See other Dead Constitution Articles
Title: Obama's Constitution
Source:
The Weekly Standard
URL Source: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conte ... icles/000/000/014/849oyckg.asp
Published: Mar 8, 2008
Author: Edward Whelan
Post Date: 2008-03-08 17:34:28 by farmfriend
Keywords: None
Views: 336
Comments: 21
by Edward Whelan 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. Indeed, in setting forth the sort of judges he would appoint, Obama has explicitly declared: "We 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 criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges." So much for the judicial virtue of dispassion. So much for a craft of judging that is distinct from politics. In his short time in the Senate, Obama has voted against a half-dozen federal appellate-court nominees. Most tellingly, he was the first senator to join in the left's mendacious attack in 2007 on Fifth Circuit nominee Leslie Southwick--an attack that managed to drag the judicial-confirmation process to a new low. Southwick had been widely regarded as a consensus pick. The ABA's judicial-evaluations committee, after an investigation that included the usual inquiry into whether the nominee has "freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice under the law," unanimously gave him its highest "well qualified" rating. The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee had, just months before, unanimously approved his nomination to a federal district judgeship. Nevertheless, when left-wing activist groups launched their attack on Southwick, Obama jumped right in. Relying on gross misrepresentations of Southwick's record, Obama recklessly alleged that Southwick "has shown hostility towards civil rights and a disregard for equal rights for minorities, women, gays and lesbians" and that his nomination even "threaten[ed] the very basis of our freedom and democracy." Fortunately, some Democratic senators--most prominently, Judiciary Committee member Dianne Feinstein--had the courage to stand up against these lies from Obama and others, and Southwick was ultimately confirmed. Obama's constitutional activism is particularly evident on the touchstone issue of Roe v. Wade. Obama calls abortion "one of the most fundamental rights we possess" and promises to "make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as president." He has harshly criticized the Court's 2007 ruling that the federal partial-birth abortion act (which was supported by broad bipartisan majorities in Congress, including abortion supporters like Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy) is constitutionally permissible. Obama often cloaks such extreme positions in sweet-sounding rhetoric. His chapter on "Our Constitution" in his campaign manifesto, The Audacity of Hope, provides a useful case study. There, Obama characterizes his own understanding of the Constitution in positively unctuous terms: "I confess that there is a fundamental humility to this reading of the Constitution and our democratic process." But there is nothing humble about the judicial role that Obama embraces. Obama purports to be "not unsympathetic to Justice Antonin Scalia's position" that the "original understanding [of the Constitution] must be followed," but he won't even present Scalia's views accurately. Let's set aside the fact, all too common among liberal critics, that Obama doesn't keep straight the distinction between Scalia's original-meaning species of originalism, which looks to the public meaning of a constitutional provision at the time that it was adopted, and the original-understanding species, which looks to the contemporaneous understanding of the ratifiers. Obama claims to appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow. But Obama's "fundamentalist" name-calling is misplaced. Originalists understand the Constitution--not "our democracy"--to be "fixed and unwavering" (apart from the amendment process it provides, of course). They recognize that, precisely because the Constitution leaves the broad bulk of policy decisions to legislators in Congress and in the states, there is lots of room to pursue and adapt different courses through the democratic processes. No originalist believes that judicial respect for the operations of representative government will guarantee that "we will be rewarded and all good will flow." This is a straw man. The virtue of originalism lies foremost in protecting the democratic decisionmaking authority that the Constitution provides. Our legislators will be sure to mess up plenty, but at least citizens will have the ability to influence them--and replace them. Obama finds himself compelled "to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." But no one disputes that the Constitution "must be read," and applied, "in the context of an ever-changing world." The central question of the last several decades is, rather, whether it is legitimate for judges to alter the Constitution's meaning willy-nilly--in particular, whether judges have unconstrained authority to invent new constitutional rights to suit their views of what changing times require. The cliché invoked by Obama of a "living" Constitution disguises the fact that the entrenchment of leftist policy preferences as constitutional rights deprives the political processes of the very adaptability that Breyer and company pretend to favor. As Scalia has put it, "the reality of the matter is that, generally speaking, devotees of The Living Constitution do not seek to facilitate social change but to prevent it." And so on for all of Obama's other deceptive rhetoric in his chapter on "Our Constitution" in The Audacity of Hope, including his galling claim to be "left then with Lincoln" in their supposed common understanding of the Constitution. On judicial nominations, Obama brazenly contends that "Democrats used the filibuster sparingly in George Bush's first term: Of the President's two-hundred-plus judicial nominees, only ten were prevented from getting to the floor for an up-or-down vote." What Obama's casting conveniently obscures from the trusting reader is that these filibusters were unprecedented in the history of the Senate. Obama even pretends that it's obvious that Republicans would resort to the filibuster "if the situations were reversed." But the best evidence refutes Obama: There were only four votes on cloture--on proceeding to a final vote on confirmation--on judicial nominations during the Clinton administration. All four were supported by Republican leadership, and none received more than 14 negative votes from Republican senators. In the end, an examination of Obama's record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of--his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism. Given the likelihood of so many changes in the membership of the Supreme Court over the next eight years, it is particularly important that voters this November recognize the real Obama. Edward Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, is a regular contributor to National Review Online's Bench Memos blog. His views are his own only.
Obama's Constitution
The rhetoric and the reality.
03/17/2008, Volume 013, Issue 26
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: farmfriend (#0)
What a dumb sob! And some people are seriously talking about voting for the idiot for president. As for me, a plague on anyone who calls the constitution a "living document" that they can change to suit their whims and biases.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end. Seems like they have been voting for him in droves.
He won't start WWIII or at least says he won't. That's what he has going for him. Rather sad that the best the US can come up with is a person who runs on a "I won't cause you all to die in nuclear hellfire" platform and people act like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
"The more I see of life, the less I fear death." - Me. "If violence solved nothing, then weapons technology would have never advanced past crude clubs and rocks." - Me.
After eight years of George W. Bush, pretty much anyone who can speak proper English, pronounce multisyllable words and not be the equivalent of a three-hole inflatable doll for corporate interests would seem like the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Obama finds himself compelled "to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution--that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."
Lord Acton
#2. To: James Deffenbach (#1)
And some people are seriously talking about voting for the idiot for president.
Vote Republicrat or Democin, it doesn't matter, you still get McHillobama
#3. To: James Deffenbach (#1)
What a dumb sob! And some people are seriously talking about voting for the idiot for president.
#4. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#3)
 | Gold and silver are REAL money, paper is but a promise. |
#5. To: James Deffenbach (#1)
translation: it's just a gd piece of paper
that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world."
#6. To: Elliott Jackalope (#4)
lol...even hillary! :P
#7. To: christine (#6)
#8. To: farmfriend (#2)
Yes, how sad it is that people actually believe there is that much difference in any of the clowns the establishment has put forward for them to "elect." Pitiful, just pitiful. I doubt the country could be dumbed down much more without having to put most of the population in a nuthouse.
Seems like they have been voting for him in droves.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#9. To: Pissed Off Janitor (#3)
Ain't that the $#its?
He won't start WWIII or at least says he won't. That's what he has going for him. Rather sad that the best the US can come up with is a person who runs on a "I won't cause you all to die in nuclear hellfire" platform and people act like he's the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#10. To: christine (#5)
Yeah, sad ain't it?
translation: it's just a gd piece of paper
Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end.
Lord Acton
#11. To: farmfriend (#0)
Based on their record since 2000 the members of the supreme court and who appointed them doesn't seem to matter. Anyone with half a brain knows that the current puppet in the whitehouse has committed many treasonous acts and the good old supreme court keeps siding with him and his neocon cronies as they continue to dismantle the U.S. Constitution. I do believe it was this very court that saddled America with comrade bushkie back in 2000 along with the help of the Diebold electronic voting machines. Picking SC justices is strictly a crap shoot. Some of the most liberal have been better at following the Constitution and vice versa. It's like buying a pig in a poke and sometimes we end up getting poked by the pigs.
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.
#12. To: LACUMO (#11)
Seems like only yesterday I voted for a President based solely on potential SC nominations. Been there, done that, burned the T-shirt.
Picking SC justices is strictly a crap shoot. Some of the most liberal have been better at following the Constitution and vice versa.
OBAMA/WEBB IN 2008
#13. To: iconoclast (#12)
But aren't you using your Obama vote to stop Hillary? How is this strategy any different than the lesser of two evils swill we've been treated to for years?
#14. To: iconoclast (#12)
One of the best examples of someone doing an about face happened to Tricky Dick Nixon. He picked Walter Hickle to be Secretary of the Interior because he was very liberal and Tricky Dick and his oil buddies could get their hands on all that North Slope oil up in Alaska. Wally kept them at bay and kept throwing them curve balls and stopped them in their tracks. Tricky Dick had to finally fire Wally inorder to get his and his cronnies hands on that North Slope oil that basically goes to Japan and it cost the taxpayers of this country big big dollars. This is about the same as some of the so called conservative SC justices behave. Once they are seated for life, they can do anything they want including throwing the baby out with the bath water. Strictly a crap shoot! I never voted for any candidate because of one issue. That would be like throwing in the towel and voting for the lesser of two evils. One needs to "know" the whole candidate's stand on as many issues and then cast their vote. One also must keep track of that candidate throughout the campaign to see if they are steadfast in what they believe. Ron Paul was steadfast while all the rest flip-flopped like a chicken with its head cut off. If you watched this campaign close enough, you can see that all the rest are just mouthing the words, many of them Ron Paul's, that will get them the most votes. Ron Paul spoke the same words throughout his campaigning and that tells me what you see is what you get. Apparently the shoe isn't tight enough on the American people yet, but it's coming, and coming soon and with a bang. Apparently Americans as a whole are too stupid to understand this. The best examples I can throw at you is the very fact that the pubbies are willing to settle for Mclame and the demonwits havent had enough of the clitoons, the same old recycled trash that the PTB want sitting on the throne. The stupid American voters will oblige them. SAD SAD SAD
Seems like only yesterday I voted for a President based solely on potential SC nominations.
#15. To: LACUMO (#14)
yep. well said.
The best examples I can throw at you is the very fact that the pubbies are willing to settle for Mclame and the demonwits havent had enough of the clitoons, the same old recycled trash that the PTB want sitting on the throne. The stupid American voters will oblige them.
#16. To: christine (#15)
Thanks christine. Just got up a few minutes ago and checked Freedom4um, force of habit. The Mrs. is still counting sheep. I'm trying to be quiet so as not to wake her. Forty years ago today, 3-9-68 we were married. Too bad how few couples marriages last that long. Our secret for it lasting 40 years was that we were willing to keep working at it instead of doing the lazy thing and walk away. I tell the young guys inorder to make it work, you have to train the wife in the beginning of the marriage. I tell them that I have her so well trained that she gets down on her hands and knees and crawls to me. Why just the other day she got down on her hands and knees, crawled over to the bed and told me to come out from under the bed and fight like a man. God really blessed me when he sent my princess to be a part of my life.
yep. well said.
#17. To: LACUMO (#16)
:) congrats on your longevity!
Why just the other day she got down on her hands and knees, crawled over to the bed and told me to come out from under the bed and fight like a man.
#18. To: LACUMO (#14) (Edited)
A good example of this is David Souter. He pretended to be a centrist or moderate (whatever that means) until he got appointed SCOTUS. Then he came out of the closet as a flaming liberal. I'd bet that Daddy Shrub knew about Souter's true colors from the very beginning.
This is about the same as some of the so called conservative SC justices behave. Once they are seated for life, they can do anything they want including throwing the baby out with the bath water. Strictly a crap shoot!
#19. To: Jethro Tull (#13)
You have me wrong Jethro. Yes, I detest the Clintons, but I don't think much more of Dr. Strangelove who, from all he says, promises to be Bush on steroids. I'm voting for a man I believe is decent and sincere and against the old order.
But aren't you using your Obama vote to stop Hillary?
OBAMA/WEBB IN 2008
#20. To: Rupert_Pupkin, LACUMO (#18)
Just one of a thousand examples of what happens when the east coast Republicans get control of the Party.
A good example of this is David Souter.
OBAMA/WEBB IN 2008
#21. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#18)
The old man bush probably did know that souter was really a liberal. Hell's bells, look at the bushkies, they're as liberal as the clitoons. In fact, I'm really fed up with this conservative vs liberal bullshit. For years the pubbies talked a good game but it ended there. They always had the anti-abortion in their platform apparently just to pander for the moral majority. It ended there, however. They no more intended to reverse roe v wade than they would abolish the federal reserve. Purely lip service for votes. Dunbass w told us he was a compassionate conservative, had both houses in his corner and never once mentioned he would sign a bill overturning roe v wade. Back when he was guvner of texas he named a portion of Interstate 35 after a black murdering abortion doctor. Really compassionate towards the aborted babies. I let the stupid pubbie voters know this time and again to no avail. They still voted for the prick. The American stupid voters only listen to the 30 second sound bites and then go back to whatever it is that holds their attentions. Unfortunately the only voters who are truly going to be represented by the best are those voters in a certain congressional district with a true statesman in that office. The rest of us dummies deserve to have to pick shit with the chickens.
A good example of this is David Souter. He pretended to be a centrist or moderate (whatever that means) until he got appointed SCOTUS. Then he came out of the closet as a flaming liberal. I'd bet that Daddy Shrub knew about Souter's true colors from the very beginning.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest