Proving true a couple old adages about blind squirrels finding nuts and broken clocks being right twice a day, Barack Obama today denounced the Supreme Court ruling making it illegal to put child rapists to death.
But of course, rulings like this one and the ruling granting habeas corpus right to enemy combatants, come directly from appointing judges who hold the philosophy he holds, as John Hawkins of Right Wing News pointed out recently:
A constitutional law professor should, one would think, understand the role of the federal judiciary. As should be apparent to anyone with a clue, and I don't include Senator Obama in that particular group, what he is claiming isn't anywhere close to the traditional role of the federal judiciary. What he is advocating is legislation from the bench based on emotion and empathy, not the Constitution.
Here, in plain English, is the role, of the federal judiciary found in an introduction to the US Federal Court System for Judges and Judicial Administrators in Other Countries. It may be something a particular constitutional lawyer may wish to avail himself of:
The federal judiciary is a totally separate, selfgoverning branch of the government. The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, they determine facts and interpret the law to resolve legal disputes.
The courts do not make the laws. That is the responsibility of the Congress. Nor do the courts have the power to enforce the laws. That is the role of the President and the many executive branch departments and agencies. But the judicial branch has the authority to interpret and decide the constitutionality of federal laws and to resolve other disputes over federal laws.
Not a thing in that brief description approaches the Obama criteria for federal judges.
And folks, given the fact he may win this election, that should scare you half to death.
It's touching that Obama seems to care for young child rape victims more than the criminals who victimize them, but if you're going to appoint judges who promise to interject their own opinions into law, you're part of the problem. By the way, Obama voted against confirming two of the four dissenting judges in this case. Had Obama been choosing judges the last eight years, the vote would have been 7 to 2.
Recent Comments