A True Halloween Election Nightmare

A True Halloween Election Nightmare
cinops be gone Thursday, October 23, 2008 P.M.

As Halloween approaches if the following doesn’t frighten you to death, nothing will. The following is in Obama’s own words on the Supreme Court from:
(Terry Eastland, “Night of the Living Constitution.” Weekly Standard, 10/20/08 V.0014 -06)

In sharp contrast to McCain, Obama is the nominee of a party that has embraced the activism of the Warren Court and its expansion under the Burger Court (think Roe vs. Wade) and which has hardened in its hostility to judicial conservatism during the Bush presidency. Obama’s has proved to be one of his party’s most determined opponents of judicially conservative nominees. He voted not only against Roberts and Alito but also against six circuit-court nominees and joined in the Democrats’ filibustering of such nominees – which filibustering was without precedent in Senate history.

Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer who for a decade taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, has said “my judges” should have “the heart, the empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old.” He has characterized such people as being in “minority” and “on the outside” and not having “lot of clout.”

His judges should help them by importing to their deliberations their own “perspective,” “ethics,” and “moral bearings.” Thus his judges would carry out the judiciary’s “historic role” of protecting those who “may be vulnerable in the political process,” who have seen “the system not work for them,” who don’t “who don’t “have access to political power,” and who can’t protect themselves from being dealt with sometimes unfairly.”

For Obama, it would seem that what he calls minorities or outsiders would encompass not only those “vulnerable” in the political process and thus “subject to discriminatory legislation” … It appears for Obama that the courts must be involved in improving things for all of those “who needs protection,” and it could be a large group considering that Obama’s informal campaign-trail list hardly seems exhaustive.

Obama, who is a stout defender to the right to abortions announced in Roe, would seem to want judges sympathetic to arguments that the Constitution protects a fundamental right to education or health care or housing – perhaps even a right to credit. … And with regard to race-base preferences, judges who share his philosophy could push for their permanent institution in higher education, employment, and contracting as a way of making the system work better for certain minorities.

An Obama judiciary would be a plainly liberal one. Not surprisingly, Obama has endorsed the idea of a “living Constitution,” one judges adept to meet the needs of a changing society. A living Constitution has its analogue in what might be called a “living U.S. Code” by which judges rewrite federal statutes they regard as somewhat deficient, which for Obama could mean statutes having an adverse impact on people “who need protection.” Obama’s model justice is Earl Warren, who saw the role of the Court as that of doing justice, regardless of what the law at issue in a case might say. The senator must have cringed when John Roberts, … answer{ed} a question about what the biggest threats to the rule of law might be by saying that there is only one threat - that judges who take their “authority and extend it into areas where they are going beyond the interpretation of the Constitution, where they’re making the law…”

George H. Kubeck, e-mail for Halloween to friends and relatives across the nation.