Supreme Court Justice Wanted: Social Work Experience Preferred

minute-man-2-lithoWith the upcoming retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter, speculation naturally turns to the type of person President Obama will nominate to replace him and who that person will be.  Since the primary responsibility of the Supreme Court is to apply the Constitution to laws passed by Congress, to determine its constitutionality, it is also natural that the subject of the Constitution would be a major topic of discussion.

Invariably when it does come up, we are reminded that Obama is a constitutional scholar and a Professor of Constitutional Law.  He did teach constitutional law part time at the University of Chicago, but his title was instructor not professor.  It also seems to me that “scholar” is an exaggeration of Obama’s dept of knowledge concerning the Constitution.

I have no doubt that he understands the Constitution; he just does not accept it.  Obama often professes a love for his country.  I cannot see into his heart to know his feelings, but I can listen to his words and watch his actions.  The evidence is that he rejects America as it is currently constituted and has been for the past 220 years.  He rejects its history.  He rejects its culture. He rejects its historical values and he rejects its Constitution.

In an interview with WEBZ-FM radio in Chicago, September 6, 2001 Obama had this to say about the Constitution.

“I think we can say that the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day, or that the Framers had that same blind spot.  I do not think the two views are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way to where we are now, but that it also reflects the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

More recently, he explained the criterion he would use in selecting judges to the federal courts.

“We 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 criterion by which I’ll be selecting my judges.”

At a press briefing on Friday President Obama announced the decision of Justice Souter to retire in June.  In discussing the type of person he would look for to replace him, Obama said,

“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,” Obama said. “I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

It is obvious from these and other statements by Obama that he bears no allegiance to the Constitution.  The political class of both parties has used the rulings of rogue courts and the application of the English Common Law doctrine of judicial precedent to reduce the Constitution to a meaningless document in limiting the powers of the federal government.  Unless we can find some way to reverse this trend, liberty will become something our grandchildren only dream of as they slave away their lives in servitude to the state.

Advertisements

One response to “Supreme Court Justice Wanted: Social Work Experience Preferred

  1. The Constitution limits the power of the Supreme Court as follows: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” Clearly, Supreme Court justices only have judicial powers.

    Judicial power is defined as the interpretation and application of the law.

    Astonishingly President Barack Hussein Obama said on television on May 1st, 2009: “I will seek someone who understands that justice isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives,”

    With this statement, it is clear that President Obama has depreciated the limits of the Constitution in favor of creating, without a Constitutional amendment, a new quasi-legislative power of his next appointee to decide cases on achieving the desired result [“how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives”] rather than interpreting the Constitution and applying the law as required by the Constitution.

    Again, President Obama`s double-speak is empirically proved by his two diametrically opposed and logically indefensible claims: (1) claiming to be a Constitutional scholar, and (2) assigning a new legislative Power to the Supreme Court not found anywhere in the Constitution.

    What I would like to have is a copy of the official Obama “change” Constitution.