Note the Blindfold, Mr. President

Mr. President, Lady Justice wears a blindfold for a reason.

She is not to know of strife. She is not to know of circumstance. She is not to know of wealth or poverty, strength or weakness, education or illiteracy, gifted oratory or bumbling foolishness.

Obviously, Mr. President, you know not the role of the judiciary.

Your remarks today showed complete ignorance as to the designated function of two of the three branches of the very government you lead. You say that “justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook,” but it is. That “abstract legal theory,” Mr. President, is the United States Constitution, a document you have in the past derided as being fundamentally flawed. You say that justice is “about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives,” but you’re wrong. Making law is the role of legislators; a judge’s role is to interpret it and nothing more. You would know this, sir, if you had spent more time in the U.S. Senate actually legislating rather than preening and campaigning and planning your next move.

Mr. President, I have absolutely no problem with you personally. You seem to have a decent sense of humor, and by all appearances care deeply for your family. I appreciate that. And, Mr. President, I can also appreciate our political differences as just that — political differences, cultivated by vastly different backgrounds and experiences, all leading up to great divergence in ideology. But, Mr. President, your idea of the role of the judiciary is downright dangerous, and immeasurably ignorant.

On page 79 of your book, The Audacity of Hope (a title, by the way, which seems more and more pertinent with each passing day), you wrote the following:

With conservative republicans making gains in the congressional and presidential elections, many liberals viewed the courts as the only thing standing in the way of a radical effort to roll back civil rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, environmental regulation, church/state separation, and the entire legacy of the New Deal.

From this, Mr. President, it seems extremely obvious–and particularly telling–that you look upon the judicial branch as being on even ground with the legislative branch with regard to enacting legislation that would expand civil rights, women’s rights, environmental regulation, and sweeping economic and social change. Add today’s statement that your ideal Supreme Court Justice would take into account for their decisions whether people “can make a living and care for their families” and whether they “feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation,” and I’d say that my assessment is fair.

And I’d likewise say that your perspective is dead wrong. On the Court, and on the Constitution.

As a student, you studied our founding documents at Harvard Law School. As a professor, you taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. And, as president of the United States, you will nominate anywhere between one and four Justices–if not more–to the Supreme Court. On all accounts, you should know better.

In 2001, you gave a public radio interview as a state senator and law professor in which you lamented that the Supreme Court “never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society” and that the Court had not facilitated the ability for America to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution.” On the Constitution itself, you remarked that, because it never forced the redistribution of wealth to African Americans, it was a document with a “fundamental flaw” that “reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day.”

That view, Mr. President, seems to lend itself to your idea that it is the job of the Supreme Court to assume the role of the legislature, essential constraints of the Constitution be damned. Hence your mission to nominate a Justice which considers hopes and dreams and struggles as much, if not more, than the law itself — and that says nothing of your politically correct focus on gender and national origin rather than pure qualification.

Mr. President, you are absolutely, unequivocally, 100 percent wrong on the role of the judiciary, and your blindness as to what should be the blindness of justice could very well haunt this nation for generations to come. The role of a Supreme Court Justice, Mr. President, is not to evaluate the matter at hand based upon the feeling in their “hearts.” Decisions and outcomes are to be based upon interpretation of the law and of the Constitution alone — not “empathy,” and surely not the ability to understand and identify with “people’s hopes and struggles,” as you said today. The role of a Supreme Court Justice, Mr. President, is not to make a decision based upon the interests of a single mother, a welfare addict or anyone else for that matter, just as the role of the judiciary is neither to favor the weak against the strong, nor the strong against the weak. When weighing a particular controversy, Mr. President, the role of a Supreme Court Justice is to instead look at the United States Constitution as written by this nation’s founders and interpret that document–preferably in as narrow a fashion as possible–as needed to adjudicate the controversy in question. At most, contemporaneous writings shedding light on the framers’ intentions and aspirations may be persuasive, but certainly not binding. Foreign law should never enter into the equation.

Mr. President, contrary to what you said in 2001, the United States of America does not 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. Breaking free from the principles and values of those imperfect men is precisely why we stare a bloated government in the mouth and watch helplessly as our sovereignty and our freedoms erode 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, Mr. President, a man who laments that the Supreme Court hasn’t simply tossed asunder the principles and aspirations of our founding fathers in the name of “economic justice” and “social engineering” has the opportunity to nominate a Justice to that Court.

That man is you. And as an American, Mr. President, I hope you abandon everything you’ve learned and everything you know, and that you choose wisely. Note the blindfold, Mr. President. Like every word in our founding documents, it’s there for a reason.



  1. tm says:

    to over the top?
    I thought it was funny.
    Sorry, If I offended.

  2. suek says:

    Re: the Daily Dozen…

    The Thomas Sowell link, and the Rick Moran link both go to the same page…

  3. tm says:

    This is so odd, one of the best judges (who was on Bush’s shortlist for SCOTUS) resigns – after just hiring new clerks for the upcoming sessions – to teach at stanford?
    If you don’t think this is odd – read the comments in the article.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Good luck tomorrow Jeff!

    Just read this article so thought I would pass it along….



    “Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter. Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. “

  6. Marie says:

    I know this is off topic but for those of you who have been following the Miss California same-sex marriage controversy, I was doing a little research to have actual data to back up my contention that children need a mother and a father and that marriage was set up to provide that. I found this very interesting book that was written by a young woman who was raised by her gay father and who was significantly impacted by his lifestyle. She says she now gets contacted often by others who were raised in gay households and who had similar experiences. Interesting reading…


    What is at stake isn’t just the tax dollars, the jobs and the opportunities of those Americans who come out on the losing side of the Obama Administration’s policies – as important as these things are.

    What is at stake are moral issues of fairness and freedom. As Arthur Brooks, the President of the American Enterprise Institute, wrote last week, it’s immoral for the government to “confiscate more income from the minority simply because the government can. It’s also a moral issue to lower the rewards for entrepreneurial success, and to spend what we don’t have without regard for our children’s future.”

    Americans don’t mind working hard and competing to win. We don’t even mind losing sometimes.

    What we mind is government making the call. That was the real message of the Tea Party movement, and it’s one President Obama and his aides would do well to hear.

    -Newt Gingrich


  8. SANDY BERGER? says:

    SANTA ANA, Calif. – Prosecutors say a traveler tried smuggling songbirds into the United States by strapping more than a dozen birds to his legs and trying to walk out of Los Angeles International Airport.


    Is that a canary in your pants or are you glad to see me?

  10. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of Blindfolds on, I just read the New York Post article "Obama Refuses to Release Air Force One/NYC Photos" on the daily dozen.
    That was NOT a backup plane.
    This is the 2nd time I've seen the A/P referred to as "Air Force One backup plane" & I can tell you for a fact that it could NOT be the backup plane. Why, you ask? Because the "other" AIR FORCE ONE (there are only 2 Boeing 747's total in existence) is, and has been parked in one of Boeing Everett Washington's paint hangars being repainted, since before the flyby incident & to this day is still in repaint.
    It's kind of like not realizing someone took your ONLY car out of your driveway for a spin around the block & you didn't know it was missing (but much bigger). It's only a backup, when you have the other available to fly on, and he didn't, so that couldn't be farther from the truth in this case.
    When there's only 1 available for POTUS flight, it is Air Force One.

  12. R O F L says:

    WASHINGTON – Arlen Specter’s switch to the Democratic Party has cost him his seniority on Senate committees.

    The Senate passed a resolution Tuesday night that made him the most junior Democrat on the committees on which he serves. The resolution was passed after an agreement was reached between leadership in both parties and Specter, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. Manley said the seniority issue will be revisited after the 2010 elections.

  13. Marie says:

    Is anyone as mad about this as I am?

    First, they sign the Generational Theft Stimulus Bill without reading it. Now they aren’t bothering to show up at hearings being held to ensure the money is not just being flushed down the corruption toilet. Only 7 of the 10 who were supposed to show up at the hearing actually did.

    And to add insult to injury, after saying at the hearing that they have no worries because all of the American people will be watching and keeping track of where the money goes, Sheriff Joe Biden’s little posse group tells us that the website that Obama touted in his great transparency facade speech is not even going to be available to track data on how the money is spent until the money is at least half gone–not until next spring at the earliest!!! And I’m sure they’ll find an excuse to delay it even longer so they can keep their hands in the till.

    American taxpayers are being played like fools and I can’t remember a time in the history of our country that those who govern have done so with such contempt for the people who put them in office and fund their activities. This is exactly the same as if you ran a business and had employees stealing out of the cash register and you were told by law enforcement that there is nothing you can do–it’s legal because you made the decision to hire thieves.

  14. ACORN NUTCASE says:

    Holy Crap. Glenn Beck absolutely hammered a guy from Acorn on his TV show. In the commercial break he told Glenn “why are you afraid of black people?”…. Glenn insisted he leave the studio, and get this, this dude hit on his staffer asking her for a date on the way out! ROFL… what a LOSER OF AN ORGANIZATION, and we are paying for it, monetarily and morally.

  15. ANCHORMAN says:

    Hope you all don’t mind the off-topics and crazy humor to fill up some space as Jeff studies to ACE that test!

  16. Marie says:

    I just sent Bill O’Reilly the following email–not that he will even read it but at least it made me feel better to write it. I was just so frustrated by his Obama eligibility reference he made tonight on his show–making a joke.

    As a regular viewer, I was insulted tonight when you briefly mentioned the Obama birth certificate controversy but only as a joke. I think it’s odd that with all the ratings we provide for you as viewers, that you, Hannity, and even Beck, refuse to give us the simple courtesy of examining our concerns about his eligibility in a fair and balance segment on any of your programs. Instead, we are the butt of jokes.

    If you think that patriots who believe it is a little more than odd that their president refuses to show a full long-form version of his birth certificate, his college transcripts, and other documentation of his past are far right idiots then perhaps its time for me to give up on Fox as well. It’s too bad since Fox was the last channel I was willing to watch.


    Excellent analogy Marie, we have indeed hired thieves.

  18. Anonymous says:


    When I heard that guy was going to be on Glenn, I was torn as to whether or not to watch it, b/c I have seen him before on Fox, and NO ONE repulses and enrages me more! But I watched knowing that Glenn would probably clobber him! I personally thought that he was a little too easy on the guy!
    This guy reminds me of some sleezy Miami pimp! He is a disgrace to humanity!

  19. Anonymous says:

    Anonymous 10:21….
    How did you get this info of the other one being in “the shop”? I am not challenging you, but am just curious!

    Lisa in TX


  1. [...] strength or weakness.  And the role of its arbiters should be an easy one to understand.  From Note the Blindfold, Mr. President: The role of a Supreme Court Justice, Mr. President, is not to evaluate the matter at hand based [...]

  2. [...] he has opposed the practice each and every time.  The law is the law.  And Lady Justice, if you remember, wears that blindfold for a [...]

  3. [...] see a Department of Justice more interested in ripping the blindfold from Lady Justice’s eyes to first examine a person’s race before determining whether to act or remain insouciant, [...]

  4. [...] see a Department of Justice more interested in ripping the blindfold from Lady Justice’s eyes to first examine a person’s race before determining whether to act or remain insouciant, [...]

Speak Your Mind