Obama: I Will Nominate Activist Judges Who Support My Radical Agenda
June 17th, 2008 at 01:41pm Matt Margolis
While he didn’t use those exact words that’s pretty much what he means.
“When applying the law, the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law,” McCain said. “The judicial role is necessarily limited and one that requires restraint and humility.”
The McCain Web site offers the promise that his “judicial appointees will understand that the federal government was intended to have limited scope, and that federal courts must respect the proper role of local and state governments.”
Obama, meanwhile, has said he wants to appoint judges who have “empathy.”
“We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom,” Obama told a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C., in 2007 “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.”
Which is just his way of saying he’ll appoint judges who support welfare, abortion, affirmative action quotas and gay marriage.
What’s really sad is that Obama’s desire for judges who follow the Constitution is non existent.
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Supreme Court
36 Comments
1. Some Assembly Required | June 17th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“When applying the law, the role of judges is not to impose their own view as to the best policy choices for society but to faithfully and accurately determine the policy choices already made by the people and embodied in the law,”
In other words, Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned. Gay marriage that just passed will not be overturned. Thats really gotta ‘Grind your Gears’
2. Some Assembly Required | June 17th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
I agree with McCain here. This is a huge step away from Bush. But, judges cannot be merciless either. I think Obama is more likely to compromise in November. Matt, the man is a Constitutional lawyer.
3. Andrew | June 17th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
The current court will go down as one of the most respected of all time, because it recognizes generally the concept of federalism, but at the same time it knows when to reject federalism, like in Gore v. Bush. I think everyone will agree that although the decision in that case cannot be justified on constitutional grounds (indeed, lawyers are pretty much barred from citing to it as precedent for other cases), the “ends” - - getting Bush in office - - outweighed the means - - having to ignore constitutional limits. Hopefully when cases of equal or greater importance come before this same court, the court will be willing to drop the federalism facade if necessary to reach the desired result. Although this is the very definition of “an activist court,” it is “activism” that rewards a more important economic group, meaning the upper class, and therefore is to be encouraged, as opposed to an activism seen in cases such as Roe vs. Wade, which primarily rewards an underclass, and is therefore to be discouraged.
4. hermie | June 17th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Whether a person is a member of the ‘upper class’ , ‘middle class’ or whatever group there is, punishing someone because they are in a group or income class different than someone else is not justice, but class warfare hidden by a judge.
They are supposed to have “Equal Justice Under Law”. That’s what it says on the SCOTUS building, not ‘Justice to whomever I empathize with today”.
5. Andrew | June 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Hermie, why would you say that punishing someone of a certain class is not “justice?” All of our classes are not equal. A number of my staffers in my hedge fund practice pay a higher tax rate - - 25% - - than I do, and I earn well into the multi-millions of dollars, because I and others of my ilk successfully lobbied the government to characterize my income as “deferred interest,” which is taxed at a maximum of 15%. So the “underclass” of secretaries are punished so that I may benefit. Similarly, most of the people who write on this blog have smart rich white kids, who won’t have to go to war because there’s no draft. So what we do is champion the war, and we write about how it is “unpatriotic” and how it “hurts the troops” to complain about the war. And how the troops want to stay over there, and don’t mind multiple tours of duty. The underclass buys off on this nonsense, and, not wanting to appear unpatriotic, vote against their economic interests in national elections. Meanwhile, our taxes stay low, and our kids are safe. The economy gets worse for the underclass, and their kids are the ones who go and fight the wars.
We win, they lose. If you’re rich and republican, like most of the people on this blog, that’s justice!
6. hermie | June 17th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Hedge funds and criminal/civil law are different. You can choose a hedge fund, you cannot choose the sets of laws to live under in a society.
Since you feel so guilty of your income under your hedge fund, you are entirely welcome to give it to your secretaries.
The armed forces is voluntary and anyone can join, even the children of those you despise. (Chicago Mayor Richard Daley’s son joined up and his family is far more well-off than a member of the ‘underclass’.)
7. Jack | June 17th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
Very interesting. I live in Marin County and I see so many, would be successful people, with Obama ’08 bumper stickers. It is unbelievable.
I think everyone here needs an O-Bummer ’08 bumper sticker.
Check out: http://www.O-Bummer.com
8. SEW | June 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
“Matt, the man is a Constitutional lawyer”
SAR
“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.”
SAR, I remember that from Constutional Law 301.
9. Pain | June 17th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
8. SEW | June 17th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
And George W Bush chose Harriet Miers for SCOTUS because she was a lawyer and a Southern baptist on Dobson’s short list and the entire MSM had kittens!
You wingnuts are sooo funny!
10. OhioOrrin | June 17th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
andrew - feel free 2 pay however much MORE in taxes than required. You have that choice don’t you?
also, as a Gulf 1 vet, I agree the draft should be reinstated. but u better believe the parents of “rich, white kids” will have the clout to get their kids exempted.
lastly, it could be argued that 17-24 yr old urban black males w/o fathers are better served in the service vs society at large.
11. Jeremiah | June 17th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
What’s really sad is that Obama’s desire for judges who follow the Constitution is non existent.–Matt Margolis
As in hillbilly style, ‘You nailed ‘er, Matt!’
Good job!
12. Jeremiah | June 17th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Obama doesn’t care what the law means, to Obama, the law means whatever he ‘feels’ it means. Remember, out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, because he is not conscieous to the right and wrong stated in God’s Word. God has precedent over the law… God IS the Law. Therefore, we must obey the law, therefore, contrusting our laws according to the Law.
13. bongoman | June 17th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
That’s a bit rich coming from a Bush supporter given the extent to which Bush has totally disrespected the Constitution.
14. Matt Margolis | June 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
“Matt, the man is a Constitutional lawyer.”
That means nothing, Do all constitutional lawyers agree on the constitutionality of issues A, B, and C?
No, of course not. If a background in constitutional law consistently influenced the rulings of judges, there’s be a lot more unanimous rulings in courts. Obama’s background as a constitutional lawyer means nothing to me. A liberal he is, and liberals he would nominate, and liberals think abortion is a right protected by the Constitution, but the right to bear arms isn’t… I could go on… but you get the idea
15. Matt Margolis | June 17th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
enough with the DNC talking points bongoman. you sound silly regurgitating them.
16. Brian (Boston) | June 17th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Activist judges? Didn’t Scalia just rule last week not based on law but based on his own beliefs on the case about Gitmo detainees? He said he felt that the courts could not handle the cases and that this would lead to attacks on America. And he made statements before hearing another case.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/27/AR2006032701913.html
17. SEW | June 17th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
“You wingnuts are sooo funny!” Pain
So tell us about the wonderful Sharia Constitution.
18. kmg | June 17th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Somewhat on topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rixkck8QnjY
19. Some Assembly Required | June 17th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
14. Matt Margolis | June 17th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
No, of course they do not Matt, but putting abortion and guns on the back burner for a second, constitutional lawyers know what ‘unalienable rights’ are and will be disbarred and prosecuted for violating them. (At least we hope) Obama has more then proven his record with ethics reform in this category and lets face it, it means nothing to you because he has accomplishments that you wish McCain has in his field.
There you go again, he will not change the 2nd amendment. He believes in that right, he says this. He just thinks that people do not need a right to carry Assault rifles or stock pile their basements with RPG’s. (yes, I can exaggerate too) As for abortion, McCain will not overturn it. Bush never did with 4 years of a full majority (talking point, but also a fact. Sure does suck you you can’t refute those hey..) what makes you think McCain will. It will not be overturned because it’s unconceivable to put together some kind of special police task force to prosecute and imprison those responsible or who perform / get abortions. Can you image a ‘Cops’ episode where a swat team breaks into a house and violent throws a respectable doctor across the room and puts a 18 year old girl next door in handcuffs? Won’t happen. Not to mention what it would do to the size of government. But no, you don’t think this through like most people. You just insist the baby must be born when it is conceived because it is Gods will. This brings me to one quick question, 40,000,000,000 or whatever it is Deaths. Wouldn’t you think God would notice that and intervene? He’s done so before for much less; Noah comes to mind.
20. bongoman | June 17th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
So you’re oblivious to the growth in executive power under this Administration? Be you’re the first to complain about executive excess if/when it’s Obama claiming the same powers that Bush has claimed as executive.
21. neocon | June 17th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
bongo,
Bush merely enforced rights already extended the executive branch, whether or not that’s expanding the role is debatable. However our three branch system was designed with a purpose, and that intent is still firmly in place.
You can relax.
have a nice day
peace, neocon
22. Jeremiah | June 17th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
American’s need to take advantage of this year’s election…but it doesn’t just stop at the Presidential election, Christian must fight with every fiber of their being to end these organizations know as Planned Parenthood and the ACLU and Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, we have to sever their ties to the people before a change can take place, sever their ties with the Supreme Court, No more ACLU lawyers, No more AUFSOCAS lawyers no more LGBT lawyers, no more NAMBLA lawyers……..GET ‘EM OUT!!!
23. Martin Dean | June 17th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Did you guys read this?
“KBR Machinery Company had the Army over a barrel: if the Army refused to pay KBR’s inflated bills (more than $1B in unjustified costs), KBR threatened to shut off payments to its subcontractors, which in turn would stop feeding the army in Iraq.?”
The Army use to be able to feed itself. It was Bush that brought in private contractors and this is what we get for it: Blackmail.
It is time to put our soldiers best interest above the stockholders of Halliburton.
24. Matt Margolis | June 17th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Some Assembly Required,
Obama can’t overturn the 2nd Amendment… no president would have the authority to do so. This is not about what a president can or will do in the course of one or two terms, this is about what judges will be put in on federal benches for lifetime appointments…
I do not want Barack Obama nominating judges to any court. The damage he could do this country would be huge.
25. js | June 17th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
dean,
stop being a stooge…most of the subcontracting was forced on the military when clinton make huge cuts in military spending….its got nothing to do with bush moron….
26. Jay Gaultieri | June 18th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Republican Presidents have appointed almost all of the justices on the Supreme Court, and the God-Guns-Gays crowd still complains about “activist judges” all the time.
27. Jay Gaultieri | June 18th, 2008 at 12:23 am
JS, when I pointed out how those subcontractors are charging the troops—-and that means the taxpayers, and that means you and me—-45 bucks for a six pack of Coke not one of the ten or so Bush Supporters who regularly post here said a word. Not a damn word about that filthy bacteria-infested water Halliburton made the Marines shower in that resulted in dozens of illnesses and the whistle blower getting fired.
28. bongoman | June 18th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Jeremiah, are you aware of the work that the ACLU has done on behalf of the freedoms of Christian believers?
Have a look here: http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
29. dedosinuna | June 18th, 2008 at 12:45 am
Yes, we get it. You toads hate Obama.
ODS - Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Meanwhile, the rest of the country is moving on. Maybe some of the least brain-damaged among you will actually join us.
30. Jeremiah | June 18th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I don’t mean to interrupt….but I come with an URGENT request…..
Please remember this home in your prayers at this hour…..please!
31. xaviercugat | June 18th, 2008 at 1:14 am
I just love these arguments against activist judges. As if you give a rat’s ass about he sanctity of “original intent”. It’s a damned silly canard for the three issues you can keep track of - God, Guns, and Gonads.
But you all conveniently forget about abuses of original intent when it benefits conservative causes, such as the application of the 14th amendment to corporations (which was intended to extend rights to former slaves).
32. Jeremiah | June 18th, 2008 at 1:23 am
bongoman,
I prefer sites which tell the truth, not leftists propaganda.
33. bongoman | June 18th, 2008 at 3:48 am
Wow - talk about shoot the messenger Jeremiah.
In the face of actual evidence concerning the multitude of cases in which the ACLU has acted to defend the freedom of Christians, you would prefer to remain comfortable in your prejudice and ignorance.
The fact is you attacked the ACLU and when presented with said evidence, the best you can do is accuse the site of being ‘leftist propaganda’.
Good to see your keeping your mind open there.
34. Tractatus | June 18th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Republican Presidents have appointed almost all of the justices on the Supreme Court, and the God-Guns-Gays crowd still complains about “activist judges” all the time.
Well, yes. That’s because “activist judge” just means “judge who makes decisions I don’t like.” The whole “activist” thing is just a talking point concocted to make it seem as though the opposition is based on some lofty principle and not political ideology. No surprise, then, that people like Margolis swallow it hook, line, and sinker–they simply don’t know any better, and the verbiage sounds good to them. Disagree with a judge’s decision? Then that judge is an activist who has overstepped his or her bounds and clearly doesn’t understand the laws of the land! It’s a very simple input-X-triggers-output-Y thing with these people.
35. FmrMarine | June 18th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
BONG man
ACLU = ANTI CHRISTIAN LITIGATION UNIT.
They are a scum sucking marxist group.
As for earbama hussein
he already has a short list for SCOTUS;
1. Je$$e Jacka$$ Ja@kson
2. Al twana $harpstone.
3. Calypso louie fartacan.
3. angels panther davis.
Change is a comin = The USSA!
brought to you by the “great uniter” hussein earbama
36. bongoman | June 18th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
So that would explain why they have a history of acting on behalf of aggrieved Christians?