Regnat Populus

The people rule.

Posts Tagged ‘SCOTUS’

Wanted: Judge With Empathy

Posted by Max Barron on May 20, 2009

Married black President seeking politically correct Justice with empathy for the downtrodden and innate hatred for the successful.  Willing to rewrite Constitution and legislate from the bench. Also likes long walks on the beach. 

If Barack Obama took out a “Wanted ad” in the classifieds for Supreme Court nominee, that’s what it would look like.  Or so it would seem because every potential nominee on the various “short lists” appear to be the kind of kooks that come along with personal ads. 

As of Tuesday May 20th the President has been interviewing possible picks for the nomination.

President Barack Obama began interviewing potential Supreme Court candidates Tuesday, while a senior White House official defended the president’s stated preference for a nominee who will give the powerless “a fair shake.”

As discussed previously, “a fair shake” is not only a minimal qualification for Obama it is also the crux of a larger problem.  Judicial activism.  Obama wants a judge that uses their personal empathy when interpreting law.  The trouble is – law doesn’t use empathy… if it did then it wouldn’t be law.  Laws are rules to be obided by all who are under them and upheld by those appointed to the courts.  Laws aren’t to be re-written or re-interpreted by the courts.  The U.S. Congress does that.  It is for Congress to write laws, the President to sign them, and the Judiciary to uphold them.  If a judge seeks to follow their heart and not the letter of the law when deciding cases, then in essence a lawless society is created.  One that is governed not by reason and law, but a soft tyranny that is governed by platitudes and emotions.  There is no justification for this sort activism… and no excusing the support for it.  But that doesn’t stop our Oligarch-in-Chief’s Minister of Propaganda from trying to.

“Fidelity to the Constitution is paramount, but as with any document that was written no matter how brilliantly centuries ago, it couldn’t possibly have anticipated all the questions that would be asked in the 21st century,” Mr. Axelrod said.

The duplicitous nature of Axelrod’s statement should be readily apparent to any reasonable and learned individual.  He states with certainty what is the general consensus amongst the statist left.  That the Constitution is a living document to be changed at their whim. And that it is also an old, out-of-touch and outdated document in need of revision.  This is simply not the case.  The Constitution is not living and breathing.  It is a limiting charter written in stone, 10 Commandments style.  Doubtlessly, the statists would love to see a “The 10 Commandments” style breaking of the tablet – with a judge in place of Charlton Heston, less melodrama and of course, they’ll keep the Golden Calf.  It just wouldn’t be right to throw stone tablets at “The One.”

Colorful imagery aside, if Obama manages to push his empathetic nominee through the Senate Confirmation hearings, much less one or two more later, a breaking of the tablets is precisely what will happen.  It is readily apparent that judicial legislation, soft tyranny and social justice are the intent – given that Obama believes that difficult cases should be decided “on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”  We can look forward to class warfare being not just the rule of Democrat politics, but also the rule of law.

Non-vicitim groups, gird your loins!


Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Republicans Should Lay Down And Accept An Activist SCOTUS… Or Something.

Posted by Max Barron on May 6, 2009

Equal Justice Under Law

Equal Justice Under Law

CNN’s Senior Political Analyst, Gloria Borger, seems to have decided that Republicans don’t stand a chance against the Obama appointment machine… So they should just bend over and accept their fate – failure. She may have a point, Republicans don’t have enough votes by themselves to kill Obama’s appointments. They do, however, have a voice and can use that to dissuade certain appointments and/or convince Democrats to help block them.

Of course, Borger fails to understand the finer points of principle, justice and consequences. She also falls into the same category as other statist idiots who promote the ideological litmus testing of judges. Failing to realize that justice should be blind… not empathetic.

After all, hardly anything is more defining than a Supreme Court appointment: it’s about qualifications, judicial temperaments and resumes — not to mention beliefs. It’s what presidential elections are all about, after all. A president’s legacy is often largely defined by those whom he appoints to the court.

The key words are “beliefs” and “legacy.” First and foremost the system of justice, in order to be just, must not rule based on “beliefs,” but instead rule on the letter of the law. The notion that Supreme Court, or any other court for that matter, Justices should use their personal beliefs in their rulings promotes judicial activism. Which defeats the purpose of our entire form of government. Judges uphold the laws… they don’t write or rewrite them.
Secondly, the appointment to the Supreme Court is for life. Meaning that long after Obama leaves office, his appointments will still be on the bench. This is where the legacy comes from. The trouble is that an activist judge that rules according to their “empathy” (the word used by Obama) unhinges the legal system. Instead of justice being blind, and judges upholding the laws, the judges now write the laws and favor parties for whom they have empathy. Essentially it creates a miscarriage of justice. 
Borger goes on to question Republican and Conservative interest groups for laying groundwork to oppose certain possible nominees. Borger believes it to be a loosing battle that should not even be fought.

In a memo distributed by the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network, the White House is taken to task for vetting at warp speed, which apparently results in appointments “to high government posts nominees who have cheated on their taxes and have other ethical problems.”

Moreover, the memo continues, “any rush to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with lightning speed is all the more unseemly.”

Really? Gee, how is it then that nine of the past 13 Supreme Court nominees were named within six days of the announced vacancy? Or that President George H.W. Bush took only three days to announce David Souter as his replacement for Justice William Brennan? Or just four days to announce Clarence Thomas as Thurgood Marshall’s replacement on the bench? When Thomas was announced, conservatives were enraptured, not offended by the process which they now say “violates the Obama promises of transparency and accountability.”

Brush aside the condescending sarcasm and what is left is the typical “but ___ did it, too.” That doesn’t make it right. Not to mention that the Judicial Confirmation Network has several very valid points. Virtually every other nomination to come from our illustrious president has been riddled with tax problems, ethics violations and conflicts of interest. Whereas the previous administrations to make quick judicial appointments showed far better judgement in their cabinet and high level executive appointments. Obama is withholding the names of his possible nominations to prevent public vetting which DOES “violate the Obama promises of transparency and accountability.”  His previous nominations and appointments also make it clear that he needs the people to do the vetting for him – as Team O is just plain bad at it.
There is, of course, one last issue with Obama’s previous appointments. Competence. All other problems aside, virtually every appointment thus far has completely lacked anything remotely resembling competence.

Every nominee has a paper trail which deserves to be examined. Each one has a judicial philosophy which deserves to be questioned. Each has a certain level of competency, which needs to be probed.

Precisely. In order to probe, the people must know WHO to probe. Which goes back to that whole transparency thing. The Republicans and interest groups are rightfully organizing their forces to combat certain nominations. Naturally, drive-by’s like Borger think it ill advised to do so.

Here’s the problem: It’s likely conservative groups are going to lose. So if President Obama appoints someone in, say, the mold of Justice Stephen Breyer, do they still lay themselves down across the railroad tracks of an incoming train — especially when the ideological balance of the court isn’t at stake?

Borger clearly misses the mark… and the point entirely. It isn’t a simple matter of ideological balance. It is a matter of justice and law. By placing activists on the SCOTUS, Obama ensures a legacy for himself – social justice (Obama’s words) – and thereby a complete lack of justice for Americans. If the courts sway by empathy then the U.S. can no longer be a society ruled by law. Instead it is a society ruled by judicial prejudice. Obama has stated numerous times that he wishes to create a court vastly more activist and legislative than the infamous Warren court. This would be devastating to the rule of law and to Americans.
Of course, Borger seems to think that Republicans and Conservatives should just lie down and allow the American people and the Constitution to take the Imperial butt-humping. I, for one, have an exit only policy…

Posted in Politics | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »