EDITORIAL: Obama and the courts

Obama's stance on the courts is quite clear. His is for judical activism as a tool for government expansion. He said the Warren court was not "radical" because it did not consider reparations or economic justice and stayed within the constraints of the Constitution. He wants to "spread the wealth" which is the basis for economic justice, so therefore, he wants to go outside the socalled constraints on his power. Consolidation of all three branches of the government under the executive could be considered tyranny.

Obama's record from the Illinois state senate and recently revealed interviews show that he is a far left liberal. The vast majority of voters do not agree with his far left stance. But Obama has toned down his far left rhetoric during this election cycle. It's not that he has changed his beliefs. It's that he just wants to get elected. A vote for Obama is a vote against the interests of most voters. Obama would appoint far left liberal judges at all levels of the federal judiciary. The vast majority of voters do not agree with the far left values of these judges, yet by voting for Obama, these voters will be approving an ideology and an agenda that they strongly disagree with. And remember, judges are appointed for life. Obama would appoint far left liberals to his cabinet. Once again the vast majority of voters do not agree with the ideology or agenda of these liberal bureaucrats. But when you vote for Obama that is what you get. And Obama would sign legislation authored by ultra liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barney Frank. Again, the vast majority of voters do not approve of the ideology or agenda of these ultra liberals, but if you vote for Obama that is what you get. For at least four years you will have to bear the consequences of approving an agenda that you don't agree with. An Obama economic policy could make our economy far worse than it is today. Increased taxation of businesses will increase the cost of doing business and reduce investment in new technology. Increased taxes on investors will cause investors to shift away from investing in new businesses as well. The end result will be akin to the Jimmy Carter years with skyrocketing prices and high unemployment. I remember when inflation hit 20% toward the end of the Carter years. In those days taxes were nearly double what they are today. Do we really want to turn back the clock to the bad old days?

We need a very hard turn to the Left to get the country back in the middle. To fix the disaster that Bush’s failed rightwing policies have inflicted on the country; we need an overwhelming Democratic majority in Washington.

Obama would nominate judges that understood constiutuional law - and not muddy the waters with religious constructs. After all - this is a land that everyone can live and be free of being marginalized by racism, religious bigotry, economic infringements - if anything we have learned in the last eight years - the Republican ideology has failed to protect all Americans.

"Mr. Obama said the court of Chief Justice Earl Warren, from 1953 to 1969, was not "radical" because he did not wander into the area of redistributive justice: 'To that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical.' " So according to the Washington Times, the phrases "wasn't that radical" and "not radical" mean the same thing. "The 2001 interview was most instructive in telling us that Mr. Obama's understanding of "radical" differs from that of average Americans." What is the Washington Times' source for claiming to know the average American's understanding of "radical", especially pertaining to the Warren Court? This conservative hack piece only confirms that the Obama camp made a sound decision when they kicked the Times off the campaign plane.

Obama wants the court to side with those who are poor and powerless. Sounds good, unless you realise it perverts the most basic tenet of legal systems since Adam (or Moses)... "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Lev 19.15)

The argument that an Obama presidency will create a radically liberal Supreme Court is flawed in that it fails to take into consideration which seats on the Court are likely to become vacant in the next 4-8 years. The rough breakdown of the Court is that it has four reliable conservatives (Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas), four moderate-liberals (Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer) and a moderate-conservative swing vote (Kennedy). The two oldest members of the Court are Stevens at 88 and Ginsberg at 75, both of whom are fairly liberal, and are arguably the most likely to retire in the next 4-8 years. The oldest conservative on the court is Scalia at 72 (Kennedy is also 72). The most likely scenario is that Obama would replace one or two of the liberal justices on the Court, thereby maintaining the status quo and not swinging the Court far to the left as this article predicts. However, if McCain becomes president and is able to replace one of the liberals (most likely Stevens) with a staunch conservative, there would five conservatives on the Court and this would certainly swing the Court to the right on many issues.

This editorial is a bit silly. The conservatives have the majority. In this term, the only justices that Obama might replace are Stephens and Ginsberg, both of whom are considered liberal. The irony is that Stephens was considered a moderate when he was nominated, which speaks volumes about how far the center has moved to the right in the last 25 years. I'm not sure why someone below quoted the Bible. It has relevance to selecting SCOTUS justices.

RE: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly" (Lev 19.15) Don't pollute justice with Taliban like religion.

Joe is a product of no child left behind.

Further more, Well that quote about equality is completely irrelevant because it is from the Bible - a fictional book of stories that has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law. Get some quotes from the constitution because that is the only document that matters in this country. What is this Taliban religion you are talking about? And what on earth does that have to do with favoritism to social classes? Barack Obama is not a muslim or an arab and anyone who actually believes that is extremely uneducated. It is a smear tactic from the radical right to scare people in to thinking he is different because of the color of his skin. Even John McCain doesn't think that he's Muslim. Get a clue pal.

Well that quote about equality is completely irrelevant because it is from the Bible - a fictional book of stories that has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law. Get some quotes from the constitution because that is the only document that matters in this country. What is this Taliban religion you are talking about? And what on earth does that have to do with favoritism to social classes? Barack Obama is not a muslim or an arab and anyone who actually believes that is extremely uneducated. It is a smear tactic from the radical right to scare people in to thinking he is different because of the color of his skin. Even John McCain doesn't think that he's Muslim. Get a clue pal.

Here's a radical idea: why not appoint judges who interpret the law based on what it actually says and then show "empathy" to whichever litigant's case is most compliant with the law? Another radical idea: let all American citizens be equal before the law --- with no advantage to one side or the other on the basis of income level prior to even hearing the case. Leave empathy on any other basis to be the job of the elected representatives of the people Shouldn't the basis on which a judge, especially a Supreme Court Justice, is selected be their impartiality and intellectual skill in interpreting American law? Where they stray from this, the sole reason for anyone to regard them as legitimate, how can it be wrong for the other two branches of the federal government or the states to act to nullify clear judicial legislation exceeding any reasonable constitutional interpretation? After the Warren Court, SCOTUS has become a Frankenstein-like monster, tramping about, throwing around decrees, turning the states into weakened polities, vetoing efforts of the federal legislative and executive branches with arrogance and impunity. The real legacy of the Warren Court is that everyone waits around with baited breath about SCOTUS like peasants awaiting the edicts of oriental potentates. Who would have thought that SCOTUS with the Kelso decision would ever read the Constitution as granting government the right to seize an American citizen's private property and give it to a rich private developer? That's empathy for you courtesy of SCOTUS' liberal wing, whose members Obama would very much like to clone throughout the judiciary. As a matter of principle, judges should never be given lifetime appointments. They need to periodically go back as private citizens, and work an honest living the normal way like the rest of us. Some mechanism needs to exist to replace judges such they cannot place themselves in ivory towers, look down on the people and their elected representatives, and fancy themselves superior in knowing what's best for society --- a role they have failed miserably at.

It is quite evident that the writers on the comments about Scripture are ignorant that the Supreme Court of the United States has a giant Moses frieze above the justices. Moses from the Bible! You ignoramuses! Our laws are based on the Christian Scriptures, you pagans (and there absolutely NO TRUTH in the myth that hamurabi or some such eastern religion was an influence)! The very beginnings of western civilization are based on Christianity, from the Magna Carta to our Constitution! If you had had a proper education you would know this. The statue over the Supreme Court entrance is of a BLINDFOLDED woman which means that NO FAVORITISM will be shown to anyone, rich or poor, black or white, man or woman, no matter your status. "Social justice" goes against everything the Constitution stands for. That is a Marxist idea. But what can we expect from people who had leftist college professors or that have anti-American views and don't know the wonderful heritage we have or where it comes from? That is why Obama is such a danger. When he says he want to "fundamentally change" America, we should be very afraid!

1) It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 2) On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!" 3) Jesus said to him, "If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven Ghandi said, if Christians acted like Christ, there wouldn't be a Hindu left in India.