Now for some political thoughts. As I have stated in the past, I believe Barack Obama is an upstanding human being and has a heart for helping people. I also have long stood against him as a presidential candidate. I feel like I have seen glimpses into his ideology and it is a bit unsettling to me. I truly don't understand his wacky tax plan of "lowering the taxes of 95% of Americans" while 40% of Americans don't even pay any taxes. But I can handle those things, no problem. Every candidate promises dinner and a movie, but you may only get a handy in the park. It is expected. But when I hear Obama say that the Warren court wasn't liberal enough, it upsets me and furthers my belief that he has fooled a number of Americans by smooth rhetoric into believeing he is more moderate that what he really is.
The Warren court was the most liberal court we have ever had, in my opinion. The Supreme Court nominees are a big issue with me in this election. I believe that Obama will appoint only those judges who he is assured will legislate from the bench, not interpret the law. Conservatives are often flogged when it comes to this point for wanting to take over the court and overturn Roe v Wade. However, what Conservative Presidents have done is to appoint those judges who are conservative but also know the role of the Supreme Court. Saying the Warren Court wasn't liberal enough leads me to believe that Obama doesn't believe in finding those judges. Let us not forget that two judges that Reagan appointed, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, both were int he majority when the abortion case from Pennsylvania, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that upheld the idea of the legality of abortion. Now, you don't hear that fact much from people like Ted Kennedy and Joe Biden. They would have everyone believe that there is a vast right-wing conspiracy for everything, from Supreme Court to price of eggs and dairy.
Sometimes I just feel unsettled about Obama. I have never felt this way about a presidential candidate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Don't fret, Dave. Supreme Court nominees have to go through an extensive vetting process. They will definitely be grilled on the issue of legislating from the bench and their judicial record will be scrutinized.
Second of all, there are nine justices. One or two ain't gonna sway the entire body.
Third, seven of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents. I think that's a majority...
I understand your being unsettled because Obama's political leanings are too far to the left for you. Of course he's playing the middle. He's trying to get elected. But come on, the Republicans have had eight years, and it's been a disaster.
And you want to talk about unsettled, how do you think I feel imagining, God forbid, McCain get elected and, double God forbid, something happen to him and we're looking at President Palin. That woman is nowhere near qualified to be vice president, much less president. If she were not a woman, she would have been absolutely eviscerated for her lack of experience/foreign policy knowledge upon her nomination as VP. But of course, her nomination was just a play of the gender card, so I guess that's a moot point.
This is my point Ryan. When Reagan had the chance to fill his three positions, he did not say, at least as his actions state, the court is too liberal and therefore I will fix it. He appointed the first woman and two moderate to moderate-liberal judges. in fact, he appointed two judges that do not implicitly believe in the literal translation of the constitution, meaning if the constitution doesn't address it, then there is no case to hear. These are the judges that right-wingers would like to have. One example is Antonin Scalia, who I love btw because of his wit. It is sharp and hilarious, but he is a true Federalist to the core.
Clinton very much followed suit in nominating judges who are liberal, but do not legislate from the bench. Ginsberg and Breyer. I tend not to agree with them on most topics, but I believe in their service and their pure intentions. Bush Sr. the same and Bush Jr. the same, although Samuel Alito is a bit more conservative than recent appointees.
To say that one or two aint gonna sway the entire body is crazy. 2 votes out of seven. That's like 30%. If he replaces two conservative judges, which he won't probably, then it effectively becomes 4 votes (2 out and 2 in). I think that is significant. To say 7 of the 9 justices were appointed by Republican presidents doesn't really matter. I feel like as many things as Republicans can and do screw up, they have done an absolute service to the country in their justice picks. So that it doesn't mean every decision is 7-2.
Your point on Palin is very valid, a point that I and many conservatives share. Those with Democratic leanings seem to always bring that up in response to any issue, whether it be taxes, war, or supreme court justices.
Finally, when you have a clear majority, whether it be Repub or Democrat, in the Senate, the confirmation process is not that extensive. If the votes are there, then it doesn't matter what their judicial record is.
How is it that you extrapolate from Obama's comment about a past court not being liberal enough that he will nominate justices who legislate from the bench? Don't you think he understands the role of the Supreme Court? The man went to Harvard Law School and was the Law Review's first black editor. How dare you sir!
Why are you such a worry wart?
Ok... i'm back in.
So... the Warren court. Are we against Miranda rights? Are we for re-segregating schools (Brown v. Board)?
At the same time, Earl Warren was FOR the internment of Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. Liberal enough? What?
At any rate, let's not play that McCain will not, in fact, give a litmus test to a prospective judge in the form of Roe v. Wade. He will. As for the history of appointments and vetting, Bush wanted Harriet Mier as the CHIEF JUSTICE?!?!? Thank god that got shot down.
Where is the history of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench? I think anyone who takes a seat on that bench takes it seriously enough to not be a pawn to anyone. At that point, they answer to no one and cannot be impugned. Where's the motivation?
I have no doubt in Obama's ability to lead and, eventually, make appointments with no partisan bias, but rather with the best interests of the (flawed) Constitution in mind.
Post a Comment