Posted on 05/10/2009 4:20:12 PM PDT by ReformationFan
On his 100th day in office, President Barack Obama started campaigning for reelection in 2012. He went to a small town in Missouri, a red state he didn't carry last year, and boasted that "we've begun the work of remaking America." Indeed, he has begun to do exactly that with trillions of dollars turned over to the executive branch of government by the legislative branch. A few days later, the announced resignation of Supreme Court Justice David Souter gave Obama the additional power to use the judicial branch to remake America into Obama-nation.
When asked what sort of a justice he will be looking for to fill Souter's seat, Obama replied that his major criteria will be the candidate's "empathy" for the poor, the gays, and other minorities. This embellished Obama's previously proclaimed view of the judiciary's mission: to engage in socio-economic redistribution rather than to enforce the U.S. Constitution as written.
Obama revealed his long-term goals for the judiciary in a radio interview on Chicago's WBEZ-FM in 2001 when he complained that the very activist Earl Warren court had limited itself to changing some of our laws but had failed to order "redistributive change" of our economic system by breaking "free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution." Students of the judiciary know that it was the Earl Warren court that started the long lines of activist decisions in many areas, including religion, elections, property rights, immigration, and criminal law.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldviewtimes.com ...
Whoever replaces David Souter would have to be pretty extreme to make any impact on the makeup of the Supreme Court. Nor would the departure of Ruth Bader Ginsburg make any substantial difference at all. So for the short term, there is no likelihood that Obama could make much of an impression.
Unless the appointees are relatively young, and they could remain on the court for a quarter century or longer. And that is where the real mischief lies.
Er, who appointed the far-left Souter to the court anyway? Carter? Clinton? No, it was a Bu....
Souter is as filthy as they come...as are Ginsburg and Bryer.Whatever piece of judicial excrement that Hussein nominates to replace that "confirmed bachelor" won't tip the balance of the court.
And who appointed the right leaning to entrenched right Thomas, Roberts, and Alito? And during whose presidency were they confirmed? It was a BUSH! TWO BUSHES! Republican presidents who did more than you or I - they stood for, and won, 3 of 4 elections!
Yes, that's right - 7 of the 9 SCOTUS members were appointed by Republicans. And yet the court is considered 50/50, with a weathervane in the middle...so I guess, according to your "logic", that we ought to throw out the guy who nominated him and trash him too...fellow named Rea...
Whoever replaces Justice Gay-O is unlikely to be a mediocrity like he. Something to celebrate. How well he represented and symbolized Big Daddy B.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.