Posted on 05/28/2008 1:23:51 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Mr. Obama, on the other hand, is a lawyer and has had a long and deep interest in the courts and the law. Cass R. Sunstein, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School and an Obama adviser, said in an interview that because Mr. Obama had taught constitutional law for 10 years at Chicago, “he is immersed in these issues.”
“The first thing to know,” Professor Sunstein said, “is that he knows this stuff inside and out, and he has the credentials to be easily appointed to the court himself.”
From his remarks in the Senate opposing the nominations of Judges Roberts and Alito, among others, Mr. Obama made clear that he would look to name judges with an expansive, progressive view of the Constitution.
In explaining his opposition to the Alito nomination, Mr. Obama said that Judge Alito’s record showed “extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless” and “for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.”
On March 3, Mr. Obama spoke of what he would look for in a Supreme Court justice and held up Earl Warren, a former governor of California and the former chief justice, as an example.
Chief Justice Warren, who led the court in forging its landmark 1954 ruling outlawing school segregation, “had the wisdom to recognize that segregation was wrong less because of precise sociological effects and more so because it was immoral and stigmatized blacks,” Mr. Obama said. “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Unless you attend a historically Black College, then that's choice not segregation and rewarded with federal dollars.
The first is not a Constitutional concern, per se. Only the second is. Either Sen Obama is as ignorant of the Constitution and interpretative rulings as he is of his own family history, or he is in favor of legislating from the Bench. Neither is good.
“for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.”
Since when did that matter to a liberal?
As far as I know, only when the government is trying to stop evil.
BHO believes it is ‘constitutional’ to allow a baby who has survived an abortion to be left to die. That’s all I need to know about him.
I wonder if libs realize an expansionist Court can swing both ways? A case can be made that the Kelo decision (eminent domain) was just such a ruling: despised by many, even including libs.
Attention all “pure” conservatives and Libertarians who think McCain is the Devil:
Please don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater on this one. There are CLEAR differences between the far-less-than-ideal McCain and the sickeningly Leftist Obama, he of raising taxes, talking to terrorists without preconditions, banning guns and appointing “judges with an expansive, progressive view of the Constitution.”
Stay home on “principle,” and you an appeasing foreign policy, the dismantling of the miilitary, a crappy economy, regulations on everything you can think of and a core of activist judges who will impact our legal system for decades to come.
IOW, DON’T stay home on Election Day. Vote for McCain - not because he’s so fantastic (he’s very, very far from that), but to stop an utter disaster. Obama will make Carter look like a good President, and then he’ll be around for another 40 years to continue Carter’s role as perpertual, annoying gadfly/traitor. But if you DO stay home, then please STFU for the next 4 years, because you’ll have forfeited the right to complain.
Correction: Stay home on “principle,” and you GET an appeasing foreign policy....
Obama doesn’t know S*** and isn’t qualified to judge a hot-dog eating contest. And we KNOW his wife is completely unqualified for anything. At all.
“The first thing to know,” Professor Sunstein said, “is that he knows this stuff inside and out, and he has the credentials to be easily appointed to the court himself.”
This is untrue as anyone who watched the 2004 Illinois senatorial debates knows. Obama didn’t know that the standard for people to be eligible to vote in federal elections is the standard for the lower house in the state legislature.
FWIW, I always considereded Times' Week in Review articles an extension of the commentary from the OpEd columns, although commentary can contain news.
This is why staying home on Election Day is extremely stupid - federal judges and the other elective offices - that effectively give the donkeys a pass by not voting.
If McCain is elected do you think Congress will allow any of his nominations to be seated? I believe he will capitulate at every turn to the will of "his friends".
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.