Obama Would Appoint Liberal Judicial Activists, If Elected President
Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza
Many Americans watched Pastor Rick Warren question Senators John McCain and Barack Obama at the Saddleback Civil Forum late last week.
Frankly, I was amazed Obama would agree to be questioned by a Christian minister. It's no secret Obama is one of the most liberal, if not the most liberal, politicians on the national scene today. And it is testimony to the hubris of the junior Senator from Illinois if he thought the interview would benefit his campaign.
It is clear, since Obama became the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, he has been tacking towards the political center. Obama has shifted positions on a number of issues since securing the nomination. However, all of his work might have been for naught following the Saddleback interview.
One of the most contentious issues in our time is the role federal judges play in the American system of government. Conservatives have long been critical of something called judicial activism which, in essence, is law created from the judicial bench. The theory behind judicial activism contends the U.S. Constitution is a living, breathing document subject to interpretation corresponding with the changing morés of our times.
Many judicial scholars rightly assert the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision titled, Roe v. Wade, was created out of whole cloth. In other words, the high court's ruling regarding abortion was without basis in fact and utterly fictitious. Many liberal judges have used judicial activism to promote social agendas, including votes on privacy issues, the Second Amendment and other crucial matters which have had a devastating impact on American society and culture.
On the other hand, strict constructionist judges hold to the premise the Constitution should not be open to subjective interpretation. These critics of judicial activism cite the dangers such rulings present to the Constitution itself. For instance, in this case, constructionists believe the Constitution clearly does not state a woman has a "right" to an abortion. Indeed, the opposite is true when the Founding Fathers wrote that all Americans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Obama revealed exactly what his goals as President would be when he answered a very profound question put to him by Warren. Obama was asked to choose a Supreme Court Justice who he felt did not deserve to be on the Supreme Court. Although Obama was asked to name just one Supreme Court Justice, he launched into criticism of virtually every conservative Justice currently sitting on the bench. Obama almost made a serious gaffe when he first cited Clarence Thomas. Obama started to say Thomas did not have the experience to hold such a high position. The Democratic nominee caught himself and used other language to berate the only African-American sitting on the high court. Of course, many believe Obama himself does not have the experience needed to be President of the United States. Such an off the cuff remark critical of Thomas' supposed inexperience would have been devastating to the premise that Obama supporters advance which contends Obama's inexperience with the workings of Washington, D.C. is his greatest attribute.
Obama's next target was Anton Scalia. Though he noted Scalia was obviously intellectually qualified to be a member of the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama said he would probably not have favored Scalia's appointment to that judicial body.
Obama's last target was Chief Justice John Roberts. Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee was widely praised from both sides of the political aisle before his confirmation and Obama's distaste for Roberts indicates how far Obama is from mainstream thinking regarding the highest court in the land and who should be on it. The only conservative Supreme Court Justice that Obama did not mention was Samuel Alito and conventional wisdom says this was simply an oversight on his part.
The inference from Obama's likes and dislikes for those currently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court says volumes on who he would appoint if given the chance. Some say the next President may have the opportunity to nominate as many as three members to the court. Justice John Paul Stevens, who is approaching 90, is almost certain to retire or need to be replaced during the next few years. There is also a great deal of speculation regarding the health of Justice Ruth Bader Ginzberg and her possible departure from the bench means the next President will play a huge role in determining the direction of the country.
There is one thing that is absolutely clear resulting from Obama's answers to Warren's query. Those who believe the Supreme Court is one vote away from overturning Roe v. Wade will have their expectations either bolstered or dashed with a Barack Obama presidency. Obama would certainly appoint Justices who embrace his radical views on the purpose of the court. It would have been interesting to hear which jurists Obama respected during his interview with Warren. However, at times, what is not said tells the greatest story.
EDITOR'S NOTE: After further study, I agree with those who questioned my reference to Warren as a "fundamentalist". Therefore, RFFM.org has removed the term from the column. JZ, managing editor
Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact Dan@rffm.org
Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.
Ummm....characterizing Rick Warren as a "fundamentalist" is like calling John McCain a "neocon".
Posted by: Beez | August 20, 2008 at 12:04 PM
The judicial appointments are among the biggest reasons this old soldier must vote for McCain. I repeatedly took an oath to, "...defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic." This in my mind includes the limitations on federal power and the Bill of Rights. BO's record on Civil Rights in Springfield was substandard.
Posted by: Charlie | August 20, 2008 at 08:27 PM