Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama's Constitution
The Weekly Standard ^ | 03/17/2008, Volume 013, Issue 26 | Edward Whelan

Posted on 03/08/2008 11:01:28 AM PST by vietvet67

Justice John Paul Stevens turns 88 in April, and by January 2009 five other justices will be from 69 to 75 years old. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably--with the benefit of resignations by liberal justices eager for him to be the president who chooses their successors--have the opportunity to appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in his first term, with another two or three in a potential second term. That prospect ought to focus the attention of all Americans who want a Supreme Court that practices judicial restraint and respects the proper realm of representative government. For Obama, if elected, would certainly aim to fill the Supreme Court--and the lower federal courts--with liberal judicial activists.

Although Obama has served in the Senate for barely three years, he has already established a record on judicial nominations and constitutional law that comports with his 2007 ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal of all 100 senators. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and he even joined in the effort to filibuster the Alito nomination. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the "truly difficult" cases requires resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy." In short, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: barackhusseinobama; chebama; cultofobama; nobama; scotus; supremecourt; yobama

1 posted on 03/08/2008 11:01:30 AM PST by vietvet67
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

The courts will look like “chocolate courts” perhaps


2 posted on 03/08/2008 11:02:54 AM PST by JoanneSD (illegals represented without taxation.. Americans taxed without representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

This is really scary. Reason enough to vote for McCain. With him, at least we have a chance at getting good judges. We’ll have no such luck with Jug Ears.


3 posted on 03/08/2008 11:03:42 AM PST by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

But didn’t you hear, no difference between Obama and McCain. At least that’s what “True Conservatives” tell us.


4 posted on 03/08/2008 11:06:02 AM PST by The_Republican (You know why Chelsea Clinton is so Ugly? Because Janet Reno is her Father! LOL! - Mac is Back!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

We can not let Hillary or Obama win. The liberals are at the end of the line on the Supreme Court. We can put a stake in the heart of a liberal Supreme Court for another twenty years, or we can let them reload the court with a bunch of young far-left liberals.


5 posted on 03/08/2008 11:06:04 AM PST by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parmenio
Reason enough to vote for McCain. With him, at least we have a chance at getting good judges.

Reason enough to vote for McCain. With him, at least we have a chance at getting good tolerably sane judges.

Good?

I wouldn't take it that far....

6 posted on 03/08/2008 11:07:42 AM PST by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Parmenio

I agree with you and made such a comment here a week ago.
Caught some heat for it, but for the reason of SCOTUS alone, I can hold my nose and vote for the ancient Nasal Radiator.


7 posted on 03/08/2008 11:08:52 AM PST by 2nd Bn, 11th Mar (The "P" in Democrat stands for patriotism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: JoanneSD

With free cold duck for all.


8 posted on 03/08/2008 11:10:02 AM PST by Vaduz (and just think how clean the cities would become again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably

That scare tactic has been used with presidential elections for years.

But, look at the track record. Those with R haven't done such a stellar job of appointing justices. Even with the current R, we almost got Harriet Miers.

McCain has said he doesn't care for the Alito-type justices who wear conservatism on their sleeve. McCain also voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and he supported the nomination of Harriet Miers.

Chances are, whether it is McCain, Clinton or Obama, their judicial picks will be of the left-leaning moderate type, as that is probably all they can get through confirmation.
9 posted on 03/08/2008 11:15:23 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parmenio

“This is really scary.” Yes.

“Reason enough to vote for McCain.” Yes.


10 posted on 03/08/2008 11:18:05 AM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

If Obamie the Commie is elected, the SCOTUS will entrench social Marxism to the point that it will not be possible for the nation to recover. That, and national defense, are the reasons McCain has to be elected.


11 posted on 03/08/2008 11:18:12 AM PST by hellbender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parmenio

Ha, ha, what makes you think that? McCain is too old to run for a second term, so he will do whatever he pleases in his only term of office. You do remember that it was a Republican prez who gave us Souter, right? I don’t trust McCain as far as I can throw him.

I think we’re tooled no matter which one of the 3 candidates wins. They’re all liberal clowns.


12 posted on 03/08/2008 11:21:49 AM PST by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

McCain has already said he’d never appoint an Alito, because he ...”wears his conservativism on his sleeve”...who would McCain appoint...probably another Souter.

Who would Barry appoint...probably another Souter.


13 posted on 03/08/2008 11:22:18 AM PST by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Those with R haven't done such a stellar job of appointing justices.

The only big screwup I see is Souter. Otherwise, the GOP has always given us better judges than the Dems, at least in my lifetime. I didn't say perfect judges (is there such a thing?) just better judges.

14 posted on 03/08/2008 11:22:22 AM PST by squidly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

This is the ONE Big reason that I will vote for McCain.


15 posted on 03/08/2008 11:32:28 AM PST by fish hawk (The religion of Darwinism = Monkey Intellect)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

Practice these:
Justice Boxer
Justice Feinstein
Justice Sheila Jackson Lee
Justice Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Justice Rangel
“But officer, no need to search the house. We turned in all our firearms last week.”


16 posted on 03/08/2008 11:34:01 AM PST by Dick Bachert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: squidly

Recent justices and who appointed them:

(deceased) Rehnquist - Nixon (R) [Reagan appointed him Chief Justice)
(retired) O’Connor - Reagan (R)
Stevens - Ford (R)
Scalia - Reagan(R)
Kennedy - Reagan (R)
Souter - Bush I (R)
Thomas - Bush I (R)
Breyer - Clinton (D)
Ginsberg - Clinton (D)
Roberts - Bush II(R)
Alito - Bush II (R)

It would appear that anyone would have a difficult time blaming the ills of the SC on the Dems, considering only 2 of the current nine and previous two were appointed by Republicans.

http://www.usscplus.com/info/justices.htm


17 posted on 03/08/2008 11:35:03 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
Typing correction:

considering only 2 of the current nine and previous two were appointed by Republicans Democrats.
18 posted on 03/08/2008 11:37:40 AM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JoanneSD

Another good reason to vote for anyone but “O”


19 posted on 03/08/2008 11:48:26 AM PST by ronnie raygun (Id rather be hunting with dick than driving with ted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: squidly

Reagan screwed up with O’Connor and Kennedy.


20 posted on 03/08/2008 11:50:13 AM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
Blasphemy
21 posted on 03/08/2008 11:53:09 AM PST by Doe Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: squidly
Those with R haven't done such a stellar job of appointing justices.

The only big screwup I see is Souter. Otherwise, the GOP has always given us better judges than the Dems, at least in my lifetime. I didn't say perfect judges (is there such a thing?) just better judges.

Well you did qualify this by saying "in my lifetime" so...., but the R's have done just as pitiful a job over the last several decades as the dems.

Eisenhower (R) gave us Earl Warren, easily one or the two or three worst justices ever; Brennan and Stewart, leftist lunatics both.

Nixon (R): Blackman and Powell who gave us abortion, along with another Nixon appointee Berger (and the aforementioned Brennan and Stewart)---yes, Eisenhower and Nixon appointed 5 of the 7 justices that gave us Roe v Wade.

Ford (R) gave us the left winger Stephens.

Reagan (R) gave us Sandra Day O' Left-Wing and Anthony Kennedy who is no conservative.

Bush the Elder (R) gave us Souter the Puke.

Based on history, no need to vote for a R just to give us better justices because it doesn't happen. I'd pick Kennedy's Byron White over any of the "republican" justices during the last 50 years.

22 posted on 03/08/2008 11:54:58 AM PST by Founding Father (The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably

That scare tactic has been used with presidential elections for years.

It's ridiculous to call this analysis a "scare tactic". This is how rational people compare candidates, weigh the likely outcomes, and then decide how to place a vote to ensure as close an outcome as possible to their preferences.

McCain voted yes on Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Brown, etc for Circuit Judges and voted yes for Roberts and Alito for SCOTUS. Clinton and Obama voted NO on all of them.

It's absolutely clear that McCain and Obama/Clinton have radically different preferences regarding judges and judicial nominations is an area of immense power for a President with long-term and far-reaching political consequences.

.

23 posted on 03/08/2008 11:55:45 AM PST by Tamzee (Thomas Jefferson - "Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: The_Republican

The “True Conservatives” who say that are what Lenin called “useful idiots.”


24 posted on 03/08/2008 11:56:01 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Doe Eyes

Not really.
<p<
Reagan also supported Amnesty, the Brady Bill and raised taxes.


25 posted on 03/08/2008 11:56:09 AM PST by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: hellbender
Tell that to the cement-headed true believers here.
26 posted on 03/08/2008 11:57:14 AM PST by Emperor Palpatine ("There is no civility, only politics.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

McCain is younger than more than half the Court but he’s “too old to serve” because he’s not a Democrat. LOL!


27 posted on 03/08/2008 11:57:24 AM PST by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy

Granted, there’s no guarantee McCain or any other Republican will appoint conservative judges, but we have no chance of getting an even moderate judge with either Marxist on the other side. SCOTUS is reason alone to hold your nose and vote McCain.


28 posted on 03/08/2008 12:04:52 PM PST by hdbc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: hdbc
we have no chance of getting an even moderate judge with either Marxist on the other side.

Part of the blame for that would be the Republicans on the Judiciary committee. Senator Specter comes to mind.
29 posted on 03/08/2008 12:31:18 PM PST by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

It was that same Republican president who gave us Clarence Thomas too. A .500 batting average on judges is better than the .000 we got from Clinton.

I said there’s a chance with McCain. With Obama, we would get nothing.


30 posted on 03/08/2008 12:43:08 PM PST by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

I agree with your “tolerably sane” comment. Thank you for improving my thoughts on this.


31 posted on 03/08/2008 12:44:14 PM PST by Parmenio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67
The SC thing isn't workin’ for me. Only leftist judges look to be leaving in the next several years. (barring the unexpected). So Worst case scenario, status quo is maintained. I see no different scenario with McCain. NO matter what he says. His word has no value with me. He likes leftists and I believe he will try to appoint them, simply by calling them conservatives.
32 posted on 03/08/2008 2:48:27 PM PST by isrul (Help make koranimals an endangered species)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
That scare tactic has been used with presidential elections for years.

But, look at the track record. Those with R haven't done such a stellar job of appointing justices. Even with the current R, we almost got Harriet Miers.


Agreed that several Republican appointed Supremes have been disappointments...especially those appointed when the Democrats controlled the Senate.

The thing is that the Democrats are very, very good at appointing judges that advance their far left wing ideas. Given the alternative, I prefer to take my chances on McCain.
33 posted on 03/08/2008 7:49:29 PM PST by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Based on history, no need to vote for a R just to give us better justices because it doesn't happen. I'd pick Kennedy's Byron White over any of the "republican" justices during the last 50 years.

How about if we limit if to the last 40 years?
34 posted on 03/08/2008 7:53:49 PM PST by goldfinch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: vietvet67

thanks, bfl


35 posted on 03/12/2008 8:00:30 PM PDT by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
McCain also voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg and he supported the nomination of Harriet Miers.

I have a lot of reasons to distrust McCain, but these aren't among them. Most Republican senators did vote for that looney old leftist Ginsberg, because that was back in the days when they thought the President had the right to choose Supreme Court justices. And a number of Republicans supported Miers and it may just have been one of the very few times McCain decided to support Pres. Bush.

36 posted on 03/12/2008 8:36:29 PM PDT by hsalaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Founding Father
Based on history, no need to vote for a R just to give us better justices because it doesn't happen. I'd pick Kennedy's Byron White over any of the "republican" justices during the last 50 years.
So you don't like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts or Alito?
37 posted on 03/12/2008 9:23:49 PM PDT by rmlew (Grievance politics is a mental illness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: rmlew

For the most part, yes I like them (in order: Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts), but White easily outpaces all four of them. Don’t be fooled, all five of the justices would be considered wildly liberal and part of the lunatic left by the founding fathers.


38 posted on 03/13/2008 4:58:25 AM PDT by Founding Father (The Pedophile moHAMmudd (PBUH---Pigblood be upon him))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson