Thursday, May 08, 2008

Judges and social justice

Interviewing Rudolf Giuliani, Megyn Kelly played a quote from Barack Obama in which Obama referred to himself saying, “Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what’s truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves.”

Giuliani laughed out loud at the quote. When Kelly asked why, Giuliani said, “Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It’s written by members of the Congress. It’s written by framers of the Constitution. It’s written by the people when they amend the Constitution.”

Giuliani is absolutely right and it doesn’t take a law degree from Harvard to see that Barack Obama’s view of the judiciary stabs at the very heart of our democracy.

Our judges are supposed to interpret and apply the laws that were voted on and passed by the representatives of the people. If judges can arbitrarily override the views of the people in the name of the judge’s own politically correct sense of what “social and economic justice” means to them personally, what we then have is a group of elitist high priests who sit in judgment on the will of the people, and our democracy becomes a sham.

Make no mistake about it. A vote for Obama and his activist view of the judiciary is a vote to undermine the very foundation of our democracy. Giuliani explains it quite well. Please watch the interview on Hot Air.

16 comments:

Kevin said...

The problem is not with the judges having limited authority... the issues is with the Senators and Congresspeople who make the laws.

Obama's view that giving judges authority to override the law will be used to protect the little guy is naive. This little guy is the guy who already has so little power that he is being abused. It seems to me not binding judges to the law would allow the rich and powerful to manipulate judges. If the powerful are successfully spending millions to influence and corrupt the people who collectively make the laws... it follows that they would prefer to cut out that congressional middleman and go right to the decision maker, the judge. So without the law to govern the judges, the rich and powerful are given yet another tool to protect themselves and take advantage of the disadvantaged.

If the legal system is not working correctly (I don't think it is) we might want to take a harder look at the people who make these inconsistent laws in the first place. The people who refuse to expedite punishment for those who are clearly guilty, and who support practices that make lawyers rich while wasting corporate money on frivolous lawsuits or exhaust the funds and resources of private individuals to try fight multi-year legal battles against corporate and individual giants.

L'oiseau said...

Obama says of Supreme Court Justices:

"Obama said that 95 percent of cases can be judged on intellect [interpreting and applying], but that the other 5 percent are the most important ones.

“In those 5 percent of cases, you’ve got to look at what is in the justice’s heart, what’s their broader vision of what America should be,” Obama said"

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-vows-to-look-into-supreme-court-nominees-hearts-2007-07-17.html

Dennis said...

Kevin, excellent points.

l'oiseu, if he wants to judge 95% on intellect, what does he want to judge the other 5% on? Feelings or just plain stupidity?

Ohhhh, wait! I get it. You mean the 5% in which he signs ENDA into law, trashing freedom of religion!

Or when he signs the so called "fairness doctrine" into law, flushing freedom of speech.

Or when he and his congressional buddies overturn DOMA, riding roughshod over the views of the voters!

Brent said...

I assume you're happier with Bush's Supreme Court which prevents the poor, elderly, and other groups from voting, even stating in their decision, this law "should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation." Nope, no activist judges there. Move along, people. And if you like that decision, remember that John W. McBush has promised more judges just like these.

http://ap.google.com/article/
ALeqM5gRN59j2QQCVZYwfdLSokUeN1K9hQD
90GDJ000

Robert said...

With all due respect, I believe it's Obama's supporters that are not interested in making everyone's vote count. Aren't they the ones who are upset that Republicans crossed over to vote for Hillary and don't want to all delegates to be seated?

This seems to be a far cry from the party of 2000 that thought every vote should count. I guess it should only count as long as it's a vote for Obama.

Brent said...

Robert you're misinformed. The delegates that as of now won't be seated are the ones from Florida and Michigan, which broke party rules. All Democratic presidential candidates, including Clinton and Obama, agreed before the campaign that their delegates would not count. Hillary is trying to change the rules now because it will benefit her. Obama's name did not even appear on the Michigan ballot. To change the rules that everyone had agreed to now would be unfair. And some Obama supporters may not like that a few Republicans voted for Hillary, but they haven't done anything to keep the votes from being counted.

Dennis said...

If Democrats can't even run a their own campaign without seriously messing it up, how are they going to run the country?

OK, that's probably not a fair assessment--but it feels like a fair assessment.

And Robert is right. Obama supports repealing DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). Anyone who wants to repeal DOMA is clearly not intersted in making everyone's vote count.

L'oiseau said...

Obama ran his campaign as per the rules of the Democratic primaries beautifully, and that is proof of how he will run the country.

He was a no-name Senator from Illinios and he has won the nomination of a former First Lady and the presumptive nominee before the primaries even began. That is huge and should not be ignored, even by Republicans.

Florida and Michigan decided they wanted to be "important" in deciding the nominee this year, and so they went back on their previously agreed upon dates for their primaries, therefore all the candidates agreed their votes would not count. Their delegates will be seated once the nominee is decided.

L'oiseau said...

Robert,

While I am not going to riot for a repeal of the "Operation Chaos" votes, I would be ashamed to attempt to "choose" my opposition in a race. It's underhanded and slimy.

Brent said...

What does DOMA have to do with courts or vote counting? Go ahead, just change the subject when you don't have a response to me.

L'oiseau well put. Chris Matthews actually made a good point the other night: "Anyone who voted to screw up the political system of this country with the purpose of mischief should carry that with them the rest of their lives. What a ridiculous way to use the vote for which people fought and died — to use that vote to make mischief. I hope you’re proud of yourself."

Dennis said...

Brent,

What DOMA has to do with voting is this: Without DOMA other states would have to recognize the marriages performed in MA of same-sex couples. The voters in many states have decided that they do not want marriage re-defined in their states to include same-sex couples. When Obama overturns DOMA, he will be trampling on the will of the majority of voters in numerous states.

Dennis said...

Oh, and I didn't answer your post because I am not familiar with the case and don't have time to read it.

But your sentence "Bush's Supreme Court which prevents the poor, elderly, and other groups from voting," tells me nothing. What I want to know is, was the case decided based on the law?

For example, if the law says polls close at 7:00 and they came at 7:30, then they should be prevented from voting! But as I said, I haven't looked at the case and don't have time to do so.

L'oiseau said...

So you think there is no wiggle room in the law for extreme cases?

Do the words, "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" ring a bell?

Brent said...

We have a representative government. Vote for congresspeople and presidents who you believe represent your views. If they don't, throw them out of office. That's not the same as disallowing people the opportunity to vote. If DOMA is overturned, it's because the representatives the people have chosen for themselves have done so. Any decision that Congress or a President makes goes against the wishes of some people. That doesn't make your case or disprove mine.

I provided a link to what I was talking about. If you can't or won't read it or discuss it that is your decision.

Dennis said...

Brent,

You certainly have a valid point about congressmen representing our views. But in the case of DOMA people in many states voted very specifically saying that they do not want marriage redefined in their state.

But most people are not one-issue voters. If they vote Democratic for some other reason (for example, the misguided perception that Democrats are more compassionate) that doesn't mean they have changed their mind on DOMA.

But if the Democrats get a strong enough majority, they will overturn the will of the people by overriding DOMA and Obama will approve.

l'oiseau wrote, "I would be ashamed to attempt to "choose" my opposition in a race. It's underhanded and slimy."

I re-read the postings several times and I don't see any place where Robert supported "operation chaos." But I must say I agree with you. It's a matter of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I would not want Democrats trying to mess with Republican primaries so I condemn the Rush ditto heads who are messing with Democratic primaries.

L'oiseau said...

No, I didn't think Robert supported "OC" either, but he was putting down Democrats that thought it was wrong:
"I believe it's Obama's supporters that are not interested in making everyone's vote count. Aren't they the ones who are upset that Republicans crossed over to vote for Hillary",
so I gave him my opinion :) I knew you agreed with me on that one, though.