Comments on: Obama and judicial activism

By: EW

EW — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 21:20:30 +0000

Everybody seems surprised that Obama “would drag the court to the left”. Maybe it’s just concern and not surprise but should we expect this if Obama get in? Of course the illuminati are going to take over these places of importance and influence if their man gets into the white house.

So besides the obvious, which i stated above i think it’s interesting that Obama wants someone who follows his heart, rathe than the law. That sound right, which is what Obama is all about, sounding right and good, but really? That is such a dangerous line to dance on. As much as i agree that sometimes people need to follow their hearts more than the rules it seem like when it comes to judges there is no option but to follow the law to the T, their judges. If they want to change the law do it but until it changes they have to follow it, right. They are judges!

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 20:26:05 +0000

I don’t know if I would agree with the term “corrupt” though it depends on semantics, I suppose. However, in light of the fact that the left has a history of using the judiciary as a means to advance things that might otherwise be left to the other two branches, I think we’ll see a much more exciting parade of cases sent that way. I keep thinking about a switch in time that saved nine…and wonder about an increase in scope and reach of the federal benches.

By: Ed

Ed — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 19:29:58 +0000

Anyone who thinks Obama is not going to utterly corrupt the federal courts needs to re-enter earth’s atmosphere.

By: AMcA

AMcA — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:35:36 +0000

One fact check item: Obama was not offered a career track postion on the U of C faculty. He was just a lecturer. I believe this got discussed at length on the Volokh blog.

By: The Volokh Conspiracy

The Volokh Conspiracy — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 15:11:39 +0000

Obama on Redistribution of Wealth:…

As Orin points out below, Drudge is highlighting excerpts of a 2001 interview Barack Obama did with Chicago public radio, in which he advocated “redistributive change.” The context was a discussion of the Supreme Court and const……

By: Ted Frank

Ted Frank — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 13:21:30 +0000

Obama’s vote against Roberts for the stated reason that he does not believe that judges should follow the law 100% of the time, but instead follow their hearts some small percentage of the time, is far more telling and disturbing.

Bernstein’s point would perhaps be all well and good if we were talking about Obama as a Supreme Court nominee. But we’re talking about Obama as an executive who will be appointing judges, and there is absolutely no indication that Obama will “channel Rosenberg and Klarman” in making those selections. The shortlists for the Supreme Court would unquestionably drag the Court to the left; a Fried or a Kmiec may endorse Obama, but Obama is not going to endorse a Fried or Kmiec.