Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:11 AM
Original message
Obama Says Liberal Courts May Have Overreached
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: April 29, 2010


WASHINGTON — In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials.

Mr. Obama made his remarks Wednesday night against a backdrop of recent Supreme Court rulings in which conservative justices have struck down laws favored by liberals, most notably a January ruling that nullified restrictions on corporate spending to influence elections.

“It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically,” Mr. Obama said.

“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”

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

Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.

Still, Mr. Obama, who formerly taught constitutional law, did not cite any specific decisions. He has long been a supporter of abortion rights, and repeatedly defended the court’s interventionist stance during the civil rights movement because minorities were cut out of the political process, even while saying that such a role would be inappropriate today.

Mr. Obama made his remarks in an impromptu conversation with reporters on a flight to Washington from the Midwest. They were in response to a question about whether concerns about “conservative judicial activism” would play a role in the court nomination.

Mr. Obama has criticized recent conservative Supreme Court rulings before — including the campaign-finance ruling, Citizens United, in his State of the Union address last January. But his remarks went notably further by drawing an equivalence to rulings a generation ago that have been widely celebrated by liberals as historic achievements.

That troubled some liberals, including Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. He agreed with Mr. Obama’s definition of “judicial activism,” but said he had “a concern about his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.”

And the president of the liberal Alliance for Justice, Nan Aron, argued that the Warren and Burger courts had helped make progress on economic and social fronts for people who lacked political power, while the Roberts court is “tilted in favor of those who already have power and influence.”

By pegging his critique to the 1960s and 1970s, Mr. Obama stayed away from the most famous liberal Supreme Court ruling, the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision striking down school segregation. Still, his statement seemed to call into question subsequent liberal legal victories.

Such rulings gave indigent criminal suspects a right to free lawyers, required police to inform them of their rights, and expanded the kinds of evidence that prosecutors could not use. Aside from decisions on abortion and school busing, rulings required electoral districts to contain equal populations, suspended the death penalty, and banned employment practices that had a disparate impact on different racial groups.

Several conservatives said they welcomed an acknowledgment by a Democratic president that the courts led by Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger had sometimes overstepped their role.

But they also suggested that his arguments might be a strategic move to de-legitimize lawsuits challenging his domestic policy agenda.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/30/us/politics/30court.html?pagewanted=print
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:14 AM
Response to Original message
1. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
2. oh for god's sake
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:26 AM by DURHAM D
just shut up please

Edit: I am referring to Obama not the OP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. talk about spinning a story 180 degrees from the TRUTH
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:16 AM by NJmaverick
President Obama brings up the excellent point of conservative activism on the courts (there by undercutting the right wing talking point about judges) and these authors spins it as attacking liberals. Either the writers are stupid or dishonest or both.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #3
27. Charlie Savage is neither stupid nor dishonest. The concern is valid
and Obama so far, will not respond to which cases he was referencing when he made that comment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. Bullshit, Savage lied or was totally confused as to what the President said
Anyone who took the time to read what the President ACTUALLY SAID can see that clearly.

Maybe it's time you read past a headline you like. Use some critical reading and reasoning skills and compare what was written verses what was ACTUALLY SAID.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #30
34. I READ the entire piece, seems you have no concern about
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:24 AM by Jefferson23
Obama not responding to which cases he was referencing. Savage has no reputation for lying nor being confused.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elleng Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 10:21 AM
Response to Reply #27
67. Seems to be a misunderstanding and/or overstatement to me.
What does this actually mean?

'“It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically,” Mr. Obama said.

“And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”

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

Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
4. OMG! Did I ever "mis-read" this politician two years ago?
If it wasn't for the rulings of the 60s and 70s, you Mr. Obama, would have NEVER been elected President. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Develop your critical reading skills
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. Stop playing "professor" ... few people are all-knowing. It reflects poorly on us all.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #19
23. Damn it! the facts matter
stop going around ignoring the FACTS and pushing an emotion driven agenda. THAT helps no one
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:54 AM
Response to Reply #23
38. Your skewed opinion paraded around as "facts?" No, you can't deny what's in quotes.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:54 AM by ShortnFiery
No, you can't manipulate the data and demand that there's ONLY ONE conclusion.

You really do hate to disagree but not every damn issue is black and white. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #4
15. Maybe you did - or maybe you believe the mischaracterization of the remarks...
...as presented by the "reporters"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:16 AM
Response to Original message
5. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Who is a Republican?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:17 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. Yep
It's pretty clear.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. But I would add: "a moderate one" who democrats can reason with.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 10:22 AM by ShortnFiery
Seriously, President Obama and the rest of the New Democrats/Blue Dogs/Corporate Conservatives/DLC VIEWS are very similar to what we used to call "moderate republicans" in the 1960s and 1970s. If we went back in time, I have no doubt that Obama would have ran with the GOP as an Eisenhower republican. :shrug:

IMO, that's how FAR our Nation has taken a turn to the corporate right-wing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Read the remarks, not the article.
You're being taken for a fool by the Times reporters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #13
20. Sadly many people will believe what they WANT to believe
rather than make the effort to learn the TRUTH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:35 AM
Response to Reply #20
28. Let's just say, your TRUTH and mine diverge?
;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:58 AM
Response to Reply #13
39. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
42. Obama is not a Republican, and that is NOT what Savage is suggesting.
The point of concern is which cases is Obama referring to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
9. That has got to be one of the most slanted and mis-skewed pieces I've ever read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #9
14. care to elaborate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #14
21. First, go read or listen to what the President said. And then read this POS article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #21
45. so what exactly was obama trying to imply with this statement?
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 01:49 PM by frylock
“The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tyne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #9
16. No kidding
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. yes it is, that's why it's popular with the Anti-Obama crowd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
11. He said no such thing.
Read the remarks, not the article.

The reporters have totally mischaracterized the content of the remarks, and you people are falling for it.

Read the remarks and draw your own conclusions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:27 AM
Response to Reply #11
18. Very true, but why let facts and the truth stand in the way?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suzie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #11
22. But that would meaning giving up today's reason to dislike Obama.
And giving up the "we should have voted for...." explanation for today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #22
25. We can't have that could we?
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #22
31. Yes, nothing we present has any veracity at all ...
we just "hate Obama" for NO APPARENT REASON? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #31
52. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #11
32. Savage quoted Obama, and explain why Obama would not refer
to which cases he was referencing when he made that statement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:23 AM
Response to Original message
12. Deleted message
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Richardo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
24. What he REALLY said: 'Conservatives are hypocrites when they paint only liberal courts as 'activist'
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NJmaverick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #24
26. EXACTLY!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. ...
Four legs bad!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Aramchek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #29
33. wow, you really have gone off the deep end
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #33
36. May I also say that you are not a paragon of self-restraint yourself?
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:45 AM
Response to Reply #24
35. He added, “The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”
If you read the article, this is NOT suggesting that Obama is going to appoint an Alito or Roberts to the court.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. Why did you post this NYT version of the story when there are dozens out there without the
editorial comments? Compare the NYT piece with this one.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/28/ap/preswho/main6442450.shtml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. Why don't you post that article? These quotes are subject to OPINION/COMMENTARY.
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 11:01 AM by ShortnFiery
That's why it's a moot point to argue with each other about "facts."

Each of us, based on President Obama's ACTIONS, must ascertain for ourselves his underlying motives.

None of us know his TRUE motives. No, not even me.

The only difference between myself and "loyal Obama supporters" is that his recent BEHAVIOR has disappointed me.

However, I could be wrong and President Obama will promptly end these two wars, withdraw the Patriot Act and fully stop new oil rigs from being built.

Yes, I hope that I'm wrong.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #37
41. Because I think for myself. There is nothing in Savages piece
that undermines Obama. What it asks to reflect is why he, Obama, made the statements he did in reference to the SCOTUS
of that era. Obama has not so far, answered which cases he was referring to. I find that unfortunate, perhaps he will clarify soon.

There seems to be a lot of knee jerk reactions to this OP, Savage is not suggesting nor implying Obama will offer up
a RW'er to the court. The OP fairly reports on Obama's statements, they should be left curious by them imo.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #41
44. Perhaps because Obama made absolutely no references to any cases, only the 2 people who
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 01:39 PM by sinkingfeeling
wrote this story talked about past SCOTUS decisions.

My problem with this article is the authors put words and meanings into Obama's rather uncontroversial 3 quotes. The very first sentence causes alarm bells, "In a seeming rejection of liberal orthodoxy, President Obama has spoken disparagingly about liberal victories before the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s — suggesting that justices made the “error” of overstepping their bounds and trampling on the role of elected officials."

Where did he do this? The first thing they quoted was President Obama saying, “It used to be that the notion of an activist judge was somebody who ignored the will of Congress, ignored democratic processes, and tried to impose judicial solutions on problems instead of letting the process work itself through politically.” This is merely a definition of an activist judge.

He then says, “And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.” The subject of that sentence is 'the feeling', not 'my feeling' nor 'the evidence'. The feeling in the 60s and 70s was/is that liberals took the approach to activism. And he now sees the conservative judges taking the same approach to judicial activism. True or not?

The final quote, “The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”

Then the authors determine that those few sentences equate Obama to those of conservatives who call the rulings of the Warren and Burger courts 'dubious. I find that out-of-line.

'Mr. Obama’s comments, which came as he prepares to make a Supreme Court nomination, amounted to the most sympathetic statement by a sitting Democratic president about the conservative view that the Warren and Burger courts — which expanded criminal defendant rights, required busing to desegregate schools and declared a right to abortion — were dominated by “liberal judicial activists” whose rulings were dubious.'

They just keep making up stuff: "But his remarks went notably further by drawing an equivalence to rulings a generation ago that have been widely celebrated by liberals as historic achievements." And "Still, his statement seemed to call into question subsequent liberal legal victories." (Where in his remarks?) And " Several conservatives said they welcomed an acknowledgment by a Democratic president that the courts led by Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger had sometimes overstepped their role." (Who said it?)


Almost all other stories on this brief conversation with the President were titled something like, "Obama warns of a 'conservative' judicial activism'. But the NYT writers see it as a slam to liberal courts? UH?





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. “The concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways.”
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 01:54 PM by frylock
feel free to enlighten us with your interpretation. to me it reads as "the other side is doing it too."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #46
47. What can I say? To me, it means the concept of judicial restraint cuts both ways. See nothing wrong
with either the concept of judicial restraint nor of it applying to both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #47
48. but why even bring it up?
he couldn't even cite examples of judicial activism from the left. he can continue to ds the righties all he wants. they are never EVER going to accept him. meanwhile, it's bullfuckingshit statements like this that continue to alienate the left.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. "Where did he do this?"
Right here: “And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”

It is Obama that uses the language,"guilty", and keep in mind Savage uses the term "May" in the title. Also, which I referenced earlier,
Obama has not responded to which cases he was referring, despite the WH was asked to respond. The language of guilty suggests disapproval.


They just keep making up stuff: They did? No, they did not, because Obama was not specific, he gave a generalized opinion of a liberal
court. That is why I said to you previously, I hope he clarifies himself.

"But his remarks went notably further by drawing an equivalence to rulings a generation ago that have been widely celebrated by liberals as historic achievements." And "Still, his statement seemed to call into question subsequent liberal legal victories." (Where in his remarks?)

Obama refers to guilt, that is what directly implies he calls into question the SCOTUS decisions. Btw, I'm not the only progressive concerned
by his remarks. "That troubled some liberals, including Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. He agreed with Mr. Obama’s definition of “judicial activism,” but said he had “a concern about his effort to establish a moral equivalency between the Warren court and the Roberts court.”





And " Several conservatives said they welcomed an acknowledgment by a Democratic president that the courts led by Chief Justices Earl Warren and Warren Burger had sometimes overstepped their role." (Who said it?) Orin Hatch was one, but there are a few others.


Obviously since Obama referenced the 60's and 70's he gives us a time frame, but not much else to go by to explain his comments. I will add
I have complete confidence that he is not questioning Roe v Wade, but there were many important matters before the court during that time frame.

I would like to know which cases he disagreed with.


This author Savage, has won a Pulitzer Prize for his in depth account of the Bush regime, and the historical expansion of the executive
branch. His reputation is exemplary imo.

I will end by stating, I don't see this OP as a hit on Obama, but a fair look at the curious statements Obama has made on the subject.

Thanks for the respectful conversation sinkingfeeling.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #51
53. I truly don't see his statement as saying the liberal courts were 'guilty' of anything. He said the
'feeling' in the '60s and '70s and even now, is that the liberal courts were approaching 'judicial activism' as is the current one. Never does he say 'I feel that' or 'I think that'. He talked about the overall national perception of those courts that the RW is constantly yammering about.

Just like the quote from his book, I took as a gentle rebuke to progressives for our lack of patience. I don't have the book nor have I ever read it, but I do grow impatient awaiting the SCOTUS to declare all anti-gay bills illegal under the Constitution and dream of having a left-leaning activist SCOTUS before I die.

I thank you for your conversation as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tutankhamun Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:37 PM
Response to Reply #44
56. Yes, these writers are clearly twisting what Obama said to suit what they want to say.
It's incredibly disingenuous, and they're not fooling anyone who does even the most rudimentary bit of critical thinking.

I can't believe people are actually disputing this on DU, and bickering so much about something so clear. This is DU, people. It's normally populated (for the most part) by intelligent, rational, clear-thinking folks. This thread is unusual for DU in its high ratio of bickering to actual critical thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
49. same quotes..
"In the '60s and '70s, the feeling was, is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach," Obama said. "What you're now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
surrealAmerican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #24
50. Thank you.
That really is the point he was was getting across, apparent ineffectively as far as that reporter is concerned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Demeter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
43. Overreached WHAT??!!
A couple of baby steps towards the modern sensibilities, and then 3 giant steps back?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
54. So Obama feels that Brown v. Board of Education was wrongly decided?
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 03:50 PM by IndianaGreen
He certainly feels, like Justice Scalia does, that Miranda was a liberal overreach. Obama prefers the cops to torture a suspect until he or she confesses.

What a righwing point of view!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 05:04 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. No, Obama confined his remarks to the 60's and 70's, Brown
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 05:05 PM by Jefferson23
was decided before that time. You don't really believe he would be against the Brown v. Board of Ed decision!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. The right to privacy and reproductive freedom was likely what he was referring to
although one could also go with Miranda, Escobedo, Gideon, Mapp, Tinker or some of the affirmative action or desegregation enforcement cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jefferson23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 08:20 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. No, and I'll tell you why. Obama has made it very clear he supports
Roe v Wade, he has been on the record about that on many levels through his career.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Comments that he's made make me suspect that as a legal doctrine, his support is limited
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 08:30 PM by depakid
He's used the ban so called "partial birth" (the rare medical procedure D&X) to attempt to gain support from the anti-abortion and anti-contraception crowd on a number of occasions- and in fact, when you read Douglas' opinion in the leading case (Griswold) it does have show a style of jurisprudence that could be called "results oriented" or activist in upholding the right to privacy (in reproductive freedom, i.e. overturning criminal laws that jailed physicians discussing and promoting contraception).

Note: Roe is no longer controlling law. That decision (the core right to reproductive freedom) has been modified/substantially weakened by Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scentopine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 07:55 PM
Response to Original message
57. Sheesh, what next from our "centrist" purists, opening up off shore oil drilling?
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 07:56 PM by scentopine
Liberals are hated by the two main stream political parties. Our quality of life is not in a death spiral because of liberals, Mr. Obama.

Mr. President, how about staying focused on a few facts that centrists and other conservatives don't like to talk about:

Moderates, centrists, and other conservatives told us that by

- moving manufacturing to Mexico, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- destroying the unions, we would all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- moving manufacturing from Mexico to China, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- moving engineering design and development jobs to India and China, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- moving service jobs to India, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- passing NAFTA, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- deregulating the Savings and Loan industry, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- deregulating the energy industry, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- deregulating Wall Street, we'd all prosper. We did and things got worse in America.

- occupying Afghanistan, we'd all be safer. We did and things got worse in America.

- occupying Iraq, we'd all be safer. We did and things got worse in America.

- excusing war crimes, torture, wire tapping, we'd all be safer. We did and things got worse in America.

Now Obama can add his share of philosophies on top of the neo-lib/neo-con bone pile of shitty ideas:

That by

- having insurance lobbyists and for-profit health corporations write health policy, we'll all prosper.

- opening up the Eastern seaboard for oil drilling, we'll all prosper.

- destroying teacher unions and privatizing public education, we'll all prosper.

- negotiating more "free trade" agreements, we'll all prosper.

Any ideas on how those last four will work out?

As long as liberals keep getting a big fuck you from the democrats and republicans, things will get worse in America.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Unvanguard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
58. This is in accordance with the public's view and may help him appoint a liberal nominee.
It is politics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-30-10 08:01 PM
Response to Original message
59. The constitutional law lecturer trying to have it both ways again
Edited on Fri Apr-30-10 08:01 PM by depakid
One can see why he chose not to publish law review articles... as he seems to miss the differences in various forms or movements in jurisprudence.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 12:01 AM
Response to Original message
63. Dude, there are times to pontificate and there are times to just STFU
I can help you figure out which one this one is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 12:02 AM
Response to Original message
64. Who is this man? I swear I have a love/hate relationship with this President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tavalon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
65. I don't believe I've ever seen a thread with more "ignored"
littering the field. I'm actually wondering if it's just one or all six of my ignored ones on one thread. Of course, I'm not wondering enough to take them off ignore. I'm rather proud that I only have six ignored. I don't ignore a person for disagreeing with me on one or fifty things. I ignore people that I find, after quite a bit of time, have nothing to offer me as far as new ideas and much to offer me in terms of annoyance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoeyT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 09:18 AM
Response to Original message
66. What he said is actually open to quite a bit of interpretation.
And in the ’60s and ’70s, the feeling was — is that liberals were guilty of that kind of approach. What you’re now seeing, I think, is a conservative jurisprudence that oftentimes makes the same error.”
That strikes me as saying the court is too packed with neo-cons right now and needs some balancing out. It isn't as if every one of us doesn't think the court has gone too far to the right. If I were going to push for a liberal(ish) judge, that's the sort of thing I'd be saying too. Actually I'd say it no matter who I was going to choose because the MSM is going to brand any judge he picks as liberal fringe.

If he'd said "In the '60s and '70s liberals were guilty of that kind of approach." I'd be yelling about it too. That isn't what he said. This looks like an attempt to cut off the "OMFG leeeebral activist judge!" crap Fox and the other morons will scream about. Which kind of makes it a non-issue for us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 06:38 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Editorials & Other Articles Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC