Obama Supreme Court Warning: 'Conservative' Judicial Activism Is 'What You're Now Seeing'

[onehandle]

Source: AP, Huffington Post

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama, preparing to make his second nominee to the Supreme Court, warned Wednesday of a "conservative" brand of judicial activism in which the courts are often not showing appropriate deference to the decision of lawmakers.

Obama made clear that his views on judicial restraint are not the only basis he will use in choosing his next nominee for the high court, a decision expected over the next few weeks.

But his comments underscore just how much he thinks courts are being vested with too much power and are overruling legislative will, a factor that will influence his nominee choice.

Obama already has openly criticized the Supreme Court for a January ruling – one led by the court's conservative members – that allowed corporations and unions to spend freely to influence elections. Obama has vowed to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens with a like-minded justice who will not let powerful interests crowd out voices of ordinary people.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/28/obama-supreme-court-warni_n_556317.html

---

He's right. For years this useless court has been making decisions designed to make conservatives and Republicans rich and happy, while the rest of us have been put at risk in so many ways.

Sadly, there is little he can do about it. This court will be making the same kind of right-wing, dangerous decisions they have been for many years.

We will be lucky if he can even replace Stevens with a like-minded justice. And that will do nothing to change the court. None of the conservatives will be leaving in the next 7 years.

[rfranklin]

1. Perhaps we can form a prayer group...

God is compassionate.

[Bitwit1234]

13. I say to myself...

these tea bags that are constantly referring to the fact that God is on their side, might mean God has been taken over by Satan. Because if you look at what is happening in this country today, you see that it looks like the real God has forsaken this country.

He allows the crooked, torture minded hate and violence urging bunch of republicans to run rampant in this country. If God truly was look out for this country he would bring it to a halt. He would make sure that the more human and compassionate and those with a true love for this country would win the day. We have had a long long spell of crooks and radical butts running this country. It is time God if he exists shows us His true nature and returns us to the country we used to be.

[AlbertCat]

20. It is time God if he exists shows us His true nature and returns us to the country we used to be.

Y'mean the country that had slavery until 1863 and wage slavery and Jim Crow after that.... or where women couldn't vote until 1920.... or the country that broke 100% of treaties made with native americans....or the way it used to be when you could be forced to prove you weren't a commie...or...or....or...

The country we use to be... :eyes:

I don't think depending on supernatural forces to make things like some nostalgic fairy tale of the past is the way to go. It's never worked in all of history.

[BobbyBoring]

46. You mean

The Native Americans they didn't kill:evilfrown:

[S_B_Jackson]

71. Hate to burst your bubble here, but...

"women" had the right to vote in 1870, at least they did in Wyoming.

[liberation]

31. "God is with us"

That is what every German soldier had written in their belt buckles during WWII.

We're becoming dangerously close to complete a cycle that can take us to some reaaaaaaaally bad places.

[MrMickeysMom]

22. Perhaps a magic pubic hair will be ingested, enlightening Uncle Clarence...

... or Roberts will have an eye transplant to see differently than his pyschotic glare currently allows, or Alito will start channeling Thurgood Marshall's real understanding of the Constitution, or maybe fat Tony will be given the Heimlich maneuver after almost choking on a chicken bone (courtesy of Liz Taylor), and suffer just enough to know what it's like not to quit flogging himself between his lust for shooting with Cheney and flogging himself with a crucifix before considering what the American workforce is facing...

Maybe one of them will transform into a human being... or not.

[freethinker2]

39. Sure

Prayer,,Like thats been proven to work well.. LMAO

[edwinmathews]

2. This article

is a little confusing when you consider Justice Stevens was appointed by a republican president .

[FSogol]

5. Not really, once upon a time the Republican party included Moderate

and even some Liberals. Those days are gone.

[Hawaii Hiker]

6. Back in the 60's & 70's, many Republicans were probably

more moderate than many of the "Dixiecrats"...

IMO, ever since Reagan, the Republican party has gone further & further right, off the deep end, & right into a mental ward...Now, they are trying to purge the party of (if there are any remaining) its moderate members...

[liberation]

35. People like to pretend it was just the Raygun revolution....

... but lest not forget that most of the reaaaaally bad ones from the Bush admin got their head start under Nixon.

I was reading about Ike running for the presidency as a republican, because he was more afraid of the ultra reactionary branch of his party taking over, than the Democrats. Ike was probably the last relatively sane Republican politician.

[SomeGuyInEagan]

45. In hindsight, Nixon seems like a decent sort of fellow compared to today's Republicans

Ew, I think I just vomited a bit while typing that.

Nixon was an asshole and criminal. And perhaps the best of the Republican Presidents of my lifetime (unless you count Clinton) and *he* should've been in jail, which tells you how batshit crazy that party is. Really sad what happens with a party has no adult supervision.

[naaman fletcher]

52. Well, I'd take Ford over Nixon

But otherwise I agree with you.

[happygoluckytoyou]

15. to reference last republican who wasn't a dick.google. GOLDWATER (from arizona before they sukd)

[liberation]

33. Goldwater was a massive dick himself...

... it is that the current crop of GOPers are so batshit insane, that they make an otherwise magnificent asshole like Goldwater, look good in comparison.

That is the scary part.

[Hawaii Hiker]

50. Goldwater probably would be a moderate in todays Republican party

I don't think he was a social conservative, certainly not in the same relm like the clowns they have today (or had) ie; DeMint, Imhoffe, Vitter, Santorum, etc..

Goldwater probably wouldn't even win one primary were he around today...They'd have called him a RINO...

[pattmarty]

37. And, even a black Senator from Ct who was boinking Barbara Walters.

Ahhhhhhhhhh, for the good ole days.

[beltanefauve]

62. Correction

That was Senator Edward Brooke (R) , from Massachusetts.

[pattmarty]

64. Yep, he's the one. My mistake.

[lin_e65]

51. The current "republican" party

is really not republican. The party has been infected by neocons. Neocons want to undo everything that FDR put in place. Do you think they went into Iraq to help their buddies at Halliburton? Hell, no. They wanted to saddle this country with so much debt, that all that remains to be done to stay afloat is to start cutting back on our social programs. And they have succeeded. They also wanted to screw up the economy so that the economy could not rebound us partly out of this mess. And I'll be honest, I don't think George W. knew what the plans were going i. It's Cheney who pulled off all this crap. It's Cheney who wants to dismantle the safety net in this country. The want us all to be slaves to our jobs, to the corporate "master". Wait and see. It's scary.

[Volaris]

57. Is completely cutting a social program(s) really the only way to pay off the debt?

The question that I'm asking is that I am willing to have my taxes raised to pay off the debt, as long as that is not the only proposed solution. It seems to me that paying off the debt is like that speech from Any Given Sunday, paying off the debt is a game of pennies, and the pennies we need are all around us, and when we add up all those extra pennies that is the difference between living debt-free and paying perpetual interest to the banks that the govt borrows from. I really think that if this nation wanted to pay off the national debt, we could have that done in (less than)15 years. We just havent dedicated ourselves to the concept of all those extra pennies yet.
P.S.--I have no doubt that if anyone here thinks i'm wrong, I will hear about it, and those opinions/discussions are always welcome=)

[SkyDaddy7]

58. That is the exact strategy at neocon think tanks!

Make the beast so fat it dies!

[Hippo_Tron]

59. Also, it was the post Watergate era

The GOP was in shambles, Congress was overwhelmingly Democratic and Ford needed an easy confirmation.

[onehandle]

47. There was a time when Republicans could be downright logical. Hell, Nixon was pretty liberal.

Compared to today's average race bating hate monger of the GOP.

[groundloop]

3. It's sad when the absolute best nominee (if confirmed) will only maintain the status quo

What's the chances of one of the right winger justices deciding they want to spend more time with their family, travelling, or connecting with nature?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

7. Not good, unfortunately

Unless a Republican happens to be POTUS or they suddenly keel over and die. In only the most extreme circumstances would a conservative member of SCOTUS up and quit while a Democrat- especially the "evil socialist tyrant" Obama- is POTUS. There are fewer things in life that I am surer of than that! If Obama gets a second term he can at least prevent any nutty right wingers from getting on and replace any retiring liberals/moderates with younger ones.

[skepticscott]

4. This just emphasizes the point

that "judicial activism" simply means "judges deciding cases in ways I don't like", regardless of which end of the political spectrum you're at.

[kenfrequed]

12. Agreed

"Judicial Activism" is a meaningless term. Conservatives tend to use these things more than liberals.

[AlbertCat]

21. "judges deciding cases in ways I don't like",

What "liberal" activism is equivalent to saying corporations have the right to free speech? What "liberal" activism is equivalent to stopping the counting of votes and appointing the president?

[skepticscott]

54. Well, how about

the liberal "activism" that propagates speech codes on college campuses (basically a way of suppressing speech that certain people find offensive)? If you have a little imagination and experience, you could think of a dozen more. It's not that hard. Any situation where you criticize the rationale for a decision when it goes against the way you wanted, but would stay quiet and satisfied if the same rationale were used in your favor qualifies.

[paulsby]

42. actually, i think it does mean something. and liberals applaud activism when it benefits them

and conservatives applaud it when it benefits them

at least many in both groups.

[lonestarnot]

8. No one knows what will happen today, let alone 7 years.

Just say'n. :shrug:

[Hawkeye-X]

9. Feed Fat Tony Double Down KFC 3x a day for three weeks.

Guaranteed Fat Boi will suffer heath issues that will render him incapable of making a rational decision.

[FSogol]

10. He is already incapable of making rational decisions.

:shrug:

[maxsolomon]

19. the morbidly obese rarely live to 80

odds are good that Scalia, 74, won't be there in 2016. motherfucker has served 24 years on the SCOTUS.

[barbtries]

23. unfortunately

it won't stop him from making decisions at all.

[rasputin1952]

43. He can't make a rational decision now!

I can't think of one thing he has ruled on that has not been a catastrophe.

[Uncle Joe]

11. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, onehandle.

[defendandprotect]

14. Activism to expand and protect freedom is necessary . . . not to limit it ...

That's quite different from activism which moved Roe vs Wade --

and activism which has whittled away at Roe vs Wade --

Different from right wing corporate decisions which limit citizen freedom and voter choice.

Right wing SC has also been whittling away at Affirmative Action --

Again -- activism should be used and judged by the expanding of freedom --

not the limiting it.

Yes -- Repugs have now given activism a dirty name -- and looking at the filth they support

it should have a dirty name.

However, let's remember that there are different kinds of activism -- like everything else --

good and bad!

[Democat]

16. He should say "Right Wing" instead of "conservative"!

Tell it like it is. These right wing activists are trying to destroy the country. Surprised they didn't free Timothy McVeigh for being a good patriot.

[happygoluckytoyou]

17. election.... liberal...... pres democrat... MANDATE in place.... NOMINATE A LIBERAL...

[NewJeffCT]

18. The court isn't useless

they represent the top 1% pretty damn well - they're useful to them and the other 18% of Americans who think they're in that top 1%

[ShortnFiery]

25. Yes, and instead of proudly declaring that we need BALANCE = submit a liberal,

the Obama Administration is TELLING us, in essence, to prepare for the nomination of a corporate centrist. :(

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-1984_instruction_manual.jpg

[Better Believe It]

27. But the Republicans will threaten to engage in a fake phantom filibuster!

And everyone knows the Democratic majority in the Senate won't force Republicans to engage in a authentic "on-the-Senate-floor"
filibuster. Senator Reid has the power to do that.

Unless President Obama orders Senator Reid to fight against Republican obstructionism.

[ShortnFiery]

28. IMO, it's all Kabuki theater and everyone has their parts well memorized and ready to go ...

I'd bet good money that we will end up with a CENTRIST as a nominee. :thumbsup:

It's getting harder to hate-on the GOP when they are merely playing their role for Our Masters' entertainment and financial gain. Specifically, I believe that if the GOP doesn't make Obama nominate a CENTRIST, our leading contingent of corporate conservative democrats will pick up the mantle for the Nation's Owners.

The game is rigged: The American People lose to the Corporations EACH and EVERY time.

[Dinger]

24. Well, Now That's More Like It

I'd like to see action behind those words now.

K & R

[Taverner]

26. FINALLY someone calls it for what it is!

[Diane R]

29. "No conservatives will be leaving in next 7 years?" Who knows? Life happens.

[rasputin1952]

44. Except to Clarence Thomas...that idiot wouldn't kow "life"...

if is slapped him silly. He's the "Hayworth" of the USSC...stupid, lazy and barely able to tie his shoes w/o help. I've read some of his "work"...it should be written in crayon.

[fishwax]

30. we've been seeing it for a long time, actually

Good to hear him say it :bounce:

[cstanleytech]

34. Aye, problem is though its gonna take decades to bring the court back into balance

unless one or two of the conservatives were suddenly die or retire during Obamas time in office but neither of those is likely to happen.

[vanbean]

32. You are witnessing history. This is an extremely intelligent move.

He knows they are going to fight him, no matter who he picks. So, he might as well get his licks in first and hard. Have you ever fought a playground bully? I say good for him.

[totodeinhere]

36. You are right. Any conservative wanting to retire will try to hold out until the GOP retakes the...

White House. And knowing the cyclical nature of politics, that is going to happen sooner or later whether we like it or not.

[zenprole]

38. Rubes, Inc

This is a set-up.

Please watch the money.

Obama's short list is choked with pro-corporate footsoldiers, led by Elena Kagan. The Bomber-In-Chief will make noises about a social issue or two while ensuring wealth gets its way (see also Sonia Sotomayor). Does anyone see a pattern emerging? HCR, RTTT, ongoing wars, all resolved in favor of wealth. Next up is the Committee to Destroy Social Security.

[alp227]

40. He's right. Now he should FOLLOW UP on his promise! n/t

[CLANG]

41. "None of the conservatives will be leaving in the next 7 years."

Aw, party pooper!:spank:

[robertpaulsen]

48. 12/12/00: Conservative Judicial Activists Orchestrate US Coup D'etat

That's what the headlines should have read. Or as Bugliosi put it:

None Dare Call It Treason
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/bugliosi

[Uncle Joe]

49. Kicking again for your post.

:thumbsup:

[Green_Lantern]

53. the Supreme Court Justice shouldn't be liberal or...

Conservative on the bench. When making decisions the justices shouldn't be making decisions to fit their personal political stances, that is judicial activism.

They should make their decisions based on what the Constitution and federal laws say(in accordance with the Constitution).

I don't buy the excuse "the right-wing does it." They do it and we shouldn't become like them.

[skepticscott]

56. Thank you

you've hit the real point. The Supreme Court has become so highly politicized that everyone pretty much takes it for granted, which is a shame. Lot of liberals would like a politicized Supreme Court (going their way) every bit as much as conservatives, but things have tipped against them, so they're complaining. If the balance changes, and the Court takes on a liberal ideology, you won't see too many people on this site complaining about "judicial activism" any more.

[Better Believe It]

60. ALL Supreme Court nominations are political. ALL Supreme Court judges are political.

The other nonsense suggesting Presidents should and usually do appoint Supreme Court judges who are non-political, that have no political bias or views and that simply apply an objective interpretation of the Constitution is just that .... nonsense.

The only exceptions might be judges who are short on intellect (neither conservative or liberal) and are not qualified .

[Green_Lantern]

67. nonsense my ear....

I never said Justices weren't political as in not a member of a political party or ideology. I said they should base their decisions on the Constitution and not just their personal ideology.

If you think that's nonsense and short on intellect then Hamilton must've been full of nonsense in Federalist paper #78 when he said: "The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

[24601]

55. So by President Obama's criteria, the Mojave Cross and the

Arizona Immigration should stand because they were passed by lawmakers. Jim Crow would have been OK since lawmakers passed it. None of the Gerrymandering cases would have limited the states.

These activist labels are pure crap. If the court thinks like you want, it's OK. But when it rules against your position, then it's activist. And without "activist" justices, Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade would have been decided differently.

Lawmakers or whomever are pure distractions - the court is activist when it re-writes the Constitution instead of requiring Congress and the states re-writing it by amendment. Sometimes that's good like in Brown (activist by commission) and sometimes it sucks the big one, like in Kelo - where it's activist simply by deferring to state lawmakers or the other branches of federal government that are exceeding their constitutional authorities.

[X_Digger]

61. "not showing appropriate deference"??

Since when does the legislative branch show deference to the judiciary? Since when does the executive branch show deference to the legislative?

Judicial review is part of the job of the court, since Marbury v Madison. The three branches of government are separate by design, and for good reason. Check and balance.

Lawmakers' intent in crafting a law has to be taken into account when the judiciary rules on a particular case, but it still has to be viewed through the lens of constitutionality and rights / powers of the fed, states, and people.

[Rhiannon12866]

63. K&R. Exactly! And after all the RW blather about "activist judges..."

They said that this was what they were most afraid of... :eyes:

[harun]

65. He is right to frame the discussion as those concerned with the rights of

ordinary citizen's vs. those concerned with protecting/expanding the power and wealth of the super rich.

[Jefferson23]

66. This is a weird thing for Obama to say:

" And in the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach."

WTF, Is he saying they were wrong on some decisions, and which ones, exactly?

Guilty, that word bugs me in a bad way.

[Green_Lantern]

68. no, I think he was saying the Courts were accused of being

Activist. He wasn't saying they made wrong decisions. It's true though that liberals are stereotyped as wanting activist judges.

[Jefferson23]

69. I would like to hear Obama clarify, this was a quote from him:

He added, “The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”

[Democat]

70. Obama often tries to sound "fair" when that type of talk equals defeat!

If Obama, the leader of the Democrats, tries to be in the middle and the right wingers are far to the right, that means that the middle moves to the right.

Better for him to slam the right wing for being the activists and never give an inch.

If you say "we are both wrong" and the other side says "only he is wrong" then you have an agreement - you are wrong. In that situation people come away with the impression that there is a 100% chance you are wrong and only a 50% chance that the other side is wrong.