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, February 27, 2008
Terry Jeffrey :: Townhall.com Columnist
Obama's Class-War Court
by Terry Jeffrey
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?


When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the "weak" over the "strong."

When the nomination of Sam Alito came up in January 2006, he made the same argument.

Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law.

During the Roberts nomination debate, he argued that most Supreme Court cases involve no real controversy, "so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases."

In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. "In those difficult cases," Obama said, "the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren't in the right place.

"The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak," Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005.

"When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled," Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. "There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless."

Implicitly conceding that Roberts would be confirmed, Obama said, "I hope he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society."

So, in Obama's vision, who are the "weak" and who are the "strong"? Who deserves to win the "hearts" of Supreme Court justices? Who does not?

In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America together, Obama's Senate speeches against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal defendants were among the weak, majorities, men, employers and prosecutors were among the strong.

"In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process," Obama said of Roberts. "In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man."

Alito had a similar problem, only with different preferred victim classes.

"If there is a case involving an employer and employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer," Obama said. "If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he will rule in favor of the state."

Obama expressed disappointed that when he interviewed John Roberts he could not get the judge to reveal more of his personal feelings. "Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper feelings," Obama said. "That is not how he is trained."

Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama should have listened more carefully to the judge's testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not consider who is "weak" and who is "strong" in a case, or consult their personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts and the law.

"Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them," said Roberts. "I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."

If Obama becomes president, he will try to stack the court not with umpires, but with players who put their heart in every game -- consistently pitching and batting for Obama's favorite teams.

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

Terence P. Jeffrey is the editor-in-chief of CNSNews

Be the first to read Terence Jeffrey's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
TYPICAL LIBERAL MESSAGE
This is how liberals see this country. A class war.
When nominated, Judge Roberts gave the best interpretation yet as to what his function was as to his seat on the Supreme Court. To adjuticate challenges that come before the Court as a objective arbitrator. Not some impassioned crusader.
This is how any judge nominated should perform his/her service.If this guy gets in the White House,based on what he has said already, he will nominate every activist judge he can get his hands on.
Besides our being invaded by illegal aliens, the issue of the Supreme Court is the most important to our lives and the lives of our children.
So think. Do you want someone who will rule dispassionately? Objectively?
Or more champions of NAMBLA, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

BEFORE ANYONE ELSE
brings it up about the question of Clarence Thomas on the Supreme Court, I have a couple of things to say about that.
It always makes me laugh how the moonbats start posting here that Judge Thomas was a 'race traitor' or a 'hypocrite' etc.,etc. ad naseum.
The fact of the matter is Judge Thomas is one of those objective minds that I described. He sees through the BS race spoils system that continues in this country despite the inroads we have made as a society.
One of them being we have a black man running for President.
The moonbats say Judge Thomas is a 'hypocrite' for being an 'affirmative action' nominee.
I don't call it hypocrisy.
I call it justice.The chickens have finally come home to roost.
I also find it appropriate that heading this column you have a picture of Obama with Thomas' chief Grand Inquisitor, 'Transplant' Biden.
The one who led his high tech lynching of Judge Thomas.
Another funny thing, the picture above was the first picture taken of the two together right after Biden made his 'clean' remarks about Obama.
Glad to say the PC BS cuts both ways.



Terence
Judge Robert's analogy,of being an Empire,is one of the worst any judge can use.Lawyers understand the analogy,in that it allows "ERRORS".A judge is a mediator of "FACT".Umpires follow, interpret and implement "RULES".Rules unlike facts can CHANGE.Of course you know what happens when we change a "FACT".Unfortunately,there is no court beyond the Supreme Court,which means no instant replay.The SC impacts all of our lives,with it's decisions.There are no small mistakes at that level.Also,the keys to this economy are at Mr.Obama's,Mrs.Clinton's,and Mr.McCain's fingertips.They just have to reach out and touch them.The answers to this economy,don't have anything to do with "RICH" or "POOR",that is a political issue.

spare us
And Obama taught Constitutional Law? Whose constitution would that have been?

Obama
Obama would be similar to Thurgood Marshall, who said a judge should do the "right thing" and let the law catch up.

mamadoc
Do you understand the word nuance?My statement regarding an "Umpire",was meant to reflect on the nuance of Mr.Obama's position, regarding Mr. Alito and Mr.Roberts.

Obama gets job definitions mixed up
I've heard Obama talk about what type of person he thinks would make a good Supreme Court Justice. I think he's confusing the job description of a Justice with that of a relationship counselor.

I don't want Supreme Court Justices to feel my pain, I want them to interpret the law.

Obama Not Necessarily Wrong
Even if I don't neccessarily agree 100% with Obama's analysis - and his is a lawyer's analysis (which you non-attorneys don't necessarily appreciate) - he has a valid point. The law is supposed to protect the weak from the strong - and however my right-of-center confreres don't like it - to also protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Roberts court can be fairly criticized for its decisions which are more and more denying remedies to the "small guy" - and favoring the CEO's and country club types. Insulating law firms and accounting firms from Enron-like scandals when both entities assist in "cooking the books" and providing false information about the health of a business, etc. is just one example. This court may toss a few bones to the "little people" - the recent age discrimination/evidence decision is an example - but make no mistake, it is a court that favors the well-to-do, the powerful and the self-styled elite.

TAKE A LOOK AT WHO VOTED FOR
a municipalities right to throw people out of their homes to make way for a more viable tax base. Case in point, Kelo V. New London, Ct.
Stevens wrote it.Ginsburg.Souter.Brier,Kennedy concurred. Thomas,O'Connor Scalia and Rehnquist dissenting.
So, in this one instance, thanks to the lefties on the court, the government can throw you out of your home for a more profitable tax base.
So much for the "little people."

Wolfgang
When you say the law exists to protect the weak from the tyranny of the strong and the minority from the tyranny of the majority there is an implicit assumption that the strong cannot be similarly effected by the weak. I'd suggest that it's the legal PROCESS that exists to protect the weak from the strong - the weak can have their day in court. It does not mean the weak are right and that the courts need to rule in their favor.

It is up to the legislature to decide if applications of the law are unduly allowing the strong to terrorize the weak and to update those laws accordingly. Further, as STANDTALL points out, one of the more significant instances of the strong tyrannizing the weak in the last decade was supported by the liberal half of the court.

That's why we're a Republic
not a Democracy. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing about what's for dinner.

So, yes, the rule of law protects the sheep in my example - but the laws aren't made by the Justices.

If the rules are to change - as Killer suggests - then the Umpires will call "three-strikes and you're out" today and - after a rule change - "4-strikes and you're out" tomorrow. However, they aren't the ones who change the rules! How would you like an umpire who allows 4 strikes when the pitcher is at bat because - well - he's just not a very strong hitter? People would quickly stop watching baseball.

As for Senator Obama's statement that, all else being equal, the court should favor the weak, I simply disagree. Who is weak and who is strong is immaterial. The "tie" (if neither side makes a compelling case) should go to the Constitution or the law as written. If the voters don't like the law in question - they can cough-out their elected repesentatives. The alternative is an unelected judiciary "making" law which is not their function.

Obama's Absurd View
If Obama truly has this view of jurisprudence, especially applied to Constitutional law, then his Presidential candidacy really deserves some strict scrutiny. Not only fundamental but enumerated rights of Due Process and Equal Protection must be enjoyed Americans without regard to "what is in the judge's heart." To do otherwise would be antithetical to constitutional application of the law. But, then why should Obama's Change and Hope be constrained by the mere rule of law? Afterall, Obama is the transcendent candidate ! God save the Court.

Somebody foresaw this plague ...
Exodus 23:2-3

"Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit."

THE ROLE OF JUDGES
The role of judges is to interpret the law according to law and precedent, not according to their personal or political opinions.

If judges want to make, rather than interpret the law, let them resign from the bench and stand for the legislature.

Anything else is simply tyranny in black robes.

'Change'
One has only to pay attention to the people surrounding B. Hussein to see what kind of 'change' he would bring to the United States. Take his minister Jeremiah Wright who, in 1984, visited Gadhafi along with Louis Farrakhan. More recently Wright said that Farrakhan was '...a giant in the African-American religious experience.' Farrakhan is a human cesspool spewing forth vile sewage at every opportunity. He should have been deported from this nation years ago. Farrakhan despises white, Jews, and gays and is, of course, the leader of the Nation of Islam. Wright is an unapologetic racist who presided for many years over a segregated church with an Afrocentric theme. He blames white America for the 9/11 attacks. Consider B. Hussein's mother, a loose-cannon anthropologist who is reported to have been a communist sympathizer. And don’t forget Lady Obama who has had no pride in her country for 40-odd years and spent her Princeton experience bemoaning her pitiful lot in life, focused it seems on her ‘blackness.’ B. Hussein himself discloses little, but it is interesting that he has refused to wear an American flag lapel pin while allowing the presentation of a Cuban flag embossed with an image of Che Guevara and it is interesting that he reacted so strongly to a photograph of him wearing a Somali tribal costume. It is also of note that apparently he takes umbrage at the use of his middle name, Hussein. Why is that? If this man ascends to the Presidency, there will be 'change' like none other ever seen in this nation. And I suspect that there will be untold racism.

Don't get it
Can't everyone see that a judge/juror must go with his heart? How else can you get justice? I think we all saw how going with your heart works. A black man was framed by the police but a black jury was able to see that justice was served. OJ was set free much to the jubilation of the black community because true justice starts in your heart but extends to the color of your skin!

The day I saw black college students overcome with emtion because OJ was set free was the day I knew that this is truly a racist nation! I'm also sure that that was a day when Michelle Obama came close to being really proud to be an American!

the "intellelct" of b.hussein obama
Based upon the comments of the "great one", he still reminds me of Hitler, since a criminal is less powerful than a business owner, when the courts rule against the criminal, they are wrong. Hmmmmmmm, yep, that sounds extremely logical, for a member of the loony left.

Nothing is new under the son
What Obama is saying was already said long time ago. During the communist revolution in Russia, Lenin or some guy of that caliber thus explained the revolutionary justice (the quote is 90% accurate):

"When considering innocence or guilt of the accused, we have only one question to ask of him - what class do you belong to? Do you belong to the class of the bourgeois or to the class of proletariat? If the person belongs to the bourgeois, then the verdict is clear - up against the wall."

Or, as they were saying, "persecution is not punishement for a particular guilt." Perfect Obama.

http://hyphenatedamericans.blogspot.com/

I Hate This Country
and I no longer consider myself an American. BO is not my president. F**k the USA
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.