Posted on 01/09/2009 2:31:49 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
With only days until the Inauguration of Barack Obama as President of the United States, there is speculation about retirement of several liberal justices from the United States Supreme Court and the appointment of new justices by Obama. The Supreme Court is considered to be an evenly divided court between four liberal and four conservative justices with Justice Kennedy as the swing vote. The oldest two liberal justices on the court are Justices Stevens, age 88, and Ginsberg, age 75. During Obama’s presidency there will be pressure on these two justices to resign to allow Obama to fill these positions.
Obama’s standard for appointing justices is a feel good, us against them, unconstitutional standard. In the 109th Congress, Obama opposed the appointment of Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. In affirmative action and abortion cases, Obama took the position that adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction would not dispose of the case. Instead he stated, “the critical ingredient is what is in the judge’s heart.” Thus, the reason he did not vote to confirm pro-life Justice Roberts.
Judge Robert Bork, who President Ronald Reagan appointed to the Supreme Court in 1987, but failed to get senate confirmation, wisely noted the inherent danger of this kind of thinking, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.” Does Obama purport to be wiser than the founding fathers who gave us the Constitution, secured our liberties and laid the foundation for the greatest country in history? The audacity of arrogance!
Since when is what is in a judge’s heart the standard of law? What if that which is in the judge’s heart is contrary to the will of the people that is expressed through the statutory law? What if it is contrary to the Constitution? We are society based on the rule of law and not on the whims of judges’ emotional state, the rule of judges.
In 2007, while addressing a Planned Parenthood Conference Obama said, "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
This is political speak for wealth redistribution, welfare rights, affirmative action, and gay marriage masked with words like heart and empathy and using images of a young mother and the old. He sounds like the used car salesman that uses words to sell a car that is like new or the con artist who promises the world, but leaves after he has spent the last dime. Shame on Obama for using a teenage mother and the old to propagate his liberal agenda that destroys life, destroys marriage, and creates a welfare state. Lest we forget, Obama is really a socialist who knows how to use propaganda to undermine the voice of the people and the Constitution.
Does Obama believe that unborn babies have rights? What about the rich, the middle class, whites, and Hispanics? Does the Constitution only apply when a liberal judges FEELS that a special class is entitled to protection?
Obama may play favorites for political gain, but lady justice is blind-folded. Maybe it is time to “Bork” Obama appointees after all his criteria for selecting judges is flawed because it is based on feelings and appears to protect only special classes of people rather than all parties being treated fairly.
During the senate confirmation hearing, despite commendation for his competence, Judge Bork was vilified and not confirmed because he advocated strict adherence to the Constitution. As a result, eventually, the verb “bork” was added to the Oxford English Dictionary, and means to prevent a person’s appointment to office.
The liberals have attempted to “bork” a number of appointees, but the most malicious battle to date was over the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. At the 1991 NOW Conference feminist Florence Kennedy led the venomous attack to defeat the nomination of Clarence Thomas. She said, “We are going to bork him. We are going to kill him politically.”
Why did the liberals fear Bork, Thomas and other conservative nominees? Because they follow the rule of law and not the socialist manifesto of the Left. They do not legislate from the bench and undermine the will of the people. What liberals cannot win at the ballot box, they try to win at the courthouse steps effectively silencing the vast majority of Americans. This is a slippery slope of destruction of our American system of justice.
Alexis de Tocqueville in Democracy in America penned, “the President may slip without the state suffering” and “Congress may slip without the Union perishing.” He also astutely stated, “if ever the Supreme Court came to be composed of rash and corrupt men, the confederation would be threatened by anarchy and civil war.” A new President and a new Congress can be elected, but judges have life tenure and if there is no rule of law, how then shall we govern? By the rash emotions of judges? By the corrupt discrimination of judges against different classes of people?
Now is the time for all good Republican senators to come to the aide of their country and “bork” the Obama appointees. After all, the process of “borking” has been implemented by the liberals. How dare liberals who feign fairness and equality object to the “borking” of judges who rule with their emotions rather than follow the rule of law.
That would be good if Democrats and the media had any shame. Alas, they have none. They will continue blithly in their pursuits and pay no more attention to ‘Borking’ than they would a nightime fart.
Obama’s far-left American-hating justices will fly through the Senate and be confirmed with at least 90 votes each. The GOP has no balls.
Republican die-hard should have thought of this before giving up the nation to the Dems.
Obama’s standard for appointing justices is a feel good, us against them, unconstitutional standard. In the 109th Congress, Obama opposed the appointment of Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. In affirmative action and abortion cases, Obama took the position that adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction would not dispose of the case. Instead he stated, “the critical ingredient is what is in the judge’s heart
So if the judges heart told him that slavery was okay and not unconstitutional then we would have slavery under Obama?
Is he really this pathetic?
There will be no stopping Hussein’s judicial appointments. There simply aren’t enough conservative senators to even begin to mount an effective opposition to any of his nominees. All democrats would vote for cloture, and I can’t imagine any RINOs voting for a filibuster against a judicial appointment.
Short of appointing Michael Moore to the SCOTUS, Hussein will get whomever he wishes on the bench. I’m not sure it’s even worth our energy.
Asked and answered.
Even the most strict Constitutional constructionist could never be as mean and autocratic as Ted Kennedy was on his off days, or even his best days. He managed to raise the carping factor to an art form, attacking the candidate on trivial grounds, and setting a litmus test that was never challenged.
And night time farts can be so bad you have to get up and fan the bed covers and spray the air with Oust before you can lie down again. HAVE to pay attention to that.
Even if there were enough “good Republican” senators to make the attempt I feel certain that in order to succeed you need at worst a neutral media. But the current media (major networks and papers) are all to the left and would protray any attempt to Bork a Hussein appointment as partisan obstructionism, an attack on the constitution, racist, etc., etc., etc.
All this is moot though. As others have written it is very unlikely the GOP will be able to muster 41 votes to block much of anything Hussein proposes or that the majority decides it wants. Too many RINOS and squishes.
Seriously, you just expounded on the ills of Ted Kennedy. Do you in your wildest dreams think that he ever was awakened in the middle of the night by a fart (beer, whiskey, drug induced or not)?
The Republican party leadership, led by GW, and a bevy of RINO's gave us this defeat. Blaming the voter for not drinking the koolaid seems pointless to me.
Be aware! The camel’s nose is under the tent. Hussein’s
SCOTUS appointees may “feel” that sharia law is in their
hearts.
Expect I do not believe Islam permits abortion. How’s the camel wriggle out of that one I wonder?
You need to control the Senate if you want to Bork someone.
Sadly, Obama will have three or four SCOTUS appointments.
Wow, I missed the coup d'etat that put GWB and the other RINOs in office.
Sorry, but I thought they had been voted into office.
:-)
Republicans and conservatives need to be ready to take action if Obama goes too far.
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.