Posted on 04/28/2008 12:28:47 AM PDT by Deetes
Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will nominate judges, you 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." Such sensitivities might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial function inimical to the rule of law?
• Voting against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, you said: Deciding "truly difficult cases" should involve "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." Is that not essentially how Chief Justice Roger Taney decided the Dred Scott case? Should other factors—say, the language of the constitutional or statutory provision at issue—matter?
• You say, "The insurance companies, the drug companies, they're not going to give up their profits easily when it comes to health care." Why should they? Who will profit from making those industries unprofitable? When pharmaceutical companies have given up their profits, who will fund pharmaceutical innovations, without which there will be much preventable suffering and death? What other industries should "give up their profits"?
• ExxonMobil's 2007 profit of $40.6 billion annoys you. Do you know that its profit, relative to its revenue, was smaller than Microsoft's and many other corporations'? And that reducing ExxonMobil's profits will injure people who participate in mutual funds, index funds and pension funds that own 52 percent of the company?
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
Obama: “Mr. Will, please don’t try and confuse me with the facts.”
What we have in Obama is a man who will follow those laws he deems acceptable to his conscious as shaped by years of Reverend Wright, Louis Farrakhan, William Ayres and other notable American haters and racists enablers.
Obama is not to be trusted due to his naivete inexperience.
Hillary: America's worst nightmare.
BUMP
Courtesy Reply:
As posted earlier if you read the words that Vladimir Lenin wrote during the Bolshevik Revolution and years after mirror many of the same words Obama uses in his Peace, Hope and Change speeches.
The word BITER as used by Obama was one of Lenin's favorites to describe those who disagreed with the revolution.
I see Obama as another Robert Mugabe wannabe in disguise.
He is a very scary guy . He must be defeated ...
Obama certainly does not understand what the founding fathers intended for this country.
Obama's the "affirmative action" candidate. He's not there because he's actually qualified. Leahy's assessment of "clean and articulate" just about sums it up. The rest is a nice empty suit.
Pathetic. I dislike him now for making Hillary look like a viable option for the democrats. Nice work, you schmoe...
Obama is a dangerous man to the freedom and sovereignty of America.
Perhaps not in this presidential cycle, but the American politics of the future will most assuredly include more blatant Marxist dogma being preached as American ... with the help of the gummint schools, a continued attack on parental control and legitimate Gospel preaching, we will indeed experience a more difficult time attempting to prevent the roaring lion from devouring our (aforeto) blessed existence.
Even so, come quickly, Jesus.
BTTT
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.