Blog Archives
Government, Inc. Leads to Red Ink for Our Nation’s Small Businesses
Guest Post by Congressman Bob Goodlatte
Four years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the now-notorious case of Kelo v. City of New London, which authorized the government to take private property from individuals for nearly any reason under the guise of eminent domain, even to give to other private individuals or entities. The public outcry over this decision was so great that it forced states to enact laws to significantly rein in their own eminent domain powers.
Unfortunately, House Democrats did not learn the lessons of the Kelo decision. A few weeks ago, they passed H.R. 4173, the so-called “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.” This bill would allow a team of federal bureaucrats to decide that a private business poses a risk to the economy. Incredibly, the bill then allows the federal government to take over that private business and even gives the government the right to sell off the business’ assets. What’s worse, to pay for these takeovers, the bill sets up a permanent $150 billion slush fund.
While the alleged purpose of this bill is to prevent a concentration of money and power in a small number of large corporations, the bill would have the opposite effect. Knowing that the federal government will swoop in and take over any companies that it deems “too big to fail,” creditors and investors will be drawn to lend money to the largest corporations because of the implied guarantee that the federal government will step in to repay these loans. The flow of capital will thus go to the largest corporations rather than where the money is really needed – small businesses and entrepreneurs, which are the true innovators and job creators of the U.S. economy.
The bill also creates a separate, new bureaucratic agency and bestows upon it broad authority to impose burdensome regulations on any business that lends money, extends credit or enters into repayment plans with consumers. These regulations would hit everyone from doctors and hospitals to furniture and department stores.
It is efforts like H.R. 4173 that prompted Ronald Reagan to warn us against those who would have us believe that a small intellectual elite can manage the people better than the people can manage themselves.
For all of these reasons I have cosponsored H.J.Res. 57, a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the United States government from owning or having any interest in any private company or corporation. This bill will prevent future taxpayer-funded bailouts of private corporations and help get government out of the way so that small businesses and entrepreneurs can access capital to innovate and create the jobs that are so desperately needed today.
In this case, as in so many others, government is not the answer, government is the problem. To contact me about this or any other matter, please visit my website at www.goodlatte.house.gov.
Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Begin Today
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee will start the hearings for Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Speculation is that Sotomayor’s nomination will sail through the Committee and she will ultimately be confirmed by the Senate.
However, The Politico has some things to watch for in the Senate proceedings. There is no doubt that this confirmation hearing will have some fireworks with the GOP calling into question Sotomayor’s previous cases/rulings, her comments, etc.
Stay tuned for some video coverage, which I might embed tonight or tomorrow for your viewing pleasure. In the meantime, call your Senator (202-224-3121) and urge them to vote no on Sotomayor. Sotomayor’s previous comments and her overall judicial record proves that she will not be the right choice to uphold the Constitution.
Obama Nominates Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court
President Obama announced today that he will be appointing Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. With Sotomayor’s nomination, there has been a flurry of questions surrounding her nomination, including lots of dissent. Will she be an activist judge or a judge that seeks to uphold the Constitution?
Let’s look at some recent statements that might lend some light into her view of interpreting the law from a speech that she made to La Raza in October 2001.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
From a Duke University panel discussion in February 2005.
“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, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.
Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic even discussed why Sotomayor might not be a good choice for this position. While many law clerks praised her work, there were a few who cited that she often made oversight onto particular details involving some high-profile cases.
Some former clerks and prosecutors expressed concerns about her command of technical legal details: In 2001, for example, a conservative colleague, Ralph Winter, included an unusual footnote in a case suggesting that an earlier opinion by Sotomayor might have inadvertently misstated the law in a way that misled litigants. The most controversial case in which Sotomayor participated is Ricci v. DeStefano, the explosive case involving affirmative action in the New Haven fire department, which is now being reviewed by the Supreme Court. A panel including Sotomayor ruled against the firefighters in a perfunctory unpublished opinion. This provoked Judge Cabranes, a fellow Clinton appointee, to object to the panel’s opinion that contained “no reference whatsoever to the constitutional issues at the core of this case.” (The extent of Sotomayor’s involvement in the opinion itself is not publicly known.)
I thought Obama was seeking someone with a strong judicial background. I guess strong judicial background is someone who thinks the Courtrooms of America establish policy. Someone better inform Congress that they are out of business if this is the case.
Supreme Court Justice Souter to Retire
NPR reports that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will be retiring at the end of the court term. This will be President Obama’s first court appointment, and no doubt, this opens the door for a potential appointment of Elena Kagan, who has been rumored to be one of Obama’s top choices. No doubt, whoever it is, the nominee will most likely have a cloud of controversy over him/her.
Stay tuned for future developments.
