This Scares Me

[vman]

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e 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."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

in a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

[The Ancient Enemy]

MAYBE OBAMA WILL APPOINT OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!!!!

You guys are wee-dik-ulous.

[Lemmy]

This may scare them even more, Hillary Clinton has a legal background. There is a buzz about her being considered for the Supreme Court if the muslim-nazi-baby killer-arab sympathizer-terroist wanna be gets elected.

[vman]

And unless you're on Welfare, I'm sure you'll be laughing in a couple of yrs when your take home pay is like 20% lees than present!

The audacity of Obama's injection of a social democratic concept borrowed from Western Europe into American politics is stunning. And almost half the idiots errrr, voters seem to be buying it. Obama seems determined to follow policies better suited to freezing the economy in place than to promoting economic growth. Higher taxes on high earners, for one. He told Charlie Gibson he would raise capital gains taxes even if that reduced revenue: less wealth to spread around, but at least the rich wouldn't have it -- reminiscent of the Puritan sumptuary laws that prohibited the wearing of silk. Moves toward protectionism like Hoover's (Roosevelt had the good sense to promote free trade). National health insurance that threatens to lead to rationing and to stifle innovation. Promoting unionization by abolishing secret ballot union elections. The impulse to social engineering is unmistakable. Government officials will allocate resources, redistribute income, and ration good and services. Use government stakes in banks, insurance companies and Detroit auto manufacturers to maintain the position of those already in place, at the cost of preventing the emergence of new enterprises that might have been spawned by the capital being allocated. Social engineering of course is far easier when you are dealing with an economy that is frozen in place. It's harder when you have to deal with the creative destruction, the emergence of new firms and businesses, and the decline of old ones, which as Joseph Schumpeter taught is the inevitable consequence of economic growth. Roosevelt in the 1930s had some extremely competent social engineers, like Harry Hopkins, Harold Ickes and Fiorello LaGuardia, who could enroll 750,000 people on welfare in three weeks and build an airport in less than a year. But even they could not spur the economic growth produced by utterly unknown and unconnected people, as Warren Buffett and Bill Gates were in 1970. When financial crisis looms, there is an impulse to freeze everything in place and accept what is as the best there can ever be: Barack Obama's new New Deal. The history of the old New Deal suggests this is not a sustainable approach in the long run.

[D60]

And unless you're on Welfare, I'm sure you'll be laughing in a couple of yrs when your take home pay is like 20% lees than present!

I'm not so sure that people making anywhere near $100,000 are anywhere near welfare, yet those are the ones crying about how they will be paying more in taxes... when in all reality both candidates would have lowered taxes. Obama's plan supports the lower - middle class, and McCain's supports the high-middle to higher class.

[vman]

Obama's plan supports the lower - middle class

reflective of how naive the avg American is!!!!!!

[D60]

Are you honestly suggeting that Obama's plan would not help the middle - low class? Lol. I guess you fell into the trap of the republican fear machine. BTW, to one of your earlier posts.. Obama freezing the economy? McCain is the one that wanted the across the board spending freeze, right?

Here you go, this should help =)

http://taxcut.barackobama.com/

My friends, say goodbye to the dreadful years of the Bush administration and hello to the new-age Clinton administration

[southpaw]

D60

McCain suggested freezing gov't spending. What was posted above explained that a draconian tax policy on capital gains and extremely high taxes on the wealthy would freeze the economy in place like is seen in Western Europe. Freezing gov't spending wouldn't freeze the economy.

Can you tell me how Obama defines the middle class? I have a feeling that on 1/21/09 all so called Obama tax cut will be gone.
We will be told its all Bush's fault the economy is worse than we thought and we need that revenue for health care and the tax credits for those who don't pay taxes. If you are a taxpayer you pay more in taxes under Obama plain and simple. That garbage on the website is just window dressing. Just wait and see. Besides raising the taxes on the super rich never works as they have the money to hire lawyers and accountants to hide money and find loopholes in the tax code. I hope Obama is a centrist like Clinton (Remember Clinton was forced to the center by the GOP Congress in 1994) to his credit Clinton worked with the GOP Congress to accomplish many things. I'm afraid Obama will be another Jimmy Carter, and a little fearful that he could take further to the left than ole Jimmy did.

[froggyfan]

This may sound sarcastic, but I'm very serious. They better have a good supply of Prozac to hand out to all of the disappointed and depressed believers who expected what will not happen (at least, not during this term).

[vman]

Oh yes the opiate of he masses....and they will want it pd. for by us, errrrr the govt.!