset about.

“It is unfortunate that there appears to be some type of public assumption that the police stopped a father from protecting his son and let a child molester go, that is absolutely not true,” Pacheco wrote in a prepared statement.

Really?

The story stirred up a media frenzy, much of it critical of police for arresting the father.
Pacheco said people have left anonymous phone messages at the station assuming, wrongly, that police arrested the father and let the suspect go or that there was incontrovertible evidence of a sexual assault and the father used force to stop it.
But, Pacheco said, his officers had probable cause to believe that both parties had possibly committed arrestable felonies. Neither party had any record or warrants
And while the father claims the incident was an outright sexual assault, there was an arguable dispute on the facts as the elderly man who could only speak through an interpreter, said he was “just joking around,” he said.
He said his officers used their discretion not to arrest the man right away because the reason for an arrest is to protect the public by stopping the crime or similar ones from continuing and to ensure the parties will appear in court.
“None of those are the facts as I know them or as the officers knew them at the time. Innocent until proven guilty is still the law of the land and people on their own can’t become judge jury and executioner. That is not the way the system works,” he said.

Another Massachusetts Official that believes that you have no right to defend yourself or anyone else.  Just let the crime continue to occur and wait for the police to arrive and stop it.  Oh and it’s not sexual assault if you’re “just joking around”.

You can let Police Pacheco know what you think using the contact info on the Raynham Police Depratment webpage.

UPDATE – August 31, 2008

According to the Patriot Ledger the assault charge against Jason Beatrice, the father charged with assault for defending his 4 year old son from a child molester, has been dropped.  He still faces a battery charge but that will likely be dropped as the “victim” is unavaliable to testify.  The child molester Valerio Rodriguez, 71, ran away back to Guatemala when he was released instead of arrested.

Oh and here’s another nugget about Ms. Coakley.  She was interviewed on 96.9 WTKK radio in Boston and when asked about charging the father for defending his child she responded:

We… We try and discourage people from self help.

Michelle Malkin has a post on it too.

NBC17 Link

Under a new school rule, students at Hobbton High School are not allowed to wear items with flags, from any country, including the United States.

Another zero tolerance, zero thought, zero accountability policy. Just a blanket ban that makes very little sense. I am sure that they did this to prevent kid from displaying “gang colors”. I don’t think the American Flag qualifies as “Gang colors” but apparently it is to these people.

Gayle Langston said her daughter, Jessica, was told to remove her Stars and Stripes t-shirt.

And on September 11th of all days. Our forefathers must be rolling in their graves.

This is an update to an earlier post regarding the Massachusetts’ Attorney General’s stance on immigration. The original post can be read here. Well here is the non answer I received today from Carollyn Ward who apparently is on the AG’s staff.

Thank you for contacting the office of Attorney General Martha Coakley. This office is pleased to hear from all concerned parties on important issues facing the Commonwealth. Illegal immigration is a critical issue for our country and must be dealt with in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner that addresses the undocumented immigrants living in the United States as well as public safety issues.

Federal law governs immigration policy and enforcement. As a state entity, the Office of the Attorney General does not have any enforcement authority when it comes to violations of federal immigration law. In answer to your specific question regarding the use of state police, that policy decision was made by Governor Deval Patrick. Governor Patrick determined that the use of the Massachusetts State Police to enforce federal immigration law undermines the growth of a positive relationship between law enforcement and immigrant communities.

Again, thank you for contacting the Attorney General’s Office. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the future with additional questions and concerns.

Sincerely,

Community Information and Education Division

As you can see, I didn’t get an answer as to the Attorney General’s stance. I got a canned party line answer, that indicates to me that no one actually took anything I had to say in my letter under any level of consideration. At least not enough to actually read and understand the questions I was asking. Apparently someone needs to educate the “Community Information and Education Division” in the area of reading comprehension. Because it’s clear to me that her staff caught the key words and just sent off the canned answer without actually comprehending the questions.

So I resent them with a request that my question actually be addressed by the AG herself and I don’t just get a canned party line answer from some staffer that couldn’t be bothered to actually consider what I was asking.

Here is my reply:

I am resending my original questions because there was no answer to them in the reply I received. I don’t care who sets the policy and I don’t care if it’s technically the federal governments responsibility to enforce immigration law. My questions are as follows,

1. Are you in favor of enforcing immigration laws or are you in favor of setting an example that our laws are meaningless?

2. Are you in favor of deporting illegal aliens, especially ones that are already in custody for other offenses, or in favor of risking further tragedies such as the one in Newark New Jersey?

I am asking the Attorney General for her position on these questions and not the party line. I am not asking for the Governor’s position, I’m not asking for the federal government’s position. I am not asking for the canned answer that staffers are instructed to send out when certain key words appear in the letter. I’m asking for an real considerate response from the Attorney General herself.

We’ll wait and see what happens.

UPDATE As of 09/05/2007 I have received no reply. The holiday could contribute to a slow responce.

After reading Sanctuary or sovereignty on Michelle Malkin’s blog I decided to write and email the following letter to Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley

Martha Coakley 1 Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108-1698 Madame Attorney General, I am writing to you today to ask what your position is on the enforcement of immigration law in Massachusetts is. In the wake of the murders in Newark New Jersey it is clear to me that amnesty for illegal aliens with criminal records is a very dangerous position. Had those people been deported when they were taken into custody originally than those students would not have been executed and would be alive today. I want to know what you will do to prevent this type of tragedy from occurring in Massachusetts. Many other states have agreements with ICE that allows them to hold illegal aliens until ICE can pick them up and deport them. That looks like a great way to prevent such things from happening. Disallowing law enforcement to determine if someone is in violation of immigration law only tells that person that our laws mean nothing, as we don’t value them ourselves. How can we expect people that are coming to our country from other countries to respect any of our laws when they blatantly violate laws and we just release them? Are you in favor of enforcing immigration laws or are you in favor of setting an example that our laws are meaningless? Are you in favor of deporting illegal aliens or in favor of risking further tragedies such as the one in Newark New Jersey? Sincerely,

I sent it via email and US Mail. I will post an update if I should get a response. The response I expect will be a “Not My Job” response. She will likely answer the way Massachusetts Governor “Cadillac” Deval Patrick wants.

Massachusetts GovernorDeval Patrick

He has already made his agenda known. He plans to give them driver’s licenses and “In State” tuition rates. For those that don’t know what “In State” tuition is, it’s a 1/2 price tuition break that Massachusetts residents get to all state schools. United States Citizens that are residents of the other 49 states pay full price tuition to attend any of the state schools in Massachusetts. However “Cadillac” Deval plans to put these United States Citizens in a category under Illegal Alien law breakers as he will allow them to attend Massachusetts state schools for 1/2 price. The lawful residents of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts footing the bill for the other half of their tuition. “Cadillac” Deval has said Denying kids who qualify in every other way to be an in-state student is unfair. We shouldn’t be trying to erect barriers. In every other way except that they are Illegal Aliens, hence NOT residents. Seems quite a large disqualification for a resident discount to me. And not erecting barriers is what got us in this mess in the first place.

<LINK>

Why is it that every few years we get all kinds of promises about new guns laws being an answer to prayer?  Why is it that they all tout how these new laws are going to dramatically cut crime rates?  Why is that they never do?  Simple, you can pass all the laws you want and the criminals won’t obey them.  If this somehow surprised you you need to remove your head from your posterior.  Criminals by definition break laws.  You can pass 100 laws saying that you cannot kill people and they will still kill people.  There is no silver bullet law that will get all the criminals on board and end crime.  It’s just like prohibition and the completely bogus "War on Drugs".  If you ban it only the criminals will have it.  Can anyone honestly say that there are no illegal drugs available?  Does anyone seriously think that guns will be any different?  As soon as they are outlawed the black market will pick up the slack and then the only people that won’t have them are the people that you didn’t have to worry about in the first place.

We need to convince Congress to pass common sense gun laws — laws that punish immoral gun dealers and protect our citizens," he said

Whenever they call them "common sense gun laws", that’s a red flag that they contain no sense at all.  Wait, Wait, Wait Tom…. You forgot to add an "It’s for the children" at the end to get all the overly emotional fools to jump on board.

We coddle criminals and punish the guns, All the while making it harder and harder for the law abiding gun owner to simply enjoy the sport he loves and defend him/herself and family.

3 dead and more wounded and the Mayor of New Bedford Scott Lang this morning on WBZ radio is already blaming the weapon.  He stated that there is no reason that anyone should have a "military style" rifle.  Apparently he is not aware of the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution of the United States or rights as the rest of us know them.  He also described the rifle as "a cannon".  So apparently he believes the myth that appearence determines the purpose or utility of a rifle.  Fox25 has repeated that the shooter used a "machine gun" with every report.  Witnesses have reported that he had several weapons including multiple rifles.

Two police officers were also hit outside the club and both will recover.

Now that Deval is going to be the new govenor I am sure that this will elicit a knee-jerk uneducated, emotional, irrational responce, that will be described by those that support it as "common sence".  Even if there is no sence involved.

UPDATE:Fox News is reporting that the shooter was using an "M-16 machine gun".  Likely it was an AR-15 as they look alike even though they are different.  Would also explain Mayor Lang’s description of it being a "military style" rifle.  Even if he had 3 or 4 other guns. like witnesses have reported, they will focus on this rifle even if it wasn’t the one he used, although it sounds like he did.