Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Christopher Merola :: Townhall.com Columnist
Courting Disaster
by Christopher Merola
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


During the Saddleback Forum, held this past August at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, CA, Barack Obama was asked which Supreme Court members he would not have nominated if he were President. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas were the two he singled out. It just so happens that they are the two most conservative Supreme Court justices on the high court.

Obama’s response was telling. It reveals what he thinks of the Constitution and the original intent of our Constitutional Republic -- as created by the founding fathers. Like most Democrats, Obama buys into the ridiculous notion that our Constitution is a “living document” that changes and evolves over time. For this reason, liberal activists like Barack Obama believe holding to the original intent of the founding fathers is neither necessary nor realistic.

Yet, the Constitution itself does not make reference to a living document that changes over time. The very reason the founders placed no term limits for judges within the Constitution was to allow for an unchanging judicial precedent to stand the test of time. In fact, the founders made it so difficult to change the Constitution that there have only been seventeen amendments made since the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Let’s think about what it takes to change the Constitution. It takes a super majority of two-thirds of both houses of Congress, and a super majority of three-fourths of the state legislatures to pass an amendment to the Constitution; this must be done in a way that does not undermine the foundation of the Constitution itself. This is such a difficult task to accomplish that it is easy to see that the founders intended for the Constitution to change as little as possible. Their own writings say as much.

This leads to the Democrat party and Barack Obama. In full defiance of the founders, the Constitution and the inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, the Democrats and Obama think it is their job to re-write the Constitution by way of judicial fiat. Remember, Obama has already said he would not have placed Justices Scalia and Thomas on the Supreme Court. He even voted against confirming Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. With a record like this, Barack Obama will most certainly nominate more liberal activist judges to the supreme and federal courts.

Right now, the Democrats in the Senate are salivating at the opportunity to have Obama as President with a larger Senate majority -- a larger Senate majority that will confirm as many as three Obama nominated Supreme Court judges, and as many as 100 Obama nominated federal judges.

Think of the havoc these liberal activists will thrust upon the American people. Our Constitutional liberties have been placed in jeopardy by the existing liberal judges thus far. One hundred more on the federal courts and three more on the Supreme Court will make the Kelo vs. New London case look tame. This explains why the Democrat controlled Senate is holding up a significant number of President Bush’s judicial nominees. They are hoping to fill those vacancies with Barack Obama’s potential nominees.

During the last two years of President Bush’s term in office, only 10 of his Circuit Court nominations have been confirmed. During President Clinton’s last two years in office, 15 of his Circuit Court nominations were confirmed. Jimmy Carter had 44 of his nominations confirmed in his last two years in office.

The average number of days for these judges to be confirmed is also staggering. President Bush’s Circuit Court nominations have had to wait an average of 350 days to be confirmed. Bill Clinton’s Circuit Court nominees had to wait an average of 238 days to be confirmed. Jimmy Carter’s judicial nominations had to wait 69 days on average.

Can we see the writing on the wall? Allowing Barack Obama to become president, along with a greater Democrat majority in the Senate, will have serious ramifications. The Obama court nominees, once confirmed, will dramatically increase their writing law from the bench – in obvious violation of their Constitutional powers.

Just this past year, the Supreme Court upheld the right to keep and bear arms by a meager 5-4 decision. All nine justices should have voted in favor of upholding the second amendment, but four did not. That means “we the people” are only one Supreme Court judge away from losing the right to defend our life, liberty and property.

With Barack Obama’s liberal activist judges on the Supreme Court, we could see a drastic rewriting of the second amendment. By judicial decree, a Barack Obama appointed Supreme Court can easily redefine the meaning of marriage as state courts have done, in full defiance of the will of the American people. Obama has already stated that he desires to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

This is serious business. Barack Obama’s radical views will more than likely manifest themselves through his judicial appointments. It is safe to say that electing Barack Obama as president is literally courting disaster.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Christopher Merola is the Political Director for Political Media, Inc, a political advertising and public relations firm in Washington, DC.


Brilliant Column
Brilliant reminder us of those things that are right in front of us. The founders made constitutional change difficult for the reasons Mr. Merola states. What the liberals are doing to our constitution is atrocious.

O will instituionalzie abortion
which only exists by Sup. Court fiat for another century through a revolution in court nominations and appointments.

How Reps., but violating their own principals and abandoning the contract with Am. to become arrogant pigs at the trough under Bush, is the punishing question of this election.

Uneducated electorate
Unfortunately, the majority of people are not paying attention to the most important issue of the campaign; the judiciary.

It doesn't matter who is elected to the congress or the white house if the judiciary, appointed for life, continues to run amock. The founding father's single biggest mistake was in thinking that the judiciary would be the "least dangerous branch" of government. Now, because a majority of Americans are about to vote their feelings rather than their heads, we are going to be stuck with a far left activist court for years to come.

It is too bad that we can't go back to requiring people to have interest in the system before being allowed to vote in it. When you allow the least educated and most lazy portion of the citizenry (i.e. welfare recipients and union members) to make the decisions, and vote themselves entitlements, you have a country slated for decline.

Clarence Thomas
Is without a doubt the worst Supreme Court Justice this country has ever had. Hands down.

Pablo
Defend your position. I challenge you to cite any evidence you have to prove your ridiculous contention that Clarence Thomas is the worst Justice we have ever had. And it must be provable facts, not suppositions or simple disagreements with his opinions. I doubt you can come up with anything, you are simply spouting the liberal mantra.

5-4 decisions
It is scary how many important decisions by the court came down to 5-4 decisions. This election could change our everyday lives in radical ways if Obama is elected.

This article Is on target!
What the cultural left (Democrats) has done by judicial activism is appalling.

Starting with the Dredd Scott decision, saying that slaves are property and can be used by plantation owners any way they choose, all the way to Roe v Wade, saying that babies are property and can be used any way a woman chooses, is nothing short of tyranny.

The liberals on the courts have stepped all over the states and the peoples rights to define marriage, and forced kids to no longer pray, which is their First Amendment right.

They have turned the Constitution upside down.

By the way, that lie about Clarence Thomas comes right from the ACLU talking points. The ACLU was started by several members of the Communist Party of the USA.

That is all we need to know about the cultural left's view.

These left-wing pawns are either purposely pushing communist ideology on purpose, or they are sheep being led astray by their left-wing college professors and the leftist media.

It is tyranny for sure.

Exactly right
Obama has hung out with communists and extremists. These people focus on the oppression in society, think capitalism is inherently unfair, and want to move our country in a Marxist direction. In the last debate, Obama said healthcare was a right! This has enormous ramifications in that the government must protect our rights and make sure they are not subject to prejudice or discrimination. What other "rights" does Obama think we have? Obama may see the Constitution as a living document, but actually he will make it a dead document.

Kids, kids
Relax. I just think Clarence Thomas has the intellect of Gov. Palin. That's all.

He very seldom asks any questions and his decisions are already made up in advance. If the decision requires any real thought or consideration he sides with the conservatives. There are never any surprises.

You cannot tell me that in all the cases he has been involved in he has not found anything to argue against the conservative's decision.

Even the moderates will show some backbone once in awhile.

I prefer a moderate SC. Keeps the country rolling along nicely.

Pablo
You may prefer a "moderate" supreme court, but I would prefer one that actually used the constitution as its guide, not world opinion.

Your snide remarks about Justice Thomas (and Governor Palin) aren't really worth arguing over. The left always attacks people's intelect when they can't attack their ideas. It's been the common Democrat tactic since they started calling Abraham Lincoln "that ape in the white house."

Well said Mr. Merola....
"In full defiance of the founders, the Constitution and the inalienable rights given to us by our Creator, the Democrats and Obama think it is their job to re-write the Constitution by way of judicial fiat."


Excellent article Mr. Merola
This is one of the main reasons I will not give a vote to the Marxist Barry candidate.

One can only hope that along with all the other failures Barry has in his past, that his bid for the office of POTUS will be added to the list.

Pablo, court jester
Pablo is like the "court jester" of the left on this blog.

He jingles his pointy little hat, spins in his point little shoes and spews nonsense.

You made an accusation against Clarence Thomas and Publius4254 asked you to support it with facts. You responded with more nonsense.

Just continue to dance and jingle and snipe. You have revealed who you are.

Sheeple
People who follow the leader without questioning are like sheep, they are Sheeple.

Wanting to be a moderate means you don't want to ruffle feathers, so move to the lukewarm, fuzzy center.

That way you will be accepted by the status quo. Who cares if you sell out the nation and its Constitution?

That is Pablo for you.

Not taking sides here
But anyone bellowing "disaster" turns me off immediately.
You don't know, dont' care. All you care about is getting McCain elected.
Fine. When I read the title I scanned for the "disaster", found out what you think it is going to be and changed the channel, mentally.
Childish, schoolyard taunts.

Obama: The Master of Disaster
Any time courts legislate from the bench they take that power away from the Congress, which is where it is supposed to be (Article One, Section). That in itself is a disaster.

We the people lose representation when the courts legislate. The power transfers from us to nine little dictators on the Supreme Court.

Jefferson called that the tyrrany of an oligarchy. That is not something childish, it is a disaster.

I will tell you what else is a disaster: that someone fails to see how the courts taking power from us is a disaster, and instead calls it childish.

That is a disaster of huge consequence. No wonder the founders wanted only those who were employed and owned land to vote. Anyone else is basically clueless about freedom.


Obama Supreme Court Appointees
OBAMA CHOICE OF SUPREME COURT APPOINTEES: “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 criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges.”

http://volokh.com/posts/1204053060.shtml

True that an Obama
presidency would be a disaster, but I think the writer is overplaying how aggressively new liberal appointees would re-write our constitution. If these liberal judges can be assumed to carry water for Obama, they may not want to endanger his chances for re-election by, say, revoking all American's gun rights, guaranteeing partial birth abortion rights, muzzling conservative talk show hosts, marginalizing Christians, etc. The country -- center right still -- would be appalled and he would lose by a 50 state landslide in 2012.

Are you kidding?
Since when did Supreme Court judges care about the re-election of the president that appointed them?

If that was the case, then FDR would never have stacked the Supreme Court with 6 leftists.

FDR still was elected four times even after his judges made some of the worst decisions in our nation's history.

In fact, FDR's first Supreme Court appointee was a member of the KKK.

Mr. Merola
The center-piece of your argument, is the theory, that it is difficult to change the Constitution. Yet the Constitution has been amended 17 times? How difficult should not have been your premise. Your premise should have been the issues, that bring on that change. Can a "Dead Man" breathe,walk and talk? No! Translation; The Dead cannot "Change" their status. However the Constitution by having the capacity to "Change" defines Life. Must I go on???

The difference

There is obviously a fundamental difference between changing the Constitution according to the Constitution's own established and laborious procedures, and changing the Constitution by judicial fiat from the bench . . . . through a DELIBERATE twisting and exaggeration of DEFINITIONS . . . . . distortions that pay no attention to the CLEAR and SPECIFIC letter of the Constitutional provision which covers the case in question.
It is a tragedy that the abominable and outrageous decision in "Kelo vs. New London" was even supported by "conservative" justice Scalia.

No "Living" Constitution!
If the Constitution does not mean EXACTLY what the writers intended it to mean ACCORDING TO THE DEFINITION OF THE WORDS AS UNDERSTOOD AT THE TIME then there is no point in having a written constitution at all.

Egon . . . .

That was a GREAT link you posted.


Thank you!

The Constitution in 2008
The democrats think the Constitution is an OPINION and not a matter-of-fact and that they can change the Constitution as easily as they change their opinions.

George III thought the Amnericans could be contained and controlled. The Supreme Court thinks that also. The court ruled that Andrew Jackson could NOT REMOVE the Cherokees from the ir lands and march them off on the Trail of Tears, so that of course, never happened. Jackson never said, "well let them enforce their decision."

The time may soon come when we will have to tell the court, "Now enforce your decision." Civil disobedience should come easy to a society that has not been obedient to rules of common sense and decency for the last half century.

THE REASON the democrats and the left have been working so hard to remove firearms from citizens is so we CANNOT tell the court to shove it. They want to be sure that we do not have the means to do that. They want to be sure that slaves have no means to rebell and that their domination is ABSOLUTE.

Hang on people. This thing is about to become interesting and it's going to become very personal for many of you.

Matthew - finally some honesty
Matthew from Ohio finally says what you all on the far right actually want:

"It is too bad that we can't go back to requiring people to have interest in the system before being allowed to vote in it. When you allow the least educated and most lazy portion of the citizenry (i.e. welfare recipients and union members) to make the decisions, and vote themselves entitlements, you have a country slated for decline."

The hysteria on the right regarding this election is because you all see the writing on the wall. More and more people are starting to participate and your message of exclusion and hate is going the way of the edsel. As more people exercise their right to be heard, the far right is going to become more and more of a fringe movement. Matther, maybe you and your friends would like to bring back the poll tax or literacy tests. That worked pretty well for you. The Obama era is coming people, embrace the change or disappear.

Edward See Egon's Link
Edward:

See Egon's link and ask yourself why you are part of the problem and not the solution?

You are one of the useful idiots that will be extinguished when your politburo friends take over.

to edward in CA
If you think "spreading the wealth" is going to win Obama the election, you are very mistaken. There are enough of us out there who remember very well the Soviet Union; you remember the USSR don't you? Well we do and we vote. The curtain has finally been pulled back and Oz has been revealed to be just another socialist.

God bless Joe Wurzelbacher!

Edward
I like that threat: embrase change or disappear! Which is why some of us are so concerned over an all-encompassing gov't that openly states it shall not be contrained by written limitations. If it doesn't work out, we might be "disappeared" involuntarily.

You see that, don't you? It is what you meant, right?

IT''S THE CONGRESS, NOT THE COURT
STOP BLAMING THE COURT. It is the Congress that makes the laws, not a Supreme Court majority. Congress is deceptive in pretending that only the appointment of better justices can reverse bad decisions.

Article III, Section 2, paragraph 2 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to regulate and make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Court.

Congress can pass a law that changes or deletes what the court has made law and deprives the Court of appellate jurisdiction over it

But to do so would reveal that Congress is the real power behind Court decisions. It would place the blame squarely upon our congressmen for the contempt for the rule of law shown by the Court in favor of the rule of men.

More Dilusional than McCain...
and more close minded than Jerry Falwell. Both use the Constitution and Bible when it suits them only then completely abandon both the documents and the beliefs when it gets in the way of seeking more power.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.