Obama’s Constitution

Posted on March 8, 2008

The main reason I will be voting for McCain:

Justice John Paul Stevens turns 88 in April, and by January 2009 five other justices will be from 69 to 75 years old. If Barack Obama is elected president, he will probably–with the benefit of resignations by liberal justices eager for him to be the president who chooses their successors–have the opportunity to appoint two or three Supreme Court justices in his first term, with another two or three in a potential second term. That prospect ought to focus the attention of all Americans who want a Supreme Court that practices judicial restraint and respects the proper realm of representative government. For Obama, if elected, would certainly aim to fill the Supreme Court–and the lower federal courts–with liberal judicial activists.

Although Obama has served in the Senate for barely three years, he has already established a record on judicial nominations and constitutional law that comports with his 2007 ranking by the National Journal as the most liberal of all 100 senators. Obama voted against the confirmations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, and he even joined in the effort to filibuster the Alito nomination. In explaining his vote against Roberts, Obama opined that deciding the “truly difficult” cases requires resort to “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.” In short, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” No clearer prescription for lawless judicial activism is possible.

Read the whole thing!

» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Activist Judges, News, Supreme Court, War On Terror

Trackback URL

Comments

3 Responses to “Obama’s Constitution”

RegularRon on March 8th, 2008 4:27 pm

Jay, we all know Obama would be a train wreck with the Supreme Court. But how do we know McStain wouldn’t be the same as Obama? He’s attacted the court before, on when they were reviewing McStain/Fiengold (which is one of the many reasons I will not be voting for him)and he was apart of that moronic “Gang of 14″.

I believe in my heart of hearts that McStain will be NO different than either of the Socialists. Honestly, I really don’t see the difference.

I failed standing in line in Kindergarden, and I’ not about to do it for McStain.
Roy Mustang on March 8th, 2008 4:59 pm

Frist and Bush wanted the “Gang of 14″. They wanted to avoid the problem of Democrats shutting down Congress over this issue.

You’re mad because Bush did not get every single one of his judges appointed. Bush had no problems with this. Bush had no problems with the Gang of 14. So why are you so angry about the Gang of 14?
Jay on March 8th, 2008 7:57 pm

Ron, I just think McCain is a better gamble than the Democrats.