Obama said the following about the kind of person he would appoint to fill David Souter's seat on the SCOTUS:
"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," he said. "I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role."
The amazing thing about this statement is that the two parts of it are wholly contradictory. Judges should specifically NOT take into account whether or not they "identify with people's hopes and struggles" when they make a legal ruling.
So having told us what attributes he considers essential in a judge, he then goes on to give a vignette of a supreme court judge that could have been written by Clarence Thomas!
This guy just seems to always want it both ways. And he seems to think that we are such dunces we won't recognize even his most obvious contradictions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
His most obvious "contradiction" is who he is. He won't reveal it.
All we know are the "contradictions" which he (Soetoro) could clear up in 5 minutes.
Uh Rob? Most Obamaphiles *are* dunces. They swallow everything he sells.
This is just how he views a living Constitution:
One should always first ascertain the rule of law and then apply it to the facts.
If, however, disturbing feelings of empathy result from applying the law to the facts, then one is compelled to re-interpret the law until the feelings subside.
Lather, rinse & repeat until the law conforms to your desires.
So he's basically saying he wants a judge who is sympathetic towards... probably Obama's values? Which some times tread the toes of the constitution.
Post a Comment