Certain conservative commentators have begun taking exception to those of us who have identified Barack Obama as a socialist, a communist or a left-wing ideologue. The worst thing some of these people are willing to say about the president is that he’s a proponent of big government and increased federal spending. But that also describes George W. Bush. What would make it so ironic is that during last year’s campaign, the Democrats kept saying that voting for John McCain was the same as electing Bush to a third term.
When I recently compared Obama’s spending spree to that of a drunken sailor, a few readers, including Larry Reznick, took umbrage, pointing out that the sailor is spending his own money, not ours. So I am taking this opportunity to offer my sincere apologies to drunken sailors everywhere.
In discussing the sort of person he’d like to appoint to the Supreme Court, replacing Justice Souter, who, in announcing his retirement, made his first good decision in 19 years, President Obama emphasized compassion. I’m afraid that’s exactly the sort of statement you have to expect when you put an ex-community organizer in a job above his pay grade. Compassion should no more be a prerequisite for sitting on the Supreme Court than the ability to balance a basketball on one’s nose or to juggle flatware. The job calls for someone who understands what the forefathers meant when they wrote the Constitution and to have the ability to interpret the document in the manner that those gentlemen intended when they put pen to parchment.
The judges are not supposed to right what they regard as historical wrongs or to give greater weight to legal matters because the plaintiffs are rich or poor, black or white, atheists or believers. I want my wife, my friends and my relatives to be compassionate, but I want my judges to be objective, rational and well aware of the fact that they are members of the judicial branch of the government, and not de facto members of the executive or legislative.