dihey..

You’re welcome. I think it’s more of a win/win than a wrong.

Being a relatively cautious person myself, I would not ALWAYS take the liberty to play mental interpretor for soon to be President Obama, because that would be quite arrogant. But on something like this, he’s been consistently and transparently ‘the real deal’ in his interpretation of our Constitution, and that’s just something that I’ve probably paid extra attention to these past few years.

Ernest Canning and I share a keen interest in the Justice Branch of our Constitutional Arrangement, and I think most of us know how crucial the High Court is at this point in our history. It’s yet another very fragile institution, and that’s scary as hell.

It’s like ‘trouble in River City’ has done a triple hit, and either killed or severely weakened the three pillars that hold up our republic. The Executive Branch was HIGHJACKED by the Dick Bush Thugs, and damn if it wasn’t the JUDICIAL Branch that did it!! And all along, we’ve been mostly stuck with this majority Rethuglican Congress. (It’s like a really scary hair-raising thriller/chiller movie/book; all the more so because it’s REAL!);)

So basically, we’ve been pretty severely wounded, and the Judicial Branch could be the final hit if it were to become a McPalin decision on how to fill any vacancies on ANY Court in the land, but SPECIFICALLY the USSC. 

So, we can’t blow this. I don’t even wanna THINK about what could happen if these crackpots get hold of the High Court. Thing is, they ALREADY HAVE, and there is NO DAMN REASON to think that they won’t do everything they can to hang in there, at any cost.

So…it’s down to fingernail biting time on so many really critical issues, at least to the future well- being of what we’ve traditionally known as the USA.

YIKES!!

Excellent point, Cyrena, but I would add that one should not overlook the fact that Barack Obama is a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School who went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

Barack Obama understands fully that the U.S. Constitution is not grounded upon the tenets of the Christian religion—or any religion.  The first amendment bars the “establishment” of any religion (freedom “from” religion) while preserving the free exercise of religion.  He understands that the constitution bans any religious test for federal office.

The assault on these principles by members of the Christian right has been so sustained that people like Dihey fail to understand that someone like Barack Obama can both believe in God and recognize that his belief has no place within the province of governing a secular state.  That is the essence of separation of church and state—a separation that would be undermined if John McCain were elected and then permitted to add more radical fundamentalists from the Robert Bork-founded Federalist Society to the Supreme Court.

Dihey writes:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman”.
Would someone please explain to Mr. Obama that his “belief” is irrelevant with regards to crafting and passing laws.

Why are we about to replace one religious nut with another?

~~~

That’s the point dihey. Senator Obama has already stated EXACTLY THIS, a few dozen times. He has said what *he* thinks ‘marriage’ is, and in the same breath has made it clear that *HIS* personal ideology has ZERO to do with what people in an allegedly free society choose for themselves.

WHY is this so difficult for ideologues to grasp? It goes like this: If you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, a male by genetic making and a female by genetic making, than you should only marry a person of the opposite genetic gender. That’s simple enough.

There is absolutely NO reason to care about who other people wanna marry, as long as they are of legal age to do so. THAT’S why he says that laws that would prevent people from marrying each other if they wanted to, (even if they were the same gender) are UNNECESSARY.

It’s an example of negative law. It’s a law ‘banning’ a practice, right, or legal status to a certain portion of the population. That’s wrong. And, Obama has made that point as well. The proposition to ban these marriages that have already been recognized and should continue to be recognized is divisive and discriminatory.

So again..Obama has previously answered this issue, making it really clear..HE may think of marriage HIS way, but has STATED that HIS ideology should have no bearing on what others choose for themselves.

How simple is that?

What Fein neglects to mention is that McCain, if elected, would appoint jurists to the Supreme Court from the extreme right-wing Federalist Society.

In 1982 Bork founded the Federalist Society.  Bork’s and the Federalist Society’s radically reactionary goals were perhaps best summarized by Senator Kennedy during the floor debate on Judge Bork’s nomination to the Supreme Court:  “This debate has been a timely lesson in this bicentennial year of the Constitution of our commitment to the rule of law, to the principle of equal justice for all Americans and to the fundamental role of the Supreme Court in protecting the basic rights of every citizen.”

As Ralph Neas observes, these radicals in robes are committed to overturning scores of “Supreme Court precedents going back 70 years, affecting privacy, equal opportunity, the environment, religious liberty, reproductive health, [and] reproductive rights.” 

Critical areas left off Neas’s listing of the hard-right agenda include turning the clock back to the days of the Gilded Age when the Court struck down laws regulating child labor, wages and hours laws as well as regulations protecting public health through the long-discredited doctrine of substantive due process.  And, most especially, it entails jurists committed to the “Unitary Executive theory,” which is not merely radical but subversive of the rule of law as it would dismantle all checks and balances, extending to a president unchecked and unlimited power greater than that held by the British monarch at the time of the American Revolution.

I’m no judicial scholar, but it seems like most moderates lean to the left when it comes to interpreting the constitution. I was under the impression that moderates tended to rule with the liberals more often then with the conservative justices.

plus, i think it’s more important that the future president (obama, please) will maintain a balance within the supreme court.
—————————————
Obama 2008
“Mad McCain” videos: http://tv1.com/playlists/show/11

The author concludes:

“..In sum, other than insincere or misleading political bombast, the difference between McCain and Obama on whom they would appoint to the federal courts is a matter of inches, not of miles…”

~~~~

I disagree entirely, and all I could think as I read this piece, what that Bruce Fein hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Because, we DEFINITELY know the GIGANTIC difference between who Obama would select, (and we’re not just talking about the USSC, but other federal court justices). In fact, the differences are SO HUGE, that even if there weren’t dozens and dozens of other obvious indicators of Obama’s far superior leadership skills and judgment, this thing with the Court is reason enough to make sure we choose him.

Obama damn sure knows how urgently critical it is as well, and SPECIFICALLY on the High Court. 

This was very clear 5 months ago, and before then, at least for anyone paying attention…

This is just one of the many times Obama has addressed this..

•  “In his response to Watson, Obama said, “Look, Diane. John McCain, if he’s elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years.””

http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-i-bit-my-tongue-against-clinton-2008-06-26.html

http://www.truthdig.com/eartotheground/item/20080626_obama_bit_his_tongue/

He’s also made clear how he feels about Clarence Thomas and a few others that he would NEVER have appointed.

I think Mr. Fein should have researched this stuff a little better. If I knew this stuff, he should have known it.