The Smoke Break

You want some brie with that whine?

Yo, Barry O, Justice Is Supposed To Be Blind

By

“You have to have not only the intellect to be able to effectively apply the law to cases before you, but you have to be able to stand in somebody else’s shoes and see through their eyes and get a sense of how the law might work or not work in practical day-to-day living.”  So claimed President Obama in an interview carried Saturday on C-SPAN television about what he thinks are the requisite qualities of a Supreme Court justice.

He has also said he wants someone who employs empathy, “understanding and identifying with people’s hopes and struggles.” 

So much for that oath of office, eh?  That one about preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States.  The one that President Obama had to say twice in order to get it right.

Perhaps the problem is that the oath of office also caveats the President to do these things to “the best of [his] abilities”. 

Since President Obama’s alleged abilities continue to remain just that, alleged, it is little wonder that he fails to understand (or worse, deliberately chooses to avoid) perhaps the most important point about our nation’s system of justice.  It is blind.  Lady Justice is always blindfolded in order to avoid any distraction from the matter at hand.  She is to hear the case, weigh the facts and evidences and only the facts and evidences, and apply the law to them without regard for the individual’s circumstances.  She is utterly impartial and her sword can cut either way to insure it.

It is this blindness that insures no one is above the law and so keeps tyranny at bay.

It is not the job of the Supreme Court to “empathize”, and more particularly their job is not judicial activism.  With extremely limited exception, it is the job of the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as an appellate court.  Period.  It is their job to insure that no one manipulates the law for personal gain and therefore to protect the American people as a whole. 

If Justice Souter were not already considered a liberal Supreme Court judge, I would be even more concerned.  But this continuing disregard for the basic tenets of the United States bears continued watching for the day will come that the President will have to nominate another justice to the Supreme Court and it is then that the full force of his progressive perceptions and skewed ideologies will come to bear down hard on American freedoms.  And such dangers will be far more difficult to overcome than his attempts to legislate fascism.

Almost 21 years ago, Ronald Reagan prophetically told a group of lawyers at the 1988 Federalist Society convention, “Yes, some law professors and judges said the courts should save the country from the Constitution.  We said it was time to save the Constitution from them.”

That time has come again.

Obama Eyeing Another Unqualified Nominee?

By

The Committee for Justice is reporting that Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm headed to Washington last night.  She’s been noted as being on President Obama’s “short list” of nominees to replace Supreme Court Justice Souter; a big, blatant nod to Obama’s big debts to labor unions.

Jennifer Granholm is completely and unequivocably unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.  Not the least little overlooked fact being that she has never, ever sat on the bench as a judge anywhere. 

And, like so many of Obama’s choices, among other equally noteworthy scandals, Granholm has failed to pay her taxes.  And let’s not forget that during her tenure as governor, Michigan’s economy plunged into a recession long before the current economic collapse.

So although she may be Obama’s kindred spirit, but she has absolutely NO business on the United States Supreme Court.

Replacing Justice Souter

By

Supreme Court Justice Souter has advised he is going to retire when the Supreme Court recesses for the summer.  The media is buzzing with speculation as to how President Obama is going to fill this vacancy, though it is acknowledged that any replacement for left-leaning Souter may not shake up the makeup of the current bench, unless Obama’s choice is from the far-left wingnut camp. 

A hint of what may be coming in terms of nominees can be found in previous statements made by the President during his pre-election campaigning:

“I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.”  (March 2008, in Ohio)

“I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.” (October 2008 presidential debate in New York)

My question is:  exactly how does President Obama think he will recognize such people?  These statements were made by someone who has absolutely NO clue about what it means to be an “ordinary person”.  With no experience in business, no real-world use of his law degree, his only adult experience that of being tucked deeply inside the enclaves of left-wing radicals (translation:  homeland terrorists; at best one could perhaps call them merely divisive) and self-serving politicians, and now with a laundry list of tax cheats chosen for his cabinet nominees, President Obama’s choice to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court promises to be as bad for the future of this country as was his own election.