‘Change’ Could Last a Generation

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

So, according to Barack Obama, it is a tragedy that the Court never interpreted the U.S. Constitution, a document he said was fundamentally flawed and “reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day,” so as to force the redistribution of wealth to African-Americans. He called it “one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement” that we could not “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution,” and noted that “the framers had that same blind spot.” At the time this interview took place, in 2001, he lamented that such change would likely not come from the judiciary and would have to come from legislation.

A week from tomorrow, Barack Obama could be well on his way of ensuring that the Supreme Court, and indeed all levels of the federal bench, adhere more to his ideological perspective that the role of the courts is to “favor the weak against the strong” rather than interpreting the U.S. Constitution as it was written.

We already know that Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. He wants to punish those who are successful, and give the fruits of that hard work to those who simply have not chosen to work as hard. We already know that Obama has an ultra-left take on the role of the judiciary — now, a week and a day before the election, maybe more people will see it.

With the advancing age of the Supreme Court Justices, it is possible that the next president of the United States could nominate anywhere from two to five–or more!–Justices to the highest court in the land. I wonder about how Barack Obama’s potential nominees, who would inevitably make the Ninth Circuit look like Justice Scalia in comparison and would receive minimal vetting from a democrat-controlled Congress, would address the erosion of our Constitutional rights, the thinning of our core values, the prosecution of the War on Terror and the need to insulate ourselves from Islam and Sharia Law.

Barack Obama is absolutely, 100 percent wrong on the judiciary. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is NOT to evaluate the matter at hand based upon the feeling in their “hearts.” The role of a Supreme Court Justice is not to make a decision based upon the interests of a single mother, a welfare addict, or anyone else for that matter. The role of a Supreme Court Justice is to look at the UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION when weighing a controversy and interpret the document–preferably in as narrow a fashion as possible–as needed to adjudicate the controversy in question.

We need to “break free” from the principles put forth by our framers? As far as I can tell, the abandonment of those ideas and ideals is what got us here in the first place, staring a bloated government in the mouth, watching as our sovereignty is eroding by the minute. Every single word, phrase and paragraph in our founding documents are there for a reason, placed there by people who fought, bled and died to make this country the antithesis of the tyrannical rule from which they escaped. This is a nation which, because of its founding principles, is a beacon of hope for those around the world who strive for freedom, opportunity and fairness. And now, the man who very likely could be the 44th president of these United States laments that the Supreme Court hasn’t just tossed asunder the principles and aspirations of our founding fathers in the name of a Marxist approach to social engineering.

Achieving “social justice” through “redistributive change” is his goal. And, come January, he could be well on his way to using every branch of government to do it.

We absolutely must take back some Congressional seats through action in the voting booth. If the democrats obtain exclusive control of both the legislative and executive branches, and Obama the Oval Office, the judicial branch will soon follow. The harm done to our nation over the course of four years could last a generation.

For your reading pleasure, here’s a piece on Obama’s view of the Court from back in February of this year. I wrote about it back then, but think it would behoove everyone to take a second look.

– Jeff

Obama’s Class War Court
by Terry Jeffrey, townhall.com
February 27, 2008

When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the “weak” over the “strong.”

When the nomination of Sam Alito came up in January 2006, he made the same argument.

Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law.

During the Roberts nomination debate, he argued that most Supreme Court cases involve no real controversy, “so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases.”

In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. “In those difficult cases,” Obama said, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren’t in the right place.

“The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak,” Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005.

“When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled,” Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. “There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless.”

Implicitly conceding that Roberts would be confirmed, Obama said, “I hope he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society.”

So, in Obama’s vision, who are the “weak” and who are the “strong”? Who deserves to win the “hearts” of Supreme Court justices? Who does not?

In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America together, Obama’s Senate speeches against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal defendants were among the weak, majorities, men, employers and prosecutors were among the strong.

“In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process,” Obama said of Roberts. “In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”

Alito had a similar problem, only with different preferred victim classes.

“If there is a case involving an employer and employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer,” Obama said. “If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he will rule in favor of the state.”

Obama expressed disappointed that when he interviewed John Roberts he could not get the judge to reveal more of his personal feelings. “Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper feelings,” Obama said. “That is not how he is trained.”

Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama should have listened more carefully to the judge’s testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not consider who is “weak” and who is “strong” in a case, or consult their personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts and the law.

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts. “I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”

If Obama becomes president, he will try to stack the court not with umpires, but with players who put their heart in every game — consistently pitching and batting for Obama’s favorite teams.

Share

Comments

  1. AK says:

    Well, for whatever it’s worth …

    The context of this discussion was the redistribution pursued in the civil rights movement. The tragedy, as has been pointed out, was that the focus was based entirely upon the court system, and barrack is here saying that the courts aren’t really a good place to do this. If they wanted to see more redistributive advances, they should get more involved in the political arena. Is this a bad thing? Seems better to me that if you want change, you don’t just sue for it, you get involved in the government and make your case to the people. You don’t expect the constitution to handle everything for you, you go propose laws that everybody has a say on, not just the courts. You work for it, don’t sue for it. Isn’t that a better way to be handling things?

    But on this redistributive change. What kinds of redistribution was being addressed during the civil rights movement. Brown vs. Board of Education. Equal access and equal funding for education. You know, redistribute tax payer money to poor black schools. It’s not reparations, or just hand out money to black people. The tragedy is they didn’t pursue this further through the legislative branch. Is there still an effect today? Well do you really think there’s equality between the education you get from a public school in a wealthy white neighborhood and a poor, more diverse neighborhood today? I’d say there’s still something left to be desired.

    As far as his litmus test for judges, personally, I think there’s some merit in it. You’re right, justice should be blind, and media shouldn’t be biased. But look at what barrack is saying. That Alito consistently sided against specific types of people or issues, such as remnants of racial discrimination or sexism. Doesn’t that kind of bring into question his ability to remain unbiased a bit? That the vast majority of the cases Alito presided over involving racist or sexist accusations just happened to be without merit and should have been sided against?

    Additionally, you bring into question Obama being disappointed in not getting the judge to reveal his own feelings. But when you’re trying to judge a man to see if he is truly impartial, doesn’t it help to understand what his personal opinions are, in order to determine how they might have effected his decision and to better judge how the candidate is able to remain impartial?

    As Obama notes, good judges will make the same decisions 95% of the time, simply because the law pretty clearly dictates how it should be interpreted. But he’s interested in that extra 5%, as he states. Where the law really isn’t very clear in one way or another. Is it simply OK, for a judge on the high court of the land to just side one way all the time in those cases, as Obama alledges of Alito? Or do we want someone a little more discerning?

    I mean, the Constitution wasn’t created in order to grant freedoms to the wealthy. I mean, usually the wealthy or the powerful didn’t have to worry about that too much. Freedom was for the little guy. The guy who’s freedoms usually got stepped on first. Simple freedoms, basic freedoms, speech, guns, religion. Stuff like that. It isn’t about going for the “weak” all the time, even when the weak are obviously wrong. It’s about making sure you ARE keeping the “weak” in mind, and be absolutely sure not to overlook them due to some predisposition.

    I’m not going to ask you to support him. I think that’s a lost cause, but this isn’t a balanced look at the man. This isn’t about simply not agreeing with his policies. These are accusations that you should be scared of this guy because he wants to radically change the Constitution or radically change the courts. I emplore you to be very careful when throwing out these accusations, this starts to border into the same kind of divisive fearmongering that is destroying our country, and has been for the last 8+ years. It is this which crushes rational discussion and keeps this country stagnant as we can’t move forward on much of anything, too busy pointing fingers at the other guy who everyone should be afraid of.

  2. Igor Ledochowski says:

    This is what Hypnosis can do for lots of people to effect such a positive change in their lives. With Hypnosis can people truly gain full control over their lives and reprogram unproductive habits toward the life they want and deserve.
    Thanks for the review

Speak Your Mind

*