Why Obama’s Supreme Court Selection Will Be A Disgrace To The Constitution

Does the Constitution mean anything specific, or is it just a “living, breathing” document that means whatever the reader wants it to mean?

And what does it mean if the Constitution is essentially meaningless?  What does it mean if the rule of leftwing “empathy” trumps the rule of law?

Depending on your answer to the first question, and what you think about the second, you are either about to be very angry, or very happy.

Justice David Souter just announced his resignation from the Supreme Court, and Barack Obama had this to say:

“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book, it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with peoples hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

Back in November, when asked what kind of Supreme Court Justice he wanted, Obama said:

I taught constitutional law for 10 years, and . . . when you look at what makes a great Supreme Court justice, it’s not just the particular issue and how they rule, but it’s their conception of the Court. And part of the role of the Court is that it is going to protect people who may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.

. . . [S]ometimes we’re only looking at academics or people who’ve been in the [lower] court. If we can find people who have life experience and they understand what it means to be on the outside, what it means to have the system not work for them, that’s the kind of person I want on the Supreme Court.

Obama has said:

We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.

Is that what being a Supreme Court Justice should mean?  Taking the little guy’s side against the big guy?  Taking the outsider’s side, such that we use the power of law to bring the outsiders inside?  Having “empathy” toward liberal voting blocs?  Why should it even matter if the law is on the rich and powerful guy’s side?

Kelly Long, of the Judicial Confirmation Network, said in response to Obama’s statement today:

“What he means is, he wants empathy for one side, and what’s wrong with that is it is being partial rather than impartial.

And she’s right: I didn’t hear Obama mentioning the need to have any empathy toward any traditional or conservative people or groups.  As an example of this highly partial and politicized and partisan “empathy,” a hate crimes bill just passed the House that could target pastors who argue that homosexuality is a sin.  Where’s the “empathy” for them?

Empathy is recast as a political weapon of the left.  And when a judge makes rulings on such feelings, his “empathy” for one group translates into naked contempt for another group.

Contrast Obama’s view with the view of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution.  That’s the oath.

In other words, Roberts 100% disagrees with Obama: being a Supreme Court Justice is not at all about having “empathy” or taking the little guy’s side; it is about following the Constitution and ruling in accordance to what the founders who wrote it intended.  Something has to ground our laws.  And the purely subjective opinions of nine unelected lawyers should not be what anchors this nation.

We find out something: as much as liberals want to argue that Bush trounced the Constitution, it is THEY who frankly could care less about the Constitution.

Rasmussen found out that:

While 82% of voters who support McCain believe the justices should rule on what is in the Constitution, just 29% of Barack Obama’s supporters agree. Just 11% of McCain supporters say judges should rule based on the judge’s sense of fairness, while nearly half (49%) of Obama supporters agree.

Only 29% of Obama supporters agree that justices should rule on what is in the Constitution.  That is absolutely terrifying.

It is conservatives who care about the Constitution.  Liberals only care about what they want, and whatever ends justify whatever means.  And if the Constitution doesn’t support what they want, so much the worse for the Constitution.

obama_yes-we-can-constitution

That’s why liberal judges can mysteriously find penumbras and emanations supporting the “Constitutional” right to abortion, and simultaneously deny the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment’s right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

The problem with this view is that one can literally do whatever one wants as a Justice without any guide but one’s own desires or convictions.  And yet that is the essence of Obama’s philosophy.  All kinds of horrors have resulted from this approach.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constitution is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

Similarly, in the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly throughout history justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.  Let’s not forget that it was Democrats who fought to impose slavery, and it was judicial activists who bound the country up with laws that took the bloodiest war in American history to overcome.

What did Thomas Jefferson say about the threat of Supreme Court Justices imposing their own will upon the Constitution and imposing laws on the nation based on nothing but their own wills?

“This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.  Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.”
—Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

I don’t hear Jefferson praising “empathy” as the defining quality of of our Supreme Court Justices.  In fact, I hear him turning in his grave over the abomination that Barack Obama’s philosophy is inflicting upon the nation.

Not that Obama cares one bit about what Jefferson realized about the stupidity and folly of judicial activism two centuries ago.  That would be honoring the original intent of our incredibly wise founding fathers, and liberals like  Obama won’t have any of that.

Antonin Scalia and Nadine Strossen debated over the strict constructivist approach, which honors the founding fathers’ view of the Constitution; versus the “living document” approach, which enables justices to impose their will on the Constitution.  A partial transcript of their debate is available.

Toward the end of the transcript, Scalia said this:

Someday, Nadine, you’re going to get a very conservative Supreme Court… And you’re going to regret what you’ve done.

Imagine if “rightwing” justices bought into the “living document” view of liberals, abandoned their historical interpretation of the Constitution, and began to start seeking “penumbras and emanations” justifying whatever laws they wanted to impose upon society.  Liberals, just imagine for a moment what they would do to society by basing their decisions not upon the Constitution and the law but upon whatever they felt like doing based upon their ideology.

Liberal activist judges love to turn to foreign law to “inform” their rulings.  So let’s see a hardcore rightwing justice start referring to sharia to “inform” his rulings against women and homosexuals.  Let’s see how the left feels if the right uses their own “legal reasoning” against them to impose a rabid moral view in the name of and with the force of law.  One thing is sure: no matter how far such a rightwing judge might go, it is yet unlikely he would go as far as the left did against babies.

The farther Obama pushes the envelope toward liberal judicial activism, the greater the ultimate backlash will be when the worm turns.  And if the economy tanks or we are hit by terrorists, the worm WILL turn to the right.

We don’t know who Obama will appoint to fill the Souter vacancy, but the one thing we DO know is that his pick will be a disgrace to the Constitution.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Why Obama’s Supreme Court Selection Will Be A Disgrace To The Constitution”

  1. Kyra Says:

    You’re good at bending the truth… if I didn’t have a brain.

    And there’s really no way to make a liberal citizen agree with “staying strictly to the Consititution” because judicial activism is a more liberal stance. Fail.

    And overtime parties have changed their views, flip-flopped if you will. So a Democrat then, could most likely be a Republican now. So no, Democrats do not support slavery, even though you’re trying desperately to imply that.
    And might I remind you that most Christians vote Republican? And in the bible, it allows slavery. OH (profanity) OH (profanity).
    Judicial activism isn’t “WHATEVER YOU THINK IS SUPER COOL,” it is interpreting the Constitution as time goes on and as society evolves.
    If we didn’t have this adaption of the Constitution then America would not be the country it is now. If we stayed strictly to the Constitution, then all the implied and the inherent powers of Congress would be flushed down the toilet.

    And does “majority rule, minority rights” mean nothing to you? If the little guy never won anything, then we would still be segregated, or even worse, hung from trees based on our color, and women would be “pretty little housewives” without any say in politics.

    I know this issue has already passed. I just wanted to show you up.

  2. Michael Eden Says:

    Why can’t liberals express themselves without foul-mouthed profanities? Are you people just that foul inside?

    To a certain degree you’re right. By today’s standards, John F. Kennedy – considered to be our greatest president along behind Ronald Reagan – would be a Republican. The fact of the matter is that “A 1960s Kennedy liberal is a conservative today.”

    As two major examples, JFK was a tax cutter. And you can go here to read quote after quote of the greatest Democrat president saying what virtually no liberal would say today. JFK embraced what today are conservative economic policies. And, furthermore, JFK took a posture to our national defense, our national security, and willingness to militarily confront evil (communism in his day) from a very straightforwardly REPUBLICAN philosophy.

    Which is to say, the shift has been toward the Democrat Party embracing a very radical leftist ideology.

    Now, to all common sense, that would be TERRIBLE for your position – that you have abandoned your greatest statesman and embraced the ideology of his enemies (the communists). But you actually regard it as being in favor for your view that the Constitution should be interpreted whatever the hell way YOU want!!! What an amazing escape from common sense!!!

    You’re right. The Bible “allows” slavery. It is the one book that understands human nature. God understood that there would be people called DEMOCRATS who would be gung ho for slavery well into the 20th century AD, let alone the 10th Century BC. If you actually bothered to READ the Bible, you’d know that God severely regulated the treatment to slaves under Mosaic law to demand they be given good treatment. And you’d know that the laws of Jubilee freed every slave. You’d also have read St. Paul’s letter in Philemon and found the very first treatise toward dignifying and freeing the slaves. If you ever bothered to learn history, you’d see that slavery was ended in Britain as a result of the work of Christian William Wilberforce, and that the Republican North largely fought the Civil War that freed the slaves on religious grounds.

    So your ridiculing of the Bible, of Christianity, and of Republicans only makes you look like a despicable fool. We had the moral foundation to put an end to slavery; you don’t. The Declaration of Independence says:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    You spit all over that, deny the basis for which ANY man should be free, and turn God and government around, such that GOVERNMENT should have the divine prerogatives as to who should be free and who should not.

    Then you make the utterly absurd statement,

    Judicial activism isn’t “WHATEVER YOU THINK IS SUPER COOL,” it is interpreting the Constitution as time goes on and as society evolves.

    By what standard? Can you name the universally accepted text that decrees the measure of “societal evolution”?

    Can you name which of our Supreme Court justices is an expert in this field of societal evolution??? I mean, I thought they were supposed to be experts of codified law; but you have them as experts in some bizarre field of sociology.

    You help me make my point. Liberalism is a disease of the soul which then extends into the mind. Liberals disregard the law, disregard the Constitution, certainly disregard the clearly expressed intent of our founders’ wisdom which far surpasses yours, disregard history, disregard morality, and disregard the truth.

    Liberalism morally velocities itself such that it isn’t even recognizable by its own standards a few decades ago, and then pats itself on the back for its depravity, as you do.

    As to your statement about “the little guy,” I answered that via John Roberts, who said:

    “I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

    But then again, Justice Roberts is very different from you; he is on the side of the Constitution, which is even toward everyone; and you are on the side of radical leftist ideology, which is only on the side of leftwing special interests.

    Hope you enjoyed “showing me up.”

    P.S. I really laughed my head off when I read this:

    If we didn’t have this adaption of the Constitution then America would not be the country it is now.

    I laugh because I know that you are one of about 10% of Americans who think the result of liberalism’s flagrant disregard for the Constitution was actually a wild success. Your abject failure to follow the wisdom of our founding fathers’ has left us nearly $130 TRILLION in debt, such that we will never be able to repay the debts your ideology has cursed us with.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: