Obama Campaign Responds to McCain Speech on Judges:
In his post below, Paul wonders how Senator Obama will respond to Senator McCain's address on judges. The Obama campaign put out the following statement this afternoon:
The Straight Talk Express took another sharp right turn today as John McCain promised his conservative base four more years of out-of-touch judges that would threaten a woman’s right to choose, gut the campaign finance reform that bears his own name, and trample the rights and interests of the American people. Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.
This is un-frigging believable. I guess it's too much to ask that the courts should stand for blind justice anymore. Now courts have to have an agenda too, just like the politicians.
The man has all but reiterated the point I've been making in the thread below: he wants liberal justices with their thumb on the scales.
How can ANYONE possibly defend this? Are there no liberals anymore who think the Courts should be fair?
If the Democrats keep moving in this direction, the Courts are bound to become hopelessly politicized, even down to the trial court level. That is a situation waiting for disaster. I don't think I want to imagine what an America would look like where a man can't get a fair hearing in court if he's up against a woman, or if an individual can't get a fair hearing when he's fighting against the government's seizure of his property.
This is a nightmare scenario.
It's really a totally different mindset and world view.
Not two sets of law, just one set of law. It used to be called "heads I win, tails you lose." Now it's called liberal jurisprudence.
I've never seen a more explicit case made by a liberal that this should be a government of men and not of law, and that justice should favor one person over another. It's just outrageous.
Well, it shows that he has people who want to tell the New York Times that he's somewhat fair-minded at least. There's a lot of people who believe quite different things who all seem to think that Sen. Obama "really" agrees with them but is just saying something else in order to get the nomination/win the election/whatever. After all, he's so smart and charismatic that he simply must agree with me on judges/ethanol/free trade/social justice.
Although I suspect the true answer is that it's mostly pandering to the electorate
I have no interest in a President who would continue to appoint from the same nutball Federalist fringe that GWB has drawn his nominees from.
Great point. I'd say half of the brighter liberals out there support him because of what they think he'll do, not what he's actually said he'll do.
Obama doesn't limit himself to minorities with histories of discrimination (and that wouldn't explain why racial quotas would be upheld in places that had no discrimination, or why "diversity" permits racial discrimination against whites). He also talks about social justice and economic justice. That, to me, sounds very close to extra-legal takings in the name of socialism like Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela. A justice appointed by Obama in the 40s would've upheld the seizure of the steel mills by the Federal Government. It also sounds like overthrowing laws that upset his moral sensabilities, whatever they may be. What if an Obama-appointed judge has a thing against age-of-consent laws, believing that love automatically means consent? All laws would be unconstitutional under that whacked social justice scenario.
Actions speak louder than words. Obama is a liberal extremist on judges as evidenced by his vote against Roberts, a brilliant, eminently qualified and truly fair-minded jurist.
Frank, I understand you're trying to fit this unreasonable round statement into a square hole, but I don't think it's going to work. I don't believe for a minute that a judge with an attitude of imposing preferences in situations where the law is unclear, would similarly restrain himself from imposing his preferences when the law IS clear. In fact, I'm certain that, if human nature regarding power (especially life-appointed power) is any guide, such a judge would not restrain himself, but would only grow in his corruption.
I just find it amazing that so many are flatly accepting of a judicial system that favors one person over another as soon as they walk into a courtroom.
What is the incentive for a white male to play by the rules in the future, if playing by the rules lands him a biased judge? Doesn't this sort of thing almost guarantee extra-legal problems that the judicial system is supposed to prevent by being fair and impartial? Don't you see you're playing with fire?
So, in other words, you're not intelligent enough to defend Obama's promise to nominate left-wing judges who will disregard the written law to favor the minority of the month other than by attacking the current president and the non-partisan Federalist Society. You're the nutball.
Perhaps you can explain to me how poor white men from Applachia aren't the victims of a democratic hijacking regarding preferences for blacks and women. And why a judge presiding over a case in which said man sues to prohibit such injustices should favor ruling against the Applachian man.
To think that all the monuments to justice that depict the blind weighing of scales were wrong...
Typical liberal. Thinks 'fend[ing] for themselves' is a horrible fate, instead of the greatest benefit government can provide :)
And, to be honest, the 'powerful' need legal protection more than 'ordinary Americans' do - in liberalspeak, the 'powerful' are white men (who work for a living) and their families, while 'ordinary Americans' are the motley rabble of lazy welfare bums, criminals, illegal immigrants, greedy AARPers, self-hating ultra-wealthy latte liberals, and the rest of the politics-of-envy crowd that make up the Democrat Party base. Our greatest need is for judges who will protect American workers, entrepreneurs and property owners from the unConstitutional wealth redistribution demanded by the mob; I can protect myself from burglars, but I can't hold off the IRS with a shotgun.
Hillary is very focused, and she is not giving up. Obama appears to be a lightweight dreamer for not keeping his eye on the ball. The Convention could change everything. Contrary to popular belief, no delegate can be forced to vote a certain way.
My response would be that if the law doesn't contain protections for these minority groups then they should not find protection in the courts. That sounds harsh and unfair, but if we want the rule of law we can't have courts deciding cases on subjective, moral bases. If minority groups need protection of their interests they need to appeal to the general populace to pass such laws or constitutional amendments as appropriate.
You really sound like a silly caricature of a right-wing nutcase.
Courts have to weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions all the time, and in many if not most cases the costs and benefits fall onto different people or different groups of people with very different social backgrounds. Such interpersonal comparison of costs and benefits are unavoidable even when trying to faithfully executive the law, and will inevitably be influenced by the judges' ideology and sense of social justice.
I've read carefully both Senator Obama's statement above, and his explanation for voting against Chief Justice Roberts (quoted in the thread below). I see them saying exactly the opposite--that Senator McCain's nominees (and Roberts) would favor the "powerful" over "ordinary Americans".
That favoritism, he's saying, makes judges "dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination" and "dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man".
I don't see where he's calling for a "thumb on the scales of justice". In fact, he's decrying just such a 'thumb'.
Now you may disagree with him about whether Roberts, or McCain's nominees generally, displays such favoritism; but it's hardly an unreasonable concern. Especially considering the many examples in US history of Supreme Court justices displaying just that kind of favoritism.
Yeah, me and anyone else who thought justice should be blind. And all of those artists and masons who created courthouses with the blind goddess of justice weighing the scales, all right wing nutcases. Anyone who doesn't want a judge peeking out from under that blindfold is a right wing nutcase. Judges SHOULD be biased, after all.
Courts have to weigh the costs and benefits of their decisions all the time, and in many if not most cases the costs and benefits fall onto different people or different groups of people with very different social backgrounds. Such interpersonal comparison of costs and benefits are unavoidable even when trying to faithfully executive the law, and will inevitably be influenced by the judges' ideology and sense of social justice.
Fine, if the Court tomorrow said that Abortion was murder and always and everywhere illegal, I'm sure that you'd be safisfied if they said that they came to the decision after weighing the costs and benefits of their decisions and that these costs and benefits fall onto different groups of people all the time with very different social backgrounds. No doubt you'd accept that the decision properly reflected their ideology and sense of social justice, particularly towards the unborn.
Right?
Talking heads on TV?
Opinion polls?
Newspaper editorials?
Or would they just stick their fingers in the air, and decide that "everyone intuitively knows (fill in the blank)"?
If so, we may as well not have a Constitution and a body of laws.
JMHO
pireader, Obama is against a court that supposedly "protects the powerful." But the powerful and the "powerless" in America are supposed to be equal before the law. If powerful corporation violates a law, it is guilty. If powerless American violates a law, he is also guilty. If powerful corporation harms powerless American, the powerful corporation is liable. If powerless American harms powerful corporation, the powerless American is liable.
There is no difference between the two before the law. Each is an equal, independent actor and the courts are not to look favorably on one or the other based on who they are, only what the law says. Big Powerful Chief Executive White Guy has the same right against discrimination as poor powerless black man. They are both not to be discriminated against.
Obama disagrees with that and explicitly wants the courts to stand up against the "powerful." In the thread below, he framed it as a sympathy towards women against men as an example. Men are "powerful" in this view and the courts should be sympathetic to women.
I don't see how anyone can view this as anything other than a call for an explicltly prejudiced judicial system.
At any rate, a perfectly reasonable impartial judge could very well conclude that a history of invidious discrimination merits consideration. When Justice Scalia writes his dissent (thankfully) in Romer, Lawrence, and their ilk, I get the feeling that he writing an opinion for a society where there was no historical animus against gays, women and blacks. He is probably right in that ideal world and I have no doubt that he has absolutely no intention of perpetuating invidious discrimination. Nevertheless, his basic approach seems fundamentally ill-suited to the realities of this world.
I would re-think taking that position. Because that's basically all this statement says. We need justices who will consider social and economic justice. I would think a justice in that mold would have considered overturning precedent in Kelo rather than upholding precedent. Are you really against that?
Or, to say it a little shorter, address the substance, not what you want to assume Obama's spokesman means.
Oh, and Alias, you flunk geometry. Two 90 degree right turns would be a 180 degree turn, not a 90 degree left turn.
I'm not saying that discrimination against BPCEWG is acceptable (it's clearly not) but you are not comparing apples to apples. If BPCEWG gets thrown out of a 'Blue-Collar-Only' diner, he can just go down the street -- when Montgomery, AL has a majority of diners that are 'Whites-Only', black folks are just SOL.
The point, which I am happy to explain to you once more, is that even "blind justice" has to make these interpersonal comparisons of costs and benefits, and prattling on about how justice should be blind doesn't help at all in making them.
Not understanding this rather obvious characteristic of the justice system is what makes you sound less than perfectly reasonable.
I have a better idea. Maybe they could amend that law, even the basic Constitution of this fabled land, to include something about equal protection and due process so that a system that previously overlooked certain groups would now treat them equally. Surely all you "follow the law" types would have no problem with that...right? Right? Sorry, I guess I took your rhetoric seriously.
....
Oren :I'm not saying that discrimination against BPCEWG is acceptable (it's clearly not) but you are not comparing apples to apples. If BPCEWG gets thrown out of a 'Blue-Collar-Only' diner, he can just go down the street -- when Montgomery, AL has a majority of diners that are 'Whites-Only', black folks are just SOL.
Let me see if I get this straight: Liberal jurisurpdence makes an interpersonal calculation of costs and benefits of discriminating against whites and concludes that because Chief Executive White Guy can go down the street, it's ok to discriminate against him in favor of poor powerless black guy?
This is your system of justice? Really?
Oren/Hattio: That's precisely the source of the outrage. Somehow, I can't see anything that more clearly "den[ies] any person . . . the equal protection of the laws," than to have varying standards, burdens, and presumptions based on the station or identity of the various parties in a particular action.
Please, somebody in the die-hard Obama camp, explain to me the following:
1. How is it "out of touch" to vote for someone who garnered 78 votes in the Senate (Roberts)?
2. How is Obama the "uniter" who will cross partisan lines when, on the subject of judicial nominations, he toed the party line on every significant nomination, where as McCain was the one who took a political risk by joining the "Gang of 14"?
3. How is it not political pandering -- of which Obama rightly accuses Clinton on the gas tax issue -- to acknowledge that a nominee is qualified and should be approved (Roberts), but to vote against him anyway because of the future political damage it could cause, as was document in the NY Times article?
I honestly would like to hear answer to these questions. And I certainly hope the Republicans make an issue of this in the general election in a way that all of America understands.
Spot on.
And where, pray tell, did I say we have group rights in this country? I said where there is a system that previously overlooked certain groups, we could treat them equally. You know, allowing Jews, blacks, women to be on juries, allowing blacks and women to vote, counting blacks as a full person instead of 3/5 of a person. Where in there does that say I favor group rights???
Not at all. I'm saying that the role of a judge is not to establish 'justice' but to enforce the law. Period, end of story. It is the business of the people, in the person of their representatives, to enact just laws; whether the laws are just or unjust is not the province of the judge - and so much less so is 'social justice' or 'economic justice', those nebulous liberal terms that usually boil down to 'steal from the rich!'.
Not that justice is a concern of Hussein Obama. Anatole France once wrote that "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal a loaf of bread." That equality is one of the hallmarks - indeed, one of the necessities - of any just law; injustice would be rewriting that law (as Obama seems to want) so that the poor would be permitted to pollute society and offend their betters with behavior that would not be tolerated among the upper class. In an earlier day, wealth and social status was seen as a gift from God, and those who possessed it were held to a looser standard under the law; these days, with the Marxist worship of the underclass en vogue, it is poor people, especially poor minorities, who are thought to be above the law (witness the whining about 'racial profiling').
First of all, "social" and "economic" justice are leftist code words for things like abortion on demand, stealing from the rich, gay marriage, and all other sorts of leftist crap.
If, however, you're referring to true, Natural-law style justice (particularly of the Catholic legal understanding as reflected in the Declaration of Independence), then yes, conservatives are on that side a lot. Your example, Kelo, has more to do with liberalism's logical conclusion of government power over the economy (particularly evidenced in the Wickard v. Filburn case), than it does with natural-law views of justice. A liberal who upheld Wickard would have no problem upholding Kelo.
You've quoted only half of Obama's phrase, in a way that loses his point. He actually said that he's against "judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves". That is, he's against favoring the 'powerful' ... which is very different from calling for judges who favor somebody else [the powerless, women,etc.] His view seems entirely consistent with the idea that all should be equal before the law.
Obama disagrees with that and explicitly wants the courts to stand up against the "powerful." In the thread below, he framed it as a sympathy towards women against men as an example.
Can you show me where Obama has actually said he wants courts that are "against the powerful" or "against men"? Versus saying he wants courts that don't favor the powerful or favor men?
As long as the courts are supposed to stand up for it, what is it?
Nick
"Social Justice"?
The Bankruptcy Act revisions a few years ago gave significant added protection in bankruptcy to credit card providers, who are a lot more powerful than individual debtors. Is an Obama judge supposed to throw that law out because it offends his senses of social or economic justice?
Does it violate some provision of the Constitution?
Nick
Discrimination against BPCWEG is UNACCEPTABLE.
Not every unacceptable act has equal WEIGHT because they are not equally HARMFUL. I thought this goes without saying -- even a 5 year old understands the
difference between something that is unfair but minor (he got a bigger slice of cake than I did) and something that is unfair and major (he stole my tricycle and dumped it in the river).
Specifically, throwing BPCWEG out of a diner is less HARMFUL than poor black guy, for reasons already discussed.
Is your implication that these cases should be treated differently? If so, how do you reconcile that with this snarky comment:
Wait, what?
Is the Obama campaign trying to get the Republican base fired up for McCain? Campaign finance "reform" is one of the biggest reasons many Republicans (and independents!) dislike McCain, as is the fear that McCain will use support for campaign finance reform as a litmus test for judges.
It's just odd to see the Obama campaign saying something so positive about McCain. :) (Of course, the Obama campaign apparently sees McCain-Feingold as a good thing, which is important to keep in mind...)
pireader, what do you think "social and economic justice" is? It is an explicit call for protecting the powerless, women, etc. By saying he wants judges who should STAND UP for "social and economic justice," he is explicitly saying that the poor, women, minorities, should all be favored by the judicial system at the expense of the powerful.
Now, let me ask you something: do you hear Republicans saying that the courts should protect the powerful? Do you hear Republicans saying that a judge should be sympathetic to majorities, towards men, whites, and the rich? Of course not. You do hear them calling for fairness, impartiality, blind justice, and the rule of law not of men.
But Obama calls for social and economic justice for "ordinary Americans." Of course he's going to frame it as the "interest of the American people." But it's not ALL of the American people, only HIS special people that he wants to protect, the "ordinary" Americans as opposed to the "powerful."
And "social and economic justice" carries with it the entire baggage of liberal garbage: "whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce..." From his Roberts speech, all of it is the same old liberal crap, only this time he's saying that the courts should explicitly STAND UP for those things.
Can you show me where Obama has actually said he wants courts that are "against the powerful" or "against men"? Versus saying he wants courts that don't favor the powerful or favor men?
You don't have to say you're "against men" if you're in favor of women. You don't have to say you're "against the powerful" if you're in favor of the weak.
In dismissing Roberts, Obama said that Roberts "has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak... he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."
So Obama thinks a Justice should work on behalf of the weak, and be sympathetic to women. Sounds to me that if you're prejudiced in favor of women and the weak, you'd naturally be against men and against the powerful.
And why are those sympathies relevant in a legal decision? Either White Executive Man was discriminated against or not. Obama seems to think that these sympathies in favor of the weak and of women are extremely relevant, because he was one of a few to vote against Roberts.
Somehow, I suspect that Senator Obama does not define it as Madison did, namely, protecting private property and upholding private contracts against the majority, since Senator Obama does not seem to regard the rich and powerful as a minority worthy of the consideration that Framers afforded them in the U.S. Constitution.
You do realize that Obama favors affirmative action, in the traditional liberal sense of quotas, right?
Not every unacceptable act has equal WEIGHT because they are not equally HARMFUL. Specifically, throwing BPCWEG out of a diner is less HARMFUL than poor black guy, for reasons already discussed.
Either the government discriminates against the Executive, or it does not. Which way do you rule? Obama says the government can discriminate against him in favor of the poor black guy. From what I hear you saying, you don't want that to happen but you don't seem to mind if it does because it's less harmful.
Why oh why are conservatives and libertarians such intellectual weaklings?
Conservatives hate puppies. That is why I am against conservatism.
Unfortunately, quotas are the law, thanks to Bakke v. Board of Regents--one of the ten most severely wrong decisions in the S.Ct.'s history, imo. The problem with BHO and fellow travelers, is that they probably actually believe in this nonsense, yet all they're really doing is pushing the country further and further into a totalitarian state.
Nothing frightens me more than politicians who declare war on legal objectivity in favor of subjective deference to the oppressed. It is the old lie once of the demagogue' BHO is simply the most dangerous person to ever seek the presidency in American history and the closest this country has ever come to nominating a fascist in the true sense of the word. He is truly terrifying.
BTW, whoever mentioned the concept of equity above--equity, by definition, is only relevant where there is no legal remedy available (e.g., laches, estoppel, etc.). The notion that fairness should ever sway a judge or jury to decide something contrary to the letter of an existing law is specious.
You wrote -- By saying he wants judges who should STAND UP for "social and economic justice," he is explicitly saying that the poor, women, minorities, should all be favored by the judicial system at the expense of the powerful.
Frankly,this argument is pretty weak. I asked for evidence that Obama has actually called for the courts to favor some groups over others. You reply that he calls them to favor "economic and social justice" ... which sounds pretty harmless. Then you read that to mean favoritism--a reading that's less than obvious--and then foist your reading onto Obama. How on earth does calling for economic and social justice "explicitly" call for favoritism in the courts?
Obama calls for social and economic justice for "ordinary Americans." Of course he's going to frame it as the "interest of the American people." But it's not ALL of the American people, only HIS special people that he wants to protect, the "ordinary" Americans as opposed to the "powerful."
Also kinda weak. Now you're arguing that what he said sounds OK, but he doesn't really mean it. Maybe so, but don't you need to offer some evidence?
do you hear Republicans saying that the courts should protect the powerful? Do you hear Republicans saying that a judge should be sympathetic to majorities, towards men, whites, and the rich? Of course not. You do hear them calling for fairness, impartiality, blind justice, and the rule of law not of men.
Also weak. Obama charged that Roberts' actions betrayed his favoritism towards the powerful, not his words or the Republicans' words generally. Which is only sensible, since entrenched favoritism usually travels accompanied by loud public protestations of fairness and impartiality.
And "social and economic justice" carries with it the entire baggage of liberal garbage ... affirmative action ... right of women to control their reproductive decisions ... the same old liberal crap, only this time he's saying that the courts should explicitly STAND UP for those things.
Putting aside the invective, you're right that Obama thinks the courts should stand up for affirmative action, abortion choice, etc. What does that have to do with the courts playing favorites?
Congress established the affirmative action programs in question. How is a court playing favorites when it enforces the law? [Unless you regard any reading of the constitution but "colorblindness" to be playing favorites.] How does recognizing a right to abortion play favorites? [Unless you believe that 8 week embryos are 'children', as Paul Barnes seems to.]
These are pretty mainstream positions,taken by the Court for decades now. Isn't a little over the top to go from them to: I've never seen a more explicit case made by a liberal that this should be a government of men and not of law, and that justice should favor one person over another. It's just outrageous.
[Close this window]
How on earth does calling for economic and social justice "explicitly" call for favoritism in the courts?
Because Obama himself said the court should stand up for those things. Legislators can have constituents, but it's an odd thing for COURTS to have constituents and to favor certain persons and policies. What do you think economic and social justice is? Do you have ANY IDEA what those terms mean? This is traditional, typical leftist cant we're talking about here. Or maybe you're just playing dumb.
you're right that Obama thinks the courts should stand up for affirmative action, abortion choice, etc. What does that have to do with the courts playing favorites?
Obama thinks it's unfair for a court to rule against affirmative action because it's a ruling against a minority in favor of a majority.
How does recognizing a right to abortion play favorites?
You can't seriously be asking this question when you must know that feminists on the left have demonized anyone who is against abortion as against women. Their rage suggests that being in favor of abortion means to them that you're in favor of women.
These are pretty mainstream positions,taken by the Court for decades now. Isn't a little over the top to go from them to: I've never seen a more explicit case made by a liberal that this should be a government of men and not of law, and that justice should favor one person over another. It's just outrageous.
It's one thing to be in favor of murdering babies (and let's not quibble, Obama favors that because he voted against a bill to provide newborn infants from botched abortions with human rights), it's another thing to think that women should win in a courtroom merely because it's a woman. Obama takes this to a whole new level. He's not legislating policies from the bench like your typical leftist. He's picking a winner before he even has a chance to hear the policy dispute because he thinks the people he picks as winners will share his policies.
I don't care if you think the argument is weak or not. I'm not the one who's deluded (or playing dumb) when it comes to the meaning of social &economic justice. That term is a rallying cry for the left around the world. And I've never seen a candidate who says that courts should play favorites between someone they think is powerful and someone they think isn't. Who's to say who's really powerful? Poor appliachian whites have been getting crapped on for years now thanks to the policies that Obama favors, which align with the majority-minority places he represented in Chicago. The so-called "powerful" have rights. And I don't appreciate the implication made by Obama in his denunciation of Roberts that just because whitey had historical privileges means that it's ok for the government to discriminate against men, or whites, or corporations, or whoever else he thinks is powerful.
Courts are supposed to play fair. Obama doesn't think so and thinks that they should favor some groups over others. If you don't understand why that's a problem, then you're just as whacked as he is.
This thread has jumped the shark.
"You reply that he calls them to favor "economic and social justice" ... which sounds pretty harmless. Then you read that to mean favoritism--a reading that's less than obvious"
I don't know how standing up for economic justice isn't favoring the poor. I don't know how standing up for social justice isn't favoring the culture war the left has made against traditional America. Those code words are so obvious that the left uses them all the time.
See here for examples of "social justice" consisting of the same traditionalist-destroying dogma that's everywhere on the left. Abortion on demand, gay marriage, anti-death penalty, hate crimes legislation, etc., etc., etc. That's one link. There are millions upon millions of this crap out there. The term is synonymous with modern liberalism and its preferences.
Obama isn't using the term to say he'll appoint fair justices that'll treat everyone equally. He's using the term to say that if Gay Rights Group comes into court demanding X, he's going to appoint a judge that'll give it to them. And if Person Y sues the Boy Scouts again, he'll make sure they admit him. And if individual Z is up against the police facing the death penalty, he'll be sure that the justice finds a way around it. This is playing favorites, and has nothing to do with the law on marriage, freedom of association, or criminal law.
This is not a case of Godwin's Law (though apparently it's quite ok for those on the left to call George W. Bush a nazi, fascist, dictator, criminal, etc...). At any rate, it's perfectly acceptable to criticize Obama as a fascist if I actually believe him to be a fascist, which I do. I am not the first to be disturbed by the Obamabot phenomenon--David Brooks has even written about it and he's no wingnut. It's positively creepy.
I am also referring to a) the man's charismatic hold on mush-headed followers; b) his undisputed socialist beliefs (not to mention radical socialist associates); c) the use of fascist imagery in campaign media; d) the fascistic quality of his large "rallies"; e) his over-the-top class warfare; f) his constant demagoguery over every issue, etc...Sorry; I can't think of any presidential nominee in my lifetime who came so close to at least mimicking the fascist ideal.
Are you one of those persons who were mistakenly taught that fascism was a right-wing phenomenon? I would recommend the works of John Flynn, Friedrick Hayek, etc.. to disabuse you of this common error.
He never said that and I never said that. Try to pay better attention.
First off, I wasn't considering government discrimination, I was considering private discrimination in the context of economic services made available to the public (e.g. diners). Secondly, to me, it's a threshold issue: some discrimination is simply not a big enough deal to involve the legal system. The courts are not there for every little trifle.
Are you a Ralph Nader sock-puppet? Seriously. You can tell me. No one else is listening. I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
I don't beleive that Obama wants the destruction of anyone, but I worry he is another Carter, unable to act and sitting by helplessly as destruction occurs.
Ernest Penfold checks in.
During his confirmation hearings, Roberts specifically used the baseball umpire analogy, explaining that the job of a justice was to call balls and strikes, period. Those who would prefer an umpire who tightens or loosens the strike zone, depending on the socio-economic background of the batter, are in favor of changing the game of baseball. In other words, they are more interested in who wins or loses than they are in the rules. They may even say the rule-book should be a living document.
You're convinced that Obama's using "code words" which you, and only you, can de-code correctly. But in fact, people ranging from popes to Marxists have used those innocuous and vague words to mean wildy different things over the years.
Here's an example. Roger Mahony, long-time Catholic Cardinal of Los Angeles, strongly supports "economic justice" and "social justice" as he defines them. Yet he's sternly opposed to abortion, gay marriage, etc.
So I don't think those "code words" mean what you think they mean.
And, no, I don't believe those words mean the same thing to Obama as to Mahony. My point is that they're so vague they don't mean much at all.
Frankly, you're reduced to reading such implausible extremist meanings into those "code words" because you don't really have any evidence that Obama believes in the courts playing favorites. As I pointed out above, what he's actually called for is an end to the favoritism that (he believes) exists today.
How does recognizing a right to abortion play favorites?
You can't seriously be asking this question when you must know that feminists on the left have demonized anyone who is against abortion as against women. Their rage suggests that being in favor of abortion means to them that you're in favor of women.
My question was quite serious: I don't see why supporting abortion rights amounts to playing favorites. And I certainly don't see why finding some rage-filled demonizers who believe X must make X true. If that logic worked, then we could all prove lots of weird conclusions very easily. [And, by the way, most feminists who support abortion rights aren't rage-filled demonizers; but that's another story for another day.]
Obama isn't using the term to say he'll appoint fair justices that'll treat everyone equally. He's using the term to say that if Gay Rights Group comes into court demanding X, he's going to appoint a judge that'll give it to them.
You keep asserting this implausible extremist reading of Obama's rather innocuous words. Show us where the real Obama actually said the things that the Obama in your head secretly thinks.
Consistent with the rest of his Senate record, Obama's opposition to Roberts undermines the idea that he is a consensus-builder willing to cross the aisle in the spirit of bipartisanship. I'm surprised his campaign is pushing this partisan angle now when it seems they should be reaching toward the middle in anticipation of the general election, but maybe they think they can sufficiently demonize the Chief Justice to make him a liability for McCain. Is that the "new kind of politics" we keep hearing about?
Such people often feel squeezed on both sides, on the one hand by "the powerful" who lobby for special privileges from the government, and on the other by "the weak" who... lobby for special privileges from the government. The middle perceives, correctly in my opinion, that both groups want to take over the ground that the middle occupies, and to use government power to do so.
Thus the hostility to illegal immigrants in some quarters -- business interests and foreigners who will work for low wages can be seen as combining to squeeze the wages of American workers.
I would think that the middle, which by nature would have a variety of interests (i.e., different combinations of advantages and disadvantages) and therefore be hard to organize, would be the logical constituency for limited government and the rule of law. I point this out because the debate so far has been about "the powerful" and "the weak," without any consideration of whether there is a third group hanging around to screw up the analysis.
Where did I say that only I could figure this out? I think Obama's results-based judging policy is clear as crystal from this statement of his. And I think that anyone remotely familiar with the way "social justice" and "economic justice" has been spoken of in America would see it as plain as the sun. Marxists use the term, and that's not a hint to you? Popes use it to talk about the Catholic belief in the PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF THE POOR. Sheesh. Google that phrase if you've never heard it. You're actually making my point for me.
Here's an example. Roger Mahony, long-time Catholic Cardinal of Los Angeles, strongly supports "economic justice" and "social justice" as he defines them. Yet he's sternly opposed to abortion, gay marriage, etc.
So I don't think those "code words" mean what you think they mean.
NOW this thread has jumped the shark. Yes, Mahoney supports the Catholic preferential treatment of the poor, but I'm Catholic and Roger Mahoney is well known as a disgrace. He only is opposed to abortion because if he supported it he'd be stripped of his office. He has walked right up to the line on gay marriage. He is an embarassment and many, many people have appealed to Benedict to do something about Mahoney. If anything, your mentioning him only confirms my analysis. Thanks.
Show us where the real Obama actually said the things that the Obama in your head secretly thinks.
There is no secret: our courts should stand up for social and economic justice. That's as plain to his supporters as it is to me. You're the only one who seems to be in denial.
A good example of a right-wing equivalent would be "family values." If McCain promises to elect judges who support family values, everyone knows what that means, its not just a nice, vague concept.
Now pushing 90 responses, and still I haven't seen anyone explain why this statement portends the downfall of the Republic.
A couple of definitions for the non-lawyers (and lapsed lawyers) from dictionary.law.com:
Judicial: 1) referring to a judge, court or the court system. 2) fair.
Justice: 1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.
A good example of a right-wing equivalent would be "family values." If McCain promises to elect judges who support family values, everyone knows what that means, its not just a nice, vague concept."
i think a better example of a "code word" (from a leftis's standpoint) is "state's rights". ok... codeterm, but you get my point.
imo, and ime social justice basically entails a push towards equality of condition. the problem with equality of condition is that it necessarily requires inequality of treatment and opportunity.
you can think of a million examples. racial quotas are one.
That sounds more like an indictment than a defense of Obama. If "economic justice" and "social justice" are meaningless phrases, then he is attacking McCain by stating his own belief that the courts should stand up for either nothing, or for things which the individual listener decides for himself. Both of those are demagoguery, pure and simple. The Kingfish is not an admirable model for Presidential candidates.
It would be really strange to talk about abortion, same-sex marriage, affirmative action, and most of the hot issues on the Supreme Court's docket over the last few years as "economic justice" - "equal rights", "individual rights", "personal liberty", "equality", etc. would appear to be much more appropriate terms.
Obama meant something by "economic justice".
Did he mean what the Center for Economic and Social Justice means - a "Third Way" between capitalism and socialism, based on a "system of economic justice as defined by Louis Kelso and Mortimer Adler, [where] there are three essential and interdependent principles: The Principle of Participation, The Principle of Distribution, and The Principle of Harmony."?
Did he mean what the American Friends Service Committeemeans (top issue listed is "Make the Minimum Wage a Living Wage")?
Did he mean what the U.S. Catholic bishops' 1986 Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economymeans?
Did he mean what NOW means?
There is a common thread that keeps popping up in different groups' definitions of "economic justice": "livable" wages and universal health care. Considering that the political process has achieved neither of these, what is Barack Obama proposing that the courts stand up for? Is this code for wanting judges who would find Constitutional rights that have heretofore only been found in law review articles, such as a right to a guaranteed income or government-paid health care?
Couple his statements with the interview he gave the Chicago Reader when he first ran for office:
Is there anything out of line in worrying that his call "that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice" is how he would implement the "massive economic change" he called for? How about in worrying what the "massive economic change" would consist of? [Remember that he was calling for that in 1995, long before the Bush tax cuts or the 1996 welfare reform law, so it's not that he wants to reverse those.
Nick
"Barack Obama has always believed that our courts should stand up for social and economic justice"
This really is not that difficult. Per the US Constitution;
The Court has no authority to "stand up for social and economic justice". That is not its role, and it's disturbing that Obama made it through law school without learning that. If you want social and economic change, do what you're supposed to do - work for it via the political process.
Why is "democracy" such a dirty word for Democrats?
If you don't know that Obama is pretty much a lefty, you have not been following politics very closely.
Sarcasm off. I just love being expected to have any idea about a candidate's positions when all that's stated are platitudes, clichés and buzz words, and "discussions" of the same. Will the real Barak Obama please stand up?
I'm guessing you're not a Harvard Law alum. Among others.
I read the statement as a fairly nondescript political platitude. Aren't all politicians on the side of "ordinary Americans", whoever those are? I don't know what this supposedly sinister meaning of "social and economic justice" is, either. Would you prefer that the courts stand for social and economic injustice? I think it's a code word for something like "everyone should vote for me because I will somehow represent everyone's interests, all of you ordinary Americans". Not impressive, not shocking.
Yes, where would we get such ideas?
Beneath the statue of Justice over London's Old Bailey over the Judges' Entrance there are inscribed the words “Defend the children of the poor and punish the wrongdoer.” which many of you may recognise as familiar since they come from Coverdale’s translation of Psalm 72 in the Book of Common Prayer. They remain relevant more than 400 years after they were translated and 2500 years after they were first written. We expect our justice system to protect the most innocent and vulnerable members of our community and to punish those who harm them.
A predatory lender today is as much a wrongdoer as was the medieval robber baron. The concepts of social and economic justice are not and never have been alien to the law and the proper discharge of the judicial function - unless, of course you happen to be an "originalist" heretic.
How European of you to think there's room for intermediate points of view. If you're not an originalist, you're a Marxist. If you're not Antonin Scalia, you're Lynne Stewart. If you don't object to all taxation, you're an authoritarian stormtrooper. Sure, you'll tell us that "Labor" and "Social Democrat" are commonplace terms in several longstanding, relatively entrepreneurial, relatively free-market democracies, but we can see through that to your dreams of bigger Gulags and deadlier Cultural Revolutions. In fact your very use of a word like "relatively" (yes, I know I'm the one who used it, but I'm sure you were thinking it) marks you as morally beyond redemption.
OK, not I'm the one engaging in hyperbole. That represents only some of the views on these boards.
<<<
Our Constitution is not supposed to be "common law". It is a democratically adopted charter for government, and it provides in Article V the mechanism for adapting to any so-called "contemporary standards of decency".
Appointing judges to make those adaptations is nothing less than Caesarism.
<<<
There can be no doubt that our Constitution is grounded in the common law which preceded its ratification.
However, once adopted as the charter that it is, it is not subject to the vagaries of the common law. Otherwise, it is just another worthless piece of paper.
"Evolving Standards of Decency", the determination of which is to be made by un-elected judges, is un-democratic and authoritarian.
When you say, "we may yet see once again the constitutional guarantees of your Bill of Rights interpreted in accordance with contemporary standards of decency", I think of the eighth amendment's proscription of cruel and unusual punishment as an example of how judges opposed to capital punishment would be inclined to declare such punishment "unconstitutional", notwithstanding the plain fact that capital punishment is clearly contemplated in our Constitution:
Viz:
"No person shall be be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, etc. etc..."
Now, if "contemporary standards of decency" demand that capital punishment be abolished, then "We The People" have the mechanism to make it happen: Article V.
It's not the province of un-elected judges.