
by: Bill Dupray posted: 2008-11-17 11:57:00
Viewed 304 times. 0 Comments.
There is a funny piece in the L.A. Times today discussing Obama's possible picks for the Supreme Court. It is not ha-ha funny, it is funny because it shows how far-left liberals distinguish themselves from one another; sort of like a zebra saying another zebra has a slightly wider stripe.
Barack Obama's election probably does not herald a new liberal era at the Supreme Court, since none of the conservative justices -- who are in the majority -- is expected to retire in the next four years.
But if liberals cannot take control, Obama's win has them pushing for a strong voice for social justice on the high court.
"I think Obama would want to make a statement with his Supreme Court justices. We hope for a justice who can replace the lost voice of an Earl Warren or Thurgood Marshall or William Brennan," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a coalition of public interest and civil rights groups. "It's critically important to have an Obama justice who can be a counterpoint to [Chief Justice John G.] Roberts and [Justice Samuel A.] Alito."
I guess Obama is going to disappoint these folks. The L.A. Times thinks it will be hard right wingers right down the line.
It is not clear that Obama hopes to put the kind of person on the court that Aron and other liberals are dreaming about.In an interview with the Detroit Free Press editorial board in October, he described Warren, Brennan and Marshall as "heroes of mine. . . . But that doesn't necessarily mean that I think their judicial philosophy is appropriate for today."
He credited the Warren court with ending segregation and opening doors for African Americans. "The court had to step in and break that logjam. I'm not sure you need that. In fact, I would be troubled if you had that same kind of activism in circumstances today," he said.
Yeah, Obama doesn't want activist Justices on the bench. He likes folks like Ginsberg and Breyer.
President Clinton named the only two Democrats to the court since the 1960s, and he steered away from strong liberals, instead choosing veteran appeals court judges with moderate to liberal records. Ginsburg, soft-spoken and measured, is a champion of women's rights. Stephen G. Breyer is a pragmatic problem-solver. Neither has been in a position to shape the court's work.
Do they mean the moderate to liberal Ginsburg and Breyer who tried to strike down the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Or perhaps they mean the moderate to liberal Ginsburg and Breyer who effectively repealed the 5th Amendment right to private property by allowing cities to take private property and give it to another private party.
But the L.A. Times thinks there is a difference between those Constitution-shredding moderate to liberal Justices and the "real" liberals of the late 20th century.
By contrast, Warren, Marshall and Brennan were leaders of the court in its liberal era. They pressed for civil rights for minorities and women and strengthened rights for criminal defendants. Brennan and Marshall led the court in halting the death penalty for a time in the early 1970s and in striking down laws banning abortion.
Not sure I see much of a difference here. The death penalty was carried out in colonial times and the practice was far more, shall we say . . . politically incorrect, than it was in the 1970s. The Constitution specifically allows for capital punishment, but the Warren Court found it unconstitutional anyway. They, like their progeny, Ginsberg and Breyer, ignored the plain English of the Constitution.
Abortion rights are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, and neither is the permissible age at which people can marry, the proper sentence for manslaughter, and whether gambling should be allowed. Those issues are for the states to decide. And yet, the 1970s Court made up the right to an abortion, thereby depriving voters in the states of the freedom to decide the issue for themselves.
The bottom line is that Breyer and Ginsburg are every bit as far left as Warren, Marshall, and Brennan were. They disregard the text of the Constitution and legislate from the bench, substituting their own judgment for that of the Founding Fathers, thereby depriving Americans of sacred Constitutional rights and the freedom to choose the laws under which they are to be governed.
Barack Obama will only add to the problem with his judicial selections and further reduce our freedom and liberty.
Tags: Liberals, Law, Constitution, Barack Obama,
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/la-times-obama-liberals-supreme-court/trackback
The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor... on Capitol Hill he’s under fire for poor execution of the president’s healthcare agenda in the Senate... Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan. While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny.
Views: 22 Comments: 0
Michelle Obama defended her husband against some of his most vocal critics, saying President Obama did a "phenomenal" job this year and that change is a long-term process. The first lady talks about her nationwide campaign called "Let's Move." "I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course," Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on "Good Morning America." "That's what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the President of the United States."Let me finish that last thought for you, Michelle. I see you rubbing your hands together and thinking, "Yes, for now people have the right to criticize him, but we're working on changing that."
Views: 33 Comments: 0
In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.
Views: 46 Comments: 0
McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.
Views: 31 Comments: 0
Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."
Views: 31 Comments: 0
I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.
Views: 60 Comments: 0
Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.
Views: 124 Comments: 1
Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.
Views: 78 Comments: 3
Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Views: 78 Comments: 2
The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.
Views: 57 Comments: 2
Comments 0
Have an opinion?