Thursday
Oct162008
Did You Catch This?
Thursday, October 16, 2008 at 11:18AM This excerpt from last night's debate alarmed me so much that I am breaking my own self-imposed rule against discussing politics on my blog:
Regarding qualifications of Supreme Court Justices:
OBAMA: Well, I think it's true that we shouldn't apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.
And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.
Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.
But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn't be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.
OBAMA: So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.
Can anyone tell me what's wrong with these statements? Can anyone tell me what is missing from these statements?
Reader Comments (10)
It was exactly this point in the debate at which I lost it and began to scream at my television. My children (all four of them) watched the entire debate with me last night. His ridiculous comments provided a perfect opportunity for a discussion of the three branches of government and how they are supposed to function. Barak Obama DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE US SUPREME COURT!!!
The ignorance of most people in this country is costing us dearly.
God, help us.
[Hand raised] I can! (I think....) :)
He totally missed the fact that the Supreme Court's responsibility is to interpret the laws in our country in light of the U.S. Constitution. Their jurisdiction is primarily that of appellate review (meaning that they normally will only review decisions of lower courts on appeal), although they also have primary jurisdiction in certain limited cases. The Supreme Court's primary responsibiility though is to serve as a part of the checks and balances on legislative and/or executive actions which the Court determines conflict with the Constitution.
This is from the Supreme Court's website, specifically the link on the Court and the Constitution:
"[Alexander] Hamilton had written that through the practice of judicial review the Court ensured that the will of the whole people, as expressed in their Constitution, would be supreme over the will of a legislature, whose statutes might express only the temporary will of part of the people."
Good ear, though, Kim. I got back late from choir practice and only caught the last several minutes of the debate. Wow.
BTW - to Leslie: There must be something in the air, because I was screaming at my radio yesterday morning during an interview with some flaky woman who had debated Obama about 12 times (and was of the same party and affiliation). I finally turned off my radio to avoid running my car into the nearest concrete barrier.....
i guess it really depends on how one sees the role of supreme court justices.
for me, where the constitution is clear, then they decide according to the constitution. when it is, however, possible to reach opposing, yet reasonable interpretations of particular provisions, then one looks to the intention of the framers for guidance, as well as relevant jurisprudence.
there have been judges who prefer to view legal questions strictly from this type of lens. there have, however, been other judges who have taken into consideration the consequences of a particular interpretation, such that if a ruling were to result in undue hardship, oppression or something similar, then that is taken into account as well.
i'm all for the idea of justices who take into account questions of justice and fairness when they deliberate. as to whether practical consequences of rulings should be taken into account (here, the effects on real world folks), i think i'm in favor of that as well.
again, the philosophy of a justice can run from strict interpretation of the constitution, to the interpretation of the constitution as a dynamic instrument, whose purpose must be applied to changing circumstances, or somewhere in between.
it's made for some interesting discussion in our constitutional law classes, as well as articles.
the Constitution?
He thinks we are a democracy. We are not. We are a REPUBLIC. Big big difference.
I work this distinction into every class I teach. My little effort to save the country.
Suzanne
Meeting the 'felt needs of the people' seems to be the universal mentality whether in education, government or the church. What we want, we ought to get and woe to those who don't provide. We deserve and have a right to make a fuss until we get what we want. Tell me what I want to hear and I'll vote for you, whether you're a president or a pastor. Never mind the Constitution and what its framers meant when they penned it. Never mind what the Bible says and what God means in its words. Just do what you need to do to make my life easy and happy.
And don't forget, I shouldn't have to answer to anybody about anything I do. What I do is my own business. Now somebody---Mr. Obama?--- pass me a big ol' platter of The Good Life.
I can't even listen to all the prattle anymore. It makes me crazy.
IF I was going to make a comment on a political post, I'd have to say something pretty much along the lines that Rosemary took. But she said it so much better than I would have and besides that I have a self-imposed restriction against even making a comment on a political post. Never mind doing a political post of my own.
P.S. I am pumping my arm and saying "YES!" to Leslie and lawyerchick's comments too!
Dear and I would like to invite all of you to our celebration or wake open house on Nov. 8th! Unfortunately right now it seems we will be having a wake but it will be an encouraging wake and a party that emphasizes our hope in our future in Heaven. We too agree wholeheartedly with Rosemary's comment. Our party is going to have a lot of really good food and a few well crafted drinks. Come on over and we will comiserate together and encourage each other to continue in hope and peace with our Creator...
Fairness and justice are not co-equal partners, and the Supreme Court metes out neither. The Supreme judges interpret cases through the Constitution. They do not set it aside.
Barak Obama DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE US SUPREME COURT!!!
At best, this is Obama speaking in a populist tone.
At worst, this is Obama showing himself as not overly given to precision or details.
In either case, positing a US Senator ignorant of the workings of our American government is the worst sort of wishful thinking.
"I no longer supposed other boys to be ignorant of what I knew." - Surprised by Joy, C. S. Lewis
By the same token, why do opponents seem to fear that if elected, Obama will have the bill o' fare, without regard for the other branches?
Sorry for commenting, Kim, but I could not resist. Going back to lurk mode now ...