First the headline. It came to us this morning courtesy of RealClearPolitics:
“Will Obama Move the Court Leftwards?”
The question, for anyone just waking up after a long sleep, is prompted by David Souter’s announcement that he plans to retire from the Supreme Court when this session ends.
“Will Obama Move the Court Leftwards?”
In fairness, I should point out that the headline was perfected by the editors at RealClearPolitics. The original story at The New New Republic’s weblog that featured a much more pedestrian title: “After Souter: Will Obama Move the Court?” That piece, by Tom Goldstein, is an informative, left-leaning, “progressive” reflection on likely candidates to replace Justice Souter. An Hispanic? Maybe, but Obama’s popularity there obviates pandering to that interest group. A female? “It has to be a woman,” Goldstein opines. “The gender imbalance on the Court is absurd. . . .”
If, like me, you find that your first response to that alleged absurdity is to ask “Really? Why? Why is it ‘absurd’ that there are more men than women on the Supreme Court? Why?” then you, too, may qualify for lifetime membership in the right-wing conspiracy formerly known as “vast.”
But I digress.
“Will Obama Move the Court Leftwards?”
Is the Pope, you know, Catholic? Does a bear, etc., etc.?
The Washington Post, reporting on Obama’s response to Souter’s impending retirement, noted that
The president praised Souter, 69, as a “fair-minded and independent judge” and said he would nominate a replacement who both respects the Constitution and brings “empathy” and “understanding” to the bench.
OK, class: what do you make of those words “empathy” and “understanding”? Isn’t that what you turned to your friends and spouses for? Do you really want a judge — to say nothing of a Supreme Court Justice — emitting empathy and understanding? Wouldn’t you rather have him endeavor to discharge the responsibilities he signed up for, i.e., upholding the law?
Before you respond, listen to a little more of what the President had to say on the subject of what he was looking for in a Supreme Court Justice:
“I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives — whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation.”
“Empathy” and “understanding” on one side, “abstract legal theory on the other.” What should we make of that?
Let’s step back a bit and remember what Senator Obama said about the Supreme Court back in ancient times, i.e., in 2001. As I noted in this space last October, Obama acknowledged the “formal” victories that were achieved with the civil rights movement.
It “vested formal rights in previously dispossessed people.” Now, said Obama, anyone could vote, anyone could sit at the lunch counter and eat–as long as he could pay for it.
But what if he couldn’t pay for it?
Obama didn’t explicitly ask the question, but it was implied by his invocation of “formal” rights–that’s left-wing law-speak (they get it from Marx) for “bourgeois,” “insufficient,” “bad.” What people like Obama and Ayers want are not “formal” rights, but substantive ones: e.g., not equality of opportunity, but equality of result.
Hence Obama’s invocation in his next sentence of “political and economic justice.”
Political justice we know: it means equality before the law. The figure of justice on court houses used to be blindfolded (is she still?) because justice, if it is just, is impartial . But what is economic justice? That would require Justice to pull aside the blindfold and top-up your bank account if had less than others.
Bottom line for Obama? While the civil rights movement made some “formal” strides, it was too focused on the courts:
“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.”
Got that? That, according to the Democratic nominee for President of the United States, was part of the “tragedy” of the civil-rights movement.
People today may think of the Earl Warren Court as “radical,” but according to Barack Obama, it wasn’t “that radical.” Why? Because
“it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution.”
While you think about what it might mean if the President of the Untied States wanted to “break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers and the Constitution,” note that Obama goes on to disparage the Constitution as merely “a charter of negative liberties”: that is, it only tells you what the state and federal government “can’t do to you.”
For a couple thousand years, people were desperately eager to frame constraints that would apply to their governments, that would limit, for example, the government’s ability to expropriate their property, to force them to educate their children in a certain way, or subscribe to certain government-mandated beliefs.
That sort of traditional political freedom is not enough for left-wingers. Ever since Marx decried bourgeois freedom as merely “formal,” the left has set out not to preserve freedom but to remake society according to a utopian scheme.
This is exactly what Obama wants to do. The “tragedy” of the civil-rights movement, he said, is that in focusing on “negative” freedom, it tended to
“lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
There you have it, folks. From radical “community organizer” to coalitions that achieve the “power through which you bring about redistributive change.”
Page 1 of 2 Next ->
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
32 Comments
1. srlucado:Obama’s going to need a packed Supreme Court so he can assure the outcome of the upcoming show trials.
Stalin must be so proud.
May 2, 2009 - 7:49 am 2. Pajamas Media » Will Obama Move the Supreme Court Leftwards?:[...] the entire story here [...]
May 2, 2009 - 12:03 pm 3. ILikeIke:Hey, if a leftward tilt is the only way we’re going to avoid giving the FCC a puritanical right to regulate language on TV, then we desperately need a leftward tilt.
Enough of the right-wing nanny state!
May 2, 2009 - 12:22 pm 4. Oldguy:He can only replace existing liberal justices for right now. In fact any appointment to the federal bench is a dice roll. This is the nature of lifetime appointments, since any of them can rule as they damn well please.
May 2, 2009 - 12:48 pm 5. Delia:“Will Obama Move the Court Leftwards?”
Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Does a bear sh*t in the woods?
Hmm…“empathy” and “understanding”? You mean like what 0bama shows for his illegal immigrant Aunt living in poverty or his impoverished kin folk in Africa? “I feel your pain” is not O’s message he sends when he turned up his heat in the OO while people froze to death in flyover country or dined and champagned and party hardied it up or giggled with ‘gallows humor’ over the economy or made jokes about ’special olympics’ when referencing his bowling game…etc. etc.
-As far as choosing people by their race or sex, this is not surprising coming from someone who got his leg-up in life by being a affirmative action Harvard student who incidentally hid his grades/writings/thesis.
I’ve said this before but it bears repeating:
I firmly believe that 0bama studied the Constitution not to uphold it but rather to tear it apart much like computer hackers study a program or operating system so that they can ‘reverse engineer’ it.
The fate of America hangs in the balance as the Leftist Regime marches our Country and everythings she stands
forwardbackwards into the depths of socialism.Meanwhile, our self-absorbed TOTUS is still trying to quench his rapacious thirst for stardom and worship.
May 2, 2009 - 12:58 pm 6. The Historian:COLLEGE STUDENTS FIND A WAY TO STAY SANE
Nothing like a little imagination while attending Indoctrination U.
http://greensrealworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/how-students-handle-indoctrination-u.html
May 2, 2009 - 1:05 pm 7. Taylor Carmichael:Worth noting that with Spector’s defection, all the Republicans on the judiciary committee are 100% pro-life, and get a 0 rating from NARAL. This is important because under Senate rules, a Republican would have to vote to stop a filibuster. If Obama nominates a judge who dehumanizes the unborn and signs off on partial-birth abortion, the Republicans can and should push back hard.
May 2, 2009 - 1:35 pm 8. Sebastian Shaw:YES. The real question is how radical will the Supreme Court candidate be? As long as the MSM plays Obama’s defense, Obama will be given carte blanch…
May 2, 2009 - 2:12 pm 9. bobbcat:I missed the part in the Constitution where the US SC is supposed to be delving into the ‘redistribution of wealth.’ I guess this is reflective of the sorry quality of the public education I received.
It really is too bad people were not aware (in time for the election) that this is the nature of ‘change’ this man is after. Lord help us all.
May 2, 2009 - 3:41 pm 10. Meryl:9.bobbcat
“It really is too bad people were not aware (in time for the election) that this is the nature of ‘change’ this man is after.”
Audio tapes, in obama’s own voice (recordings of a radio interview) from the late 1990’s were played, repeatedly, on the airwaves prior to the election–tapes in which he clearly stated that he was frustrated with the contents and limitations and problems with the constitution of the United States of America.
If people were not aware of this, it’s because they didn’t want to know. It was not hidden. It was not a big secret. It was played repeatedly on radio programs and I saw the transcriptions of it on the internet.
If people do not want to actually understand what’s going on, there is very little than can be done about it.
Unfortunately, we now have millions and millions of people in the country, lips firmly fixed to the public tit, who have no intention of actually understanding what’s going on, as long as the checks keep coming.
The information was out there for anyone to find and read and hear.
May 2, 2009 - 5:07 pm 11. Delia:10. Meryl,
Exactly right. Those of us who saw right through Zero’s empty suit rhetoric were horrified and when we spoke up we were called loons or ‘fringe’ or right wing nutters.
Now when more and more of the ‘obvious’ comes to light, there are still the idiots who are blindly and merrily following 0bama off the cliff into Marxist/Nazi/Socialist/Communist territory.
Unfortunately, most voters for B.O. are clueless.
May 2, 2009 - 5:23 pm 12. Peter Leavitt:St. Obama, the fellow of great concern for mere fetuses with such chutzpah to be born alive and Chrysler bond holders, is a paragon of empathy. With justices of empathy, we need to hang on tightly to our wallets.
May 2, 2009 - 5:27 pm 13. BBub:What a question! I hear he is contacting Nancy Reagan, Newt Ginrich and the NRA for potential nominees.
May 2, 2009 - 6:16 pm 14. fred:Looking at the ages and composition of the Court, after Souter it would appear that only Ginsburg is going to be replaced in Obonga’s likely only term in office.
Souter was a stealth Leftist on the Court. His replacement will bring no surprises, and most certainly will be better vetted than Souter was back in 1990. It was rare that Souter voted with the conservatives on the court, so his replacement will not materially change the ideological mix on the Court.
And Obonga can get whomever he wants, whenever he wants it. Good to be King, eh, Obonga? Enjoy it, because you’re outta there in 2013. But watch your budget, because pretty soon you are going to need more money from Soros to pay for Michelle’s shoe collection.
May 2, 2009 - 7:35 pm 15. bobbcat:Thank you, Delia, for reminding us all of the grim fact that we have all been dragged down this horrid road by so many who don’t know their asses from a hole in the ground.
May 2, 2009 - 8:14 pm 16. The Shadow:Delia:
“I firmly believe that 0bama studied the Constitution not to uphold it but rather to tear it apart much like computer hackers study a program or operating system so that they can ‘reverse engineer’ it.”
By your every post you stamp yourself as a class A Dope!
May 2, 2009 - 8:46 pm 17. JOHN FRARY:IF EMPATHY IS THE DECISIVE CRITERION WHY SELECT JUDGES FROM THE LEGAL PROFESSION. LAW SCHOOLS OFFER NO CLASSES IN EMPATHY. LAWYERS HAVE NO MORE BETTER TO SENSITIVITY THAN PLUMBERS. SOME MIGHT ARGUE THEY HAVE LESS.
IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO CHOOSE THE NEW JUSTICE FROM THE RANKS OF VETERINARIANS.
May 3, 2009 - 4:01 am 18. Delia:15. bobbcat,
You’re welcome. Kinda scary ain’t it?
~
16. The Shadow,
“Class A Dope”? Moi? Nahhhhhhhh.
Look in the mirror, child. I’m going to be generous and just crown you, “Queen of Denial”.
May 3, 2009 - 4:14 am 19. Meryl:16.TheShadow
Even in a one line post, you have to call names?
Obama specifically stated (I heard the audio) that it was his specific, intentional desire to change the “inadequate” provisions of the Constitution of the United States.
He specifically stated that he was frustrated that the Constitution did not command government to take more direct care of the people (i.e., make them dependent and bring them under more direct control, and “redistribute wealth” while he’s at it).
In your case, his frustration was apparently unnecessary. How do you like that back pocket you’re in?
May 3, 2009 - 5:40 am 20. bobbcat:18. Delia: “You’re welcome. Kinda scary ain’t it?
Indeed. It’d be nice (but of course it’s unconstitutional) if people could be subjected to a test before they approach the voting booth.
16. The Shadow: “By your every post you stamp yourself as a class A Dope!”
Perhaps you have not noticed, but ‘whack-a-mole’ is not a very popular game here. Perhaps you should save some of that pent-up energy over at DU’s forums.
May 3, 2009 - 7:33 am 21. sheesh:Here’s #1 . . . (I got a million of these)
“The fact of the matter is, they will institute a filibuster because the court is a last bastion of liberalism. They can’t win elections, so they want to rule by judicial fiat. The Republicans need to lead and change the filibuster rule. Stop threatening it, just end it.”
- Mark Levin
Now, here’s what I want you all to pay attention to . . . just how quickly and desperately these right wing carnival barkers rationalize their lack of principles. I love the smell of nuclear option in the morning . . . smells like . . . victory.
May 3, 2009 - 7:54 am 22. Brian Richard Allen:The next four years will see to the death and burial of the (self-and-own-culture-loathing un-and-anti-American moronic mobbed-up murtadd Muslim Mussolini-modeled modified-Marxist empty galabia, Mister Michelle Saul Jeremiah Joe Stalin Wright Bernadine Billy Dohrn Ayres Alinsky Frank Marshall Davisubambi AKA Bhussein) O’Zero Doctrine — or will see to the death of our beloved fraternal republic, the greatest nation there has ever been and/or can ever be — and to the death of the very Judeo-Christian/Western/Human Civilization we have — by our willing sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of gallons of our blood and by way of Trillions of our Dollars — long vanguarded. And must, forever –and lest it plunge into a new Dark Age from which it could never extract itself — guard!
(Likely, given its history, as often as not guard that Civilization’s actual, at one time-or-another and/or aspiring and most-often old-Euro-peon component states against the bloody barbarities it’s their wont to from time-to-time perpetrate against one another!)
Brian Richard Allen
May 3, 2009 - 8:05 am 23. Delia:Los Angeles CalifO’ZEROcated 90028
And the Far Abroad
20. bobbcat:
“Indeed. It’d be nice (but of course it’s unconstitutional) if people could be subjected to a test before they approach the voting booth.”
~
LOL! If I had my *wish*, I’d have an easy-to-grasp pamphlet handed out to every person who voted, explaining each issue [without partisan slant ha!] and giving a basic background of candidates and their history and what they stand for. With the MSM so left slanted, it’s little wonder why so many people are so ill informed. Shameful really. Not that that’s an ‘excuse’ with as much information as we have access to in this day and age but it would be nice to know people are voting on principles/issues rather than on a ‘D’ or an ‘R’ only.
Meh. Wishful thinking won’t get any of us too far though.
May 3, 2009 - 11:04 am 24. Fat Man:Given that BO will apoint a liberal based on his/her/its race, class, gender, sexual orientation, etc. I hope he goes full tilt. Lani Guinier!
The American people need to see this stuff in the light of day.
May 3, 2009 - 7:31 pm 25. G Alston:“Before you respond, listen to a little more of what the President had to say on the subject of what he was looking for in a Supreme Court Justice:…”
Who cares? The justice will be vetted according to the law.
What I *do* care about is the biblical nutjob faction of the right wing making enough noise that the candidate is embarrassingly (for us) attacked via the abortion litmus test. This should never be allowed to happen; the only thing it will do is pave the way for the left to insert a remarkably unsuitable candidate rather than a centrist. And although it shouldn’t happen, it will. Why? As Isaac Newton says, for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction…
May 3, 2009 - 8:01 pm 26. talkischeap:Yes, empathy and sympathy is what we need in a supreme court justice, you know, sort of like the way the empathetic and sympathetic liberal majority voted in the Kelo decision in favor of eminent domain.
May 4, 2009 - 12:16 am 27. Mike D:Man, let’s hope so!
May 4, 2009 - 3:05 pm 28. acj:The only sensitive subject is abortion. Republicans are aware that abstinence is a wash. Sex is everywhere=it’s corporate. Unwanted babies makes welfare…YOU LOoSE.
May 4, 2009 - 6:31 pm 29. acj:Oh and by the way, Christianity? Dooh! This country, especially republican is basically Judeism. An eye for an eye. I am not anti-semetic, just the facts Mam.
May 4, 2009 - 6:35 pm 30. eor:If this is a Christian nation, I see Obama meeting expectations-got a problem with that?
I’m making bets that Bill or Hillary will get this job. Any takers
May 4, 2009 - 11:52 pm 31. sheesh:30 eor . . . I’ll take that bet.
May 5, 2009 - 7:32 am 32. typos_R_us:To get to the left of Souter, the Usurper will have to dig up Mao. Not sure what the Chi-Coms would want in trade.
May 5, 2009 - 4:41 pmStealth? Star Wars? Nancy Pelosi? Taiwan? All the above?
He wouldn’t have any trouble getting him confirmed, after all being dead makes Mao a solid Democratic voter. It would also prevent Justice Roberts from changing Mao’s mind on anything. Dead Communists being even more set in their ways then the average Congress critter. The only real problem would be telling him apart from Ginsberg.