Saturday, February 27, 2016

Obama's Choice for the Supreme Court

You have to give him credit. Obama always knows what to say when he wants to sound so reasonable. And, over the last seven years, most people have bought into it. When it comes to the type of judge he wants for the Supreme Court, Obama knew all the right words and phrases.

"I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand." Let's be honest, that sounds very reasonable. Of course, Obama does not mean it, but he knows how to convince people to view him as reasonable. If Obama really wanted judges with no particular ideology, he would not have appointed two leftist judges to the Court already - Kagan and Sotomayor.

The thing about Obama is, if you just listen, he will tell you what he really wants. "Justice is not about abstract legal theory..." "It's the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom, experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people's lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times."

So we see how Obama went from "impartial justice" to the need to see how court decisions "affects the daily reality of people's lives..." What Obama really wants is a goal-oriented court, not a court administering impartial justice. That is why he nominated Kagan and Sotomayor, two Justices who will reliably vote for the "liberal" outcome in court cases. What Obama seeks is an activist Court that will act as a super legislative body.

And look how he went from seeking judges who "respect precedent," to seeking judges who understand the "rapidly changing times." In other words, forget about about precedent; we need a living, breathing Constitution to keep up with the times. As I say, you have to give him credit. Obama knows how to mix his platitudes with his real message.

Meanwhile, we hear that "...the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over." Oh no, that was not Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell; nor was it Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley. Those words were uttered in 1992 by then Senator Joe Biden.

For those of you inclined to think that Obama is being treated unfairly by the Senate Republicans, think again. According to John Lott, Jr., in an article in the 2/23/16 Investor's Business Daily, during Obama's first six years in office, his nominees to the appeals courts got approved 90% of the time. Far higher than Bush's 72% approval rate.

Per Lott, "Bush's nominees to the prestigious District of Columbia Circuit Court faced an average wait of 707 days, Obama's were approved in an average of 324 days." Many cases involving the immense regulatory system that runs much of the country come out of the D.C. court.

Protecting the Constitution, protecting American's First and Second Amendment rights, is of far greater significance than the idea that a sitting President in his final months in office is automatically entitled to consideration of his appointee to the highest Court in the land.