Upcoming Supreme Court Nomination

[TheBisexualProfessor]

Thought I'd pass this quotation along to help us figure out what type of nominee we'll probably be seeing from Mr. Obama. According to the news periodical HUMAN EVENTS, in a 2001 interview with WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama said the following about the Supreme Court during the civil-rights era:

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers on the Constitution ...."

HUH? Anyone nervous by this assertion only seven years ago by the now-President of the US? Do we really want to "break free from the essential constraints" imposed on government by the Constitution? Who do you think will suffer if government isn't constrained?

[bityme]

Now, that is scary!

[rissababynta]

Well considering that he is the president that the country elected...and there isn't a whole lot we can do about that NOW...I couldn't possibly care less because whatever is going to happen is going to happen.

What is the point in the Obama bashing all the time anyway? If we give him crap all the time, will he just magically go away?

I've said the same thing about Bush too...and I hated Bush. But I always hated the CONSTANT bashing, which only made us look weaker as a country. A strong country supports those in charge as best they can, whether they like it or not. As soon as the whole country starts poking fun at and bashing their own leader...well...that kind of makes us all look like shmucks to everyone else.

[MetaSexual2]

Once again BiProf, check your sources (Human Events is one of the worst of the propaganda mills). This is false propaganda using a quote taken completely out of context. This topic has been rehashed several times, most recently back in October. If you read the full transcript you'll realise that Obama is actually taking a very conservative (both big and small c) legal position on this. The conclusion he comes to is that if you do want to attempt redistributive change, the courts are not the appropriate place to do it.

You've stated before you are a libertarian. In my 20s I was also, until I found I couldn't validate libertarian economic ideas (von Mises etc.) with the realities of modern economies. The ideas are just far too simplistic to deal with the complexity of real world economic activity. One of the hardest issues for libertarians to reconcile philosophically is their personal concept of a societal safety net. All governmental structures are to some degree a safety net, and unless you are an anarcho-capitalist, people of all political stripes believe in some level of redistribution. Anarchies are notoriously difficult to maintain in a stable state, so its pretty difficult to seriously argue in favour of them. Its all about where you want the redistribution to be focused. Smaller government is good, unless its too small, which leads to chaos. Finding that balance point is the tricky part.

[canuckotter]

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers on the Constitution ...."

HUH? Anyone nervous by this assertion only seven years ago by the now-President of the US? Do we really want to "break free from the essential constraints" imposed on government by the Constitution? Who do you think will suffer if government isn't constrained?

I'm sorry, I must have missed something. Where in that quote did Obama say that wanted the court to "break free from the essential constraints" etc? Sounds to me like he was just giving a history lesson, saying that the court hadn't broken free from etc etc. Which is a very different thing.

[IanBorthwick]

Now, that is scary!

Not even a little bit. Taken out of context, I am sure the libertarians freak and use it as a means to add more worry about the Obama presidency than is needed. Makes no sense to go off and worry over what is essentially him telling what is outside the perview of theirs at the time and what he and the world would see as radical, then exemplifying what they did as NON-radical.

[TheBisexualProfessor]

In reply to Rissababynta, I do want to point out that my brining up this conversation doesn't qualify as "Obama bashing." She did not make that accusation directly, but some may be thinking that this is my intent. In fact, I avoided in my post all inflammatory commentary (such as words like "hatred," etc.).

[TheBisexualProfessor]

In reply to MetaSexual2, a few words:

First, I'm sorry you aren't happy with HUMAN EVENTS. One of the ways I find my dialogue partners to be weakest is by their incessant complaints about sources. One can't read everything. HUMAN EVENTS does a fairly good job of getting a number of conservative voices together in one place each week to enable the conservative reader to find them easily. While I'm more of a Libertarian than a Conservative, I still find the publication useful. It is no more or less slanted than, say, the NEW YORK TIMES or TIME Magazine--both of which my dialogue partners often claim to be "center" while I'm too far right!

Second, the quote from Obama stands. It is authentic and it is factual. One can deny it and one can say that I'm using it out of context. It is correct, as others have pointed out, that Obama was speaking strictly of the civil-rights movement and that he was apparently demonstrating the lack of ability for the courts to bring about redistributive justice. He appears to suggest that there are more effective, grass-roots means for this goal.

That is precisely why this entire thing bothers me. The future is going to see many forms of "redistributive justice" if the president gets his way--and though many people disagree with him, they seem often to give in to him. Social security is nearly bankrupt. So will the government be able to "afford" to return to me what I've put into it for decades? Cap and trade will raise my electric rates, car prices, gasoline prices, etc., tremendously. Mr. Obama admitted it just prior to election. To pay for the outlandish expenditures of recent months (Bush included!), experts on both sides of the isle insist that burdensome taxation will be necessary. Finally, whatever money the average taxpayer may one day have left over from all of this, there is the spectre of possible runaway inflation because of the infusion of new money being put into our economy.

One way of the other, I see a great deal of redistribution headed my way, and I see very few quotations anywhere from Mr. Obama's past that give me comfort.

To MetaSexual and others, I won't claim to be objective. I'm too passionate to be objective, and I'm too worried. I don't like what I see, and while I don't know everything, I know enough history that the future seems bleak. And I'm normally NOT a pessimist! I'll confess, too, that this is all very personal to me: I don't believe in America anymore. Sad to say, but true. I still believe in the Constitution and I still believe in the vision of our founders. But I don't believe in what America has become.

As for Libertarianism, I don't claim Libertarians to possess all the answers. But they ARE a voice in the wilderness today, and seem to be among the only ones asking if larger, more powerful, more expensive, centralized power structures (i.e., government) are the best way to solve our national problems.

MetaSexual, you live in the UK. Your entire nation is the size of what, two of our mid-western states? Centralized power may be more sensible in your case. But we're 25 times as big, or bigger. I'm not sure one small, privileged band of elected officials in one east-coast city needs to be deciding all the issues for all fifty of our states. Is a one-size-fits-all approach best for Massachusettes, California, Illinois, Georgia, Texas and all the other states? What do we lose when we turn to a few hundred politicians and say they can make such far-reaching decisions for millions of us? (All the while as they vote themselves privileges like health care, salary, and retirement that are far beyond the means of most citizens--and while they even exempt themselves from burdens placed upon the rest of us--i.e., social security, which I probably will never be able to enjoy--but they still take my money each payday!)

[canuckotter]

As for Libertarianism, I don't claim Libertarians to possess all the answers. But they ARE a voice in the wilderness today, and seem to be among the only ones asking if larger, more powerful, more expensive, centralized power structures (i.e., government) are the best way to solve our national problems.

They are a voice, yes. So are communists, and so are fascists, and so are anarchists. Hell, my son is a voice for... something or other. He's two. Just because he has a voice and has opinions doesn't mean it's worth listening to his opinions on political matters, other than for entertainment value. Same goes for any other group with a philosophy that, when confronted with the realities of human psychology, has no better response than to cover its ears, screw shut its eyes, and shout, "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!"

[12voltman59]

Well---these nominations for the SCOTUS always seem to come down to one thing for those at both ends of the political spectrum and that issue is--THE BIG A!!!! (abortion)

This nominee's approval is not going to make that much of a difference on the court since Obama is likely to select someone who falls into the "liberal" side of things (basically maintaining the Court's current balance since Souter is reliably a member of "the liberal wing of the Court")--and that is as it should be--Obama won the damn presidency by as big of a margin that any candidate has had in a generation!!!

Those who don't like Obama may not like it---but he did CLEARLY and unquestionably win his election as president!!

He should be able to appoint his man or woman to the slot without any real obstruction by the Republicans--they are the party out in the woods for now!!!

It will be interesting to see if the Republicans throw up much of a smoke screen or not during the questioning and approval phase of Obama's selection---- and if they target their questioning of Obama's nominee on "where do you stand on the issue of abortion rights?" and other such "social issues."

The conservatives always argue that "there should not be a litmus test for a Supreme Court nominee!" when it comes to a "liberal" nominee's position on abortion, (assuming that a "liberal" is going to automatically be in favor of abortion rights), but in the next breath--- they talk about all the things they would like to see in such a person--namely that SCOTUS nominees should clearly be in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade wholesale* and other cases they feel were wrong.

What is going to be a real dog fight---Obama is likely to get at least one more nominee to the Court in the future and if he wins a second term--perhaps he will have even more than that--if he does--that would have a profound effect on the makeup of the Court and the way it rules for years to come---if that happens--hold on folks--it will be one nasty, drag out fight at that point!!

*By "overturning Roe v. Wade wholesale"---there are those on the social right who think that the ruling was so wrong----if they had their way--the Court---without any case dealing with the issue before them---should simply rule to overturn Roe v. Wade. To do so would fly in the face of the history of the Court and our legal system. It shows either their ignorance of or disdain for the way "things work" because the Court only rules on issues in cases before it and it also would deal a hard blow to the long held legal concept of "Stare Decisis" which means that courts go with the law as it stands in simplest terms----if Roe v Wade were overturned----it would change an entire area of law profoundly since that case was decided a generation ago and scores of cases have been decided based on Roe v. Wade.

That would be like overturning some of the fundamental civil rights cases that would put blacks back in jeopardy of facing "Jim Crow" laws again.

The thing is----on the legal side of things--many of those who would favor overturning Roe/Wade also would not have a problem with overturning most of those civil rights rulings too and if the Court followed the new precedent of simply taking on cases at their whim---there would be nothing to stop a highly conservative court, filled with those who are "strict constructionalists" from having the court considering cases dealing with any aspect of the law they don't happen to agree with.

I have heard some of those on the far right say that this is their goal and hopes and dreams for the Supreme Court----by some of the same people who hate "judicial activism and judges ruling from the bench" when rulings on things come down from "liberals" but have no problem in advocating a conservative court doing such things---since of course--those "liberal rulings" are so horrible and "need to be corrected."

For all their supposed wickedness and evil--I have never heard of anyone on "the liberal side" argue that the Court should abandon the fundamental ways it was set up and has operated for 200 plus years by taking up and ruling upon cases at whim in order to decide them according to some liberal dictates. I have certainly heard many a person on the right--and I am not talking about people like "Joe the Plumber" who has no real idea how the system works---but those who do know the way things work--many who are "Constitutional Scholars" of the right have argued thusly! It does seem to me the be the basic view of many of those who are members of The Federalist Society even if the organization itself most likely does not formally advocate such an approach.

I also never hear these same people-- those who would set back the clock on "liberal rulings" that granted things like "civil rights" to blacks and other minorities----but never say one word about also resetting the clock when it comes to those rulings that found "corporate entities have the same rights to free speech as do individuals."

So much for "strict constructionist" views when it comes to this--I don't know about their copies of the Constitution--the one I have--does not contain one word about corporations having rights commensurate with those of "the individual."


One thing is for sure---it is going to get interesting!!

[TheBisexualProfessor]

Thanks to everyone who entered this conversation civilly. Mr. Canuckotter, I'm sorry you found it necessary to inject silly banter and irrational goofyness into the conversation. :( I think it's time to end it now! Best wishes to everyone, even those of you who disagree!

[MetaSexual2]

I'm sorry if you think it uncivil, but I'm going to hold your feet to the fire a bit BiProf. You still never engaged on the original point of your post, and the point that Human Events author Schlafly tried to make in her article... that somehow that quote implied that Obama would attempt to use the Supreme Court to force redistributive change, when in fact he was making the opposite point. This is a blatantly obvious lie-by-omission.

I understand your fears, but I think there probably isn't much substance to them. You certainly haven't provided any evidence here that they may be true. Why not try digging a little deeper into the issues you are trying to raise, instead of posting knee jerk reactions to sound-bites and spin doctoring. It would make for a far more satisfying conversation.

[GreenEyedLady(GEL)]

Will the governor of the great state of Michigan please stand ?
Jennifer Ganholm, and one of the 6 choices of Obama for supreme court of the land !!

First thing is first, my opinion of Jenny.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PdHC9kAJK4

.Tuesday, May 5, 2009 .Granholm to order 4% budget cuts
They meet criteria already agreed on; staff, pay trimmed
Mark Hornbeck / Detroit News Lansing Bureau
Lansing -- Gov. Jennifer Granholm will order about $302 million in state budget cuts today, including 100 State Police layoffs, 4 percent across-the-board spending cuts, $40 million less in revenue sharing with local governments and up to six unpaid days off for state employees, according to sources familiar with the order.

The plan slashes by $16 million the reimbursement to hospitals and physicians for Medicaid treatment of the poor, trims college financial aid and shuts down the Department of History, Arts and Libraries, which will result in the layoffs of 20 workers, sources said. Additional state employees could be pink-slipped, depending on how department directors decide to trim 4 percent out of their full-year budgets.

The cuts reflect agreements reached by the Granholm administration and legislative leaders. House and Senate appropriations committees must approve the executive order and may do so as soon as today.

Advertisement
"Nobody's going to be happy," said Matt Marsden, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop. "This was a difficult situation, given the amount of time left in the fiscal year (about five months)."

The plan to close the state's $1.3 billion fiscal year deficit depends on $1 billion in federal stimulus money, leaving about $25 million of stimulus funds available for the rest of this budget year -- which ends Sept. 30 -- should more cuts be necessary to balance the books.

"We're concerned we're relying too much on stimulus money to fill holes that will be there again in 2010," said Bill Nowling, spokesman for House Republican Leader Kevin Elsenheimer.

"And none of this takes into account the Chrysler bankruptcy or the nine-week layoff of General Motors employees this summer. So that $1.3 billion deficit is going to get bigger."
The State Police reduction would take about 1 in every 10 troopers off the highways, reducing their ranks to slightly more than 1,000.

Sources said they weren't certain whether Granholm's order would address a specific number of furlough days for employees or whether that would be left to the discretion of department heads. The state can order no more than six unpaid days off without issuing a layoff notice, said Scott Dianda, president of the 5,200-member Michigan State Employees Association.

"While we understand state government is in financial trouble, our people are tired of this race to the bottom," Dianda said. "It's all about seeing who can do with the lowest amount of wages, or health care or fringe benefits. We're getting more work done with a lot less folks and we have a collective bargaining agreement."

He said the government payroll has 26,000 unionized workers and 16,000 managers and suggested "we can find places to cut in middle management."

Liz Boyd, press secretary for Granholm, confirmed that the executive order will be for more than $300 million,. But she declined to go into details. She said the spending cuts are "very painful decisions."

"When you take into consideration the spending reductions we have already made over time, well over $6 billion, combined with the reforms we have put in place, combined still with revenue projections ... this is tough," she said.

Groups representing hospitals, physicians, nursing homes and others held a news conference in Lansing on Monday, urging policymakers to leave Medicaid alone.

"Cuts to Medicaid harm people, and we are certain neither the governor nor legislators want to further destabilize the state's fragile health care system," said Spencer Johnson, president of the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, who noted that about 1,800 hospital employees have lost their jobs in the past year.

He said 1.7 million Michigan residents rely on Medicaid, an all-time high. Since Medicaid reimburses doctors for about 61 percent of the cost of treatment, additional cuts would result in more physicians who won't treat Medicaid patients, he said.

Michigan State University May Lose 700 Jobs
Fri, Feb 13, 2009
Featured, Government, Job Loss
Michigan State University officials are worried about Governor Jennifer Granholm’s new budget proposal.

The proposal for the budget year starting in October would cut university appropriations by 3%. That could translate to 700 lost jobs, significant tuition increases or a combination of both at the East Lansing school.

Some or all of the lost state funding could be replaced by federal stimulus money. Granholm wants universities to freeze tuition in exchange for the cash.




With revenues down 21%, state officials announce $304 million in cuts
State treasurer warns that Michigan's fiscal picture could worsen depending on economy, potential General Motors bankruptcy: 'We don't know what that would look like.'


LANSING – About 300 state employees face layoffs – including 100 State Police troopers – and most state workers will take six unpaid days off before October under a $300 million budget-cutting plan approved by lawmakers today







This is just a few problems I have with Jenny besides that mole on her face.

[hudson9]

...Human Events author Schlafly tried to make in her article... that somehow that quote implied that Obama would attempt to use the Supreme Court to force redistributive change, when in fact he was making the opposite point. This is a blatantly obvious lie-by-omission.

Phyllis Schlafly is a notorious, long-time anti-gay activist. The Human Events website also features Ann Coulter prominently. These are 2 hints that anything you read there should be checked against other sources. (Frankly this is a good practice when referencing statements made by any commentator.) Both of these people have a history of making intentionally misleading statements.

Oh, BTW -- Human Events also publishes a list called "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries." A few samples:

#4 -- Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, by Alfred Kinsey
#5 -- Democracy and Education, by John Dewey
#7 -- The Feminine Mystique, by Betty Friedan
#8 -- The Course of Positive Philosophy, by Auguste Comte
#10 --General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, by John Maynard Keynes

Twenty books received honorable mention, including Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson, and The Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin.

Yes, these books are "Harmful." Not "poorly reasoned," not "mistaken" -- Harmful. As in, they will harm you if you read them.

Tells you where they're coming from.

[12voltman59]

Phyllis Schlafly is a notorious, long-time anti-gay activist. The Human Events website also features Ann Coulter prominently. These are 2 hints that anything you read there should be checked against other sources. (Frankly this is a good practice when referencing statements made by any commentator.) Both of these people have a history of making intentionally misleading statements.

Ya got that right Hudson---with Schiafly--she is a very strongly committed right wing ideologue---with Coulter----she is as, even some of those on the right have noted: "Ann is a bomb thrower" as an editor of The National Review" online edition said when THEY fired her for making some crazy statements, in the days following 9/11.

With Schiafly she doesn't really make things up or outright lies per se---she simply is so fixed to her world view of things--she proceeds at all times from her point of view and her version of reality so she has no place for anything different or contrary. I don't agree with her---but at least I do know what she is about---she is a passionate defender of her views of things.

With Coulter--- the bat shit crazy things she spouts are part of her act --she has made a career out of saying outlandish and mostly patently untrue things--she has absolutely no credibility whatsoever---you can be pretty much certain that if she is opening her mouth---her facts and everything else are pretty much totally incorrect--there are several blogger types over the years who have done the "Ann Coulter Watch"--they simply go about fact checking her statements, the footnotes included in her books and such. They found that in most cases---her basic facts were to be charitable---simply "WRONG."

Someone, as I recall--even put out at least one book on the falsehoods of Ms. Coulter, Esquire.

These people have found that in large measure---the basic facts she presents are wrong, that she has changed or distorted them. With Ann Coulter-- it is not simply a matter of a difference of opinion or a misinterpretation of facts---she either misstates or distorts the facts and everything else to suit her needs and the points she is trying to make. She really cares not for any truth but that truth she so often fabricates or cribs from another conservative sources that also like to play fast and loose with the truth----forget about the way they spin things as they see fit.

Ann Coulter is simply not a credible person by any measure---many reasonable conservatives--if they have any sort of fidelity to objective truth have to acknowledge Coulter's unreliability on this score----they might agree with her on the points she makes, about the "evils of liberals" and such--but can't stick with her on the facts.

I don't know how she ever got to be an attorney--but then again--I don't know if there is evidence she ever actually practiced the law---her initial claim to fame was being hired by somebody to be on the legal team that represented one of Bill Clinton's former Arkansas bimbos. I seem to recall that it was Jennifer Flowers but it might have been the other one. Paula whatever her name was!!

I am sorry BiProfessor---I will give ya Mrs. Schiafly, but if ya take Ann Coulter as gospel---it is really hard to take you very seriously.

And just to show that I am not a wild radical liberal--I will be most generous-- along with Schiafly, I will give you the following conservatives as credible sources: Pat Buchannan, George Will, Bill Krystol, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, David Broder, David Brooks, Jonas Goldberg to name a few----but if ya rely on the fat man himself--Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter--we really have noting to talk about!!! (or some of the other right wing radio chat heads)

I think I was pretty damn generous in my list---I doubt if you would do the same and grant me any of my list of liberal/progressive voices that I like that include Bill Moyers, Amy Goodman, Ariana Huffington, Noam Chomsky, Phil Donahue(when he works anymore), Thom Hartman, Keith Olberman, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and others.

[hudson9]

Volty -- I would only nit-pick with you about the reliability of O'Reilly and Hannity. Neither one is any more reliable than Limbaugh as far as accuracy and fact checking. O'Reilly hasn't gotten any better since being called out years ago for taking credit for a Peabody Award won by a show he was on -- over a year after he left the show!

[12voltman59]

Volty -- I would only nit-pick with you about the reliability of O'Reilly and Hannity. Neither one is any more reliable than Limbaugh as far as accuracy and fact checking. O'Reilly hasn't gotten any better since being called out years ago for taking credit for a Peabody Award won by a show he was on -- over a year after he left the show!

Hudson--as I said--I was being most charitable in the list of those "conservative" spokespersons I was granting him-----just to show how reasonable a sod I am---it will be interesting to see if I get the same sort of courtesy in return---that is maybe our biggest problem as socialists--:eek: I mean "progressive/liberals" we are too easy and nice!!:bigrin::bigrin:

[TheBisexualProfessor]

Geez, friends -- the quote was an accurate quote from Mr. Obama. The source is unimportant, to my thinking, IF the quotation is accurate. I read from the so-called "liberal" and "conservative" press. I don't agree with all of the things I find on any side. But if I only read from sources with whom I agree 100%, how would that challenge growth?

[TheBisexualProfessor]

Meta, I appreciate having my feet "held to the fire," so keep it up! That is the whole point to this dialogue. But I would not call my reaction a "knee-jerk" one!

[wolfcamp]

In reply to MetaSexual2, a few words:

Cap and trade will raise my electric rates, car prices, gasoline prices, etc., tremendously. Mr. Obama admitted it just prior to election.


What do you see as the answer? Hydrocarbon fuels are becoming more expensive to find and produce. At some point in the very near future, we are going to see world oil production rates begin to fall. It won't be long until world demand pushes oil prices back up to unbearable levels. We are just beginning to see the affects of climate change. Personally, I find it comforting that someone is doing something besides looking at this quarter's profit sheet.




I don't believe in America anymore. Sad to say, but true. I still believe in the Constitution and I still believe in the vision of our founders. But I don't believe in what America has become.


What has it become? What is it that you are afraid of? Big government? Why aren't you afraid of big business, big energy, big banking, big credit card companies, big health care, big insurance? If America has become so bad, and the direction we are taking isn't right, they where would you like to see it go?