Maybe we can find an alternate universe and send the Bush appointees there!! Then they can preach the Bush/Neocon/Republican agenda for all eternity!! That's what you might call a civil hell, with Pastors Hagee and Robertson as ushers!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE. NOW.

Those who think that they like McCain, compare Obama's idea with McCain's thought on a good choice for the Supreme Court.

So Obama favors more government involvement - if it walks like a socialist and talks like a socialist, then it must be so. Nothing new here if anyone has bothered to read up on BO, his leanings and those he leaned on over the years.

Yeah it would be a nice change to have judges who actually protect the powerless in this country, especially after the Wingnuts have spent the last seven years stacking the US court system with Republican sock-puppets like Tony Scalia:
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T72vgAEX66M

Finally we may have someone who understands the constitution in the executive branch.

What we need are independent judges to protect the American people not special interest. After all the current dummy in the White Heouse was not elected by popular vote but by 5 conservative puppets.

What we need are independent judges to protect the American people not special interest. After all the current dummy in the White Heouse was not elected by popular vote but by 5 conservative puppets.

Just imagine it:

A president who is a constitutional scholar and teacher selecting Supreme Court justices, with an emphasis on protecting the powerless.

Does Hillary even know we have a constitution? Someone please make her stop.

The only thing Supreme Court Justices should do is follow the Constitution of the United States.

Obama clearly views their duty more expansively, especially in terms of leveling the playing field between rich and poor. + judges should fall back on their own viewpoint,... + judges need to go beyond the rigid language of a statute or a constitutional provision in fashioning a decision.

IF THIS is NOT JUDICIAL LAW MAKING, then what the HELL IS??? Yeah, there is an alternative universe. It's the bizarre world of socialist democrats! IT IS NOT THE ROLE OF JUDGES TO RE-MAKE THE LAW! Bizarre Beyond Belief!

That is precisely the true purpose of the courts.

After all, the purpose of a Bill of Rights is to try to protect basic rights of the powerless from a majority. Majorities may share prejudices, anger, hatreds, or other ugly characteristics.

And the courts judge these violations of the Bill of Rights.

Democracies are just as capable of injustice as other forms of government. Power is power, no matter how it is conferred.

There are many historical examples of "democracies" behaving terribly towards minorities. Only the courts can stop this.

In other words, Obama, good ultra-leftist that he is, wants judges to ignore the law, violate the Democratic process that creates those laws, and promote his version of Liberalism.

About what you expect from the man the National Journal has rated the most leftwing member of the Senate.

If Obama is a wonderful as he claims, he should be able to get the legislature to pass all the laws necessary to protect everyone. But, since he is so faaarrrr to the left, he will never get his stuff passed, so, as usual, he must rely on the Courts to do things he cannot do.

The word is "criterion," not "criteria." Mr. Obama needs a dictionary.

Obama never has been a "constitutional law professor." He held the title of "lecturer" at the U of C, which is the lowest rung on the academic rank ladder.

Yeah who cares about the powerless? I want judges who will protect the rich and powerfull from the little people.

That's why I'm a Republican.

Obama never has been a "constitutional law professor." He held the title of "lecturer" at the U of C, which is the lowest rung on the academic rank ladder.

Posted by: Danforth | May 9, 2008 10:01 AM

He taught Con. Law at one of the top law schools in the world, which is much more than you can say about McCaint, and I'd bet a great deal more than can be said for you, Danforth.

What we can say with great confidence is that he's not going to appoint his personal lawyer to the SCt, ala Harriet Miers, which is certainly a positive. Obama will not view Supreme Court appoinments as just another patronage job.

“Finally we may have someone who understands the constitution in the executive branch.”

Posted by: Jan E | May 8, 2008 10:19 PM

We do? Who might that be?

Please don't tell me you think Barack Obama is that person. He seems to be a nice enough guy, but he, too, subscribes to the "blank check" theory of constitutional law. He accepts the broad construction of the Constitution which gives Congress almost unlimited, plenary power over any legislative subject, and allows courts to legislate interstitially from the bench.

This was not the intent of those who wrote the Constitution. They expected the Constitution to have a definite meaning to be applied in perpetuity until and unless it was amended by the procedures outlined in Article V. They expected it to function as an instrument to inhibit change unless that change was made through careful deliberation within the framework of the democratic process.

Those who ratified the Constitution also expected the government to abide its terms until it was changed through the amendment procedure. They were very concerned that their individual rights and their State government functions could get swallowed by a centralized government, instead of the "limited" government the federal government was intended to be.

But, because the "blank-check" school won out during the 1930's, we have a federal government that has been built up, not as the result of the deliberate democratic process of amendment, but rather by the theft of power by the few in Congress and in the judiciary who simply assumed they knew better. Many of the powers now wielded by the federal government were never delegated to it by the Constitution or its amendments. Many were simply usurpations of power, often stolen with the conspiratorial consent of the courts.

This is why it is important for the current power structure to view the Constitution as having no enduring meaning (i.e. through the rhetoric of calling it a “living Constitution.”) A lack of enduring meaning is necessary to legitimize the theft of power, and the resulting centralized government.

This has had two negative effects.

The first is that our federal government has turned into a large, bloated and money hungry central government which has taken over many of the functions reserved to our State governments.

The second is that our Constitution has been denuded of any lasting meaning of any significance. It no longer functions as a bulwark against precipitous shifts in the power structure. Nor does it function as a genuine check against any branch of government unless the branch actually agrees to be checked and/or indulges in self restraint. Thus, we no longer have a government of the People. We have a government of arbitrary governors. A person’s civil rights exist only at the pleasure of those in government; and those in government are always happy to deprive people of their rights when it makes government easier.

Barack simply seeks to perpetuate this worthless charade. If he really understood the Constitution, he would bring this charade to a halt. I'm not holding my breath, and I don't suggest you do so either.