Diraker
07-10-2008, 11:30 AM
http://www.slate.com/id/2195008
Constitutional Drift
Obama veers to the right, but does he need to take the Constitution with him?
But perhaps the most important fight over the Constitution facing Obama is not about the Constitution itself, but over the composition of the Supreme Court. McCain has signaled that he plans to campaign hard on the issue—taking numerous opportunities to excoriate "judicial activists" and promise more jurists like Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. McCain pledges that he wants to appoint only judges who would "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States" (whatever that means). And Obama should welcome this debate; it's one he should win hands down, but he won't be able to capitalize on his strengths unless he can change the way progressive candidates talk about judging and the Supreme Court.
...
Obama doesn't have to stumble here. Nor should he maintain the curious silence that leaves his supporters wondering about his constitutional values. A growing number of Americans believe the Roberts Court is too conservative. Polls indicate that the public likes progressive judicial results: The public responds favorably to questions asking whether judges should strongly protect civil rights and civil liberties, rule for the powerless over the powerful, and ensure broad access to justice. Put simply, Americans want to live in Justice Stevens' America, not in Clarence Thomas'.
Not the greatest article but it does talk about the things that concern me. This election is about the Supreme Court and I'm glad at least some people agree. I also think it's extremely important to talk about these things if only to keep it on people's mind. It's so easy to get caught up in silliness regarding electioneering (flag lapel pins, bad jokes, etc) that the important issues often get swept aside.
Anyway I was never an Obama fan and I'm even less of one now. I just Hope(tm) that he wins and if he wins he doesn't help usher in another conservative* (oh labels) minded Supreme Court judge. Remember that currently there is a 5 - 4 liberal* majority on the court. One judicial nominee can change that balance and turn the courts over to people like Scalia and Thomas. Couple this with the fact that the courts have been stacked with very conservative right wing religionists* (for lack of a better word...like those Liberty University Pat Roberstson types) for the past 10 years and there is potential for real badness if SCOTUS goes to a conservative* majority. Bottom line is that a conservative* majority on the Supreme Court is the religious right's* wet dream. The culmination of their 30 years of political effort.
* these are all political terms that we adopt when talking poltics. They aren't meant to insult or disparage. If you don't like certain labels, it's not my fault. It's the labels that people use. I didn't make them up. If you feel the need to complain about the adjectives I use, take your complaints to the media and politicians who use them 1,000,000 times a day.
Constitutional Drift
Obama veers to the right, but does he need to take the Constitution with him?
But perhaps the most important fight over the Constitution facing Obama is not about the Constitution itself, but over the composition of the Supreme Court. McCain has signaled that he plans to campaign hard on the issue—taking numerous opportunities to excoriate "judicial activists" and promise more jurists like Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. McCain pledges that he wants to appoint only judges who would "strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States" (whatever that means). And Obama should welcome this debate; it's one he should win hands down, but he won't be able to capitalize on his strengths unless he can change the way progressive candidates talk about judging and the Supreme Court.
...
Obama doesn't have to stumble here. Nor should he maintain the curious silence that leaves his supporters wondering about his constitutional values. A growing number of Americans believe the Roberts Court is too conservative. Polls indicate that the public likes progressive judicial results: The public responds favorably to questions asking whether judges should strongly protect civil rights and civil liberties, rule for the powerless over the powerful, and ensure broad access to justice. Put simply, Americans want to live in Justice Stevens' America, not in Clarence Thomas'.
Not the greatest article but it does talk about the things that concern me. This election is about the Supreme Court and I'm glad at least some people agree. I also think it's extremely important to talk about these things if only to keep it on people's mind. It's so easy to get caught up in silliness regarding electioneering (flag lapel pins, bad jokes, etc) that the important issues often get swept aside.
Anyway I was never an Obama fan and I'm even less of one now. I just Hope(tm) that he wins and if he wins he doesn't help usher in another conservative* (oh labels) minded Supreme Court judge. Remember that currently there is a 5 - 4 liberal* majority on the court. One judicial nominee can change that balance and turn the courts over to people like Scalia and Thomas. Couple this with the fact that the courts have been stacked with very conservative right wing religionists* (for lack of a better word...like those Liberty University Pat Roberstson types) for the past 10 years and there is potential for real badness if SCOTUS goes to a conservative* majority. Bottom line is that a conservative* majority on the Supreme Court is the religious right's* wet dream. The culmination of their 30 years of political effort.
* these are all political terms that we adopt when talking poltics. They aren't meant to insult or disparage. If you don't like certain labels, it's not my fault. It's the labels that people use. I didn't make them up. If you feel the need to complain about the adjectives I use, take your complaints to the media and politicians who use them 1,000,000 times a day.