Just do what I
The items on this page are stored in the order of discovery.
|When the nomination of John Roberts as chief justice of the Supreme
Court came up in the Senate in 2005,
Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the "weak" over
When the nomination of Sam Alito as an associate justice came up in
January 2006, he made the same argument.
Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he
wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law.
So, in Obama's vision, who are the "weak" and who are the "strong"?
Who deserves to win the "hearts" of Supreme Court justices? Who
In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America
together, Obama's Senate speeches against Justices Roberts and Alito
revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women,
employees and criminal defendants were among the weak; majorities, men,
employers and prosecutors among the strong.
|April 29th, -- George Will posed thirteen questions for Obama.
The first -- "Senator, concerning the criteria by which you will
nominate judges, you said: 'We need somebody who's got the heart, the
empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom.
The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or
African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old.' Such sensitivities
might serve an admirable legislator, but what have they to do with
judging? Should a judge side with whichever party in a controversy
stirs his or her empathy? Is such personalization of the judicial
function inimical to the rule of law?"
And there's twelve more critical questions at
this link -- worth a
|A Hillary Payoff?
|Expectations among Senate Democrats are rising that if elected
president, Barack Obama will reward Sen. Hillary Clinton's support with
Supreme Court nomination when one opens.
"It's the talk up here," says a key Senate aide. While confirmation
would be difficult, the move is being encouraged by her supporters as a
way for Obama to acknowledge Clinton's historic run for the White House.
"It would have a more lasting impact than being president."
Now, there's a truly scary notion.
As if Obama himself wasn't enough reason to vote for "anyone else," the
thought of "Justice Clinton"
ought to get the "I won't vote for McCain" conservatives down to the polls.
|The conservative-leaning Committee for Justice (CJ) is
trying to rile supporters with a "Top
10" list of things to expect from the Supreme Court should Barack
Obama be elected president and appoint his desired justices
"That very real possibility should frighten conservatives all the more
when they consider that 1) by the end of an 8-year Obama presidency,
Justices Scalia and Kennedy would be 80 years old, an age most men never
reach, and 2) given the damage the Supreme Court has done to the rule of
law since 1969, imagine what the Court would do if it regained a "solid
Given Obama’s stances on various issues, CJ compiled this list with what
their group believes Obama’s appointed justices would be capable of
10. Expanding and perpetuating the use of racial preferences
9. Creating new constitutional rights to physician-assisted suicide and
8. Expanding judicial oversight of military detentions and CIA
7. Prohibiting tuition vouchers for religious schools
6. Banning the death penalty
5. Requiring taxpayers to fund essentially unlimited abortion rights
4. Creating new constitutional rights to massive government welfare and
medical care programs
3. Stripping "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance
2. Eroding property rights
1. Ordering all 50 states to bless gay marriage
|Obama The Destroyer
|Jeffrey T. Kuhner says stacking the high court
is key to finishing off traditional America.
Obama is subverting
the Supreme Court. His latest pick for the high court, Solicitor
General Elena Kagan, is a radical leftist who would rubber-stamp Obama's
transformative socialist agenda. She is not an independent,
serious nominee, but an Obama ideological clone.
Court is the nation's highest legal body. It represents the apex
of a separate branch of government designed to serve as a pivotal check
and balance against the executive and legislative branches. A
functioning democracy based on the rule of law depends upon an
independent judiciary -- especially, a Supreme Court immune from the
corrosive grasp of political power.
This is why dictators and
socialist autocrats often seek to control their nations' supreme courts:
By imposing their will on the high court they can bend the nation's
judiciary to submit to their rule. Dominating the high court
removes a major institutional bulwark to consolidating state power.
Hence, our Founding Fathers believed that Supreme Court justices should
be individuals of the highest intelligence, character, moral integrity,
political independence and fair-minded temperament. They are not -- and
should never be -- partisan hacks.
Ms. Kagan is unfit to sit on
the high court. She is an incompetent apparatchik, whose only purpose is
to blindly advance Obama's revolutionary progressivism. She
possesses no judicial experience; never once being a judge. Her
litigation background is thin. She is neither an accomplished
lawyer nor jurist. She is no Oliver Wendell Holmes.
liberal defenders insist Kagan has a first-rate legal mind. She is
an academic, having served as dean of Harvard Law School. This
supposedly qualifies her to be on the Supreme Court. It does not.
Unlike other constitutional scholars, Kagan has not written any books.
Her body of written work is sparse and shallow. Besides several
articles and book reviews, she has produced nothing of consequence.
She is a mediocre bureaucrat, who has excelled mostly at climbing the
greasy pole of academic politics.
Moreover, Kagan was a corrupt
administrator, who turned a blind eye to plagiarism by prominent Harvard
faculty members. Confronted by overwhelming evidence that scholars
Laurence Tribe and Charles Ogletree -- two leading liberals on campus --
had pulled word-for-word, direct material from other authors, she
effectively gave them a slap on the wrist. If students had
committed the same offense, they would have been rightly suspended or
expelled. She oversaw the creation of a two-tier system: one set
of rules for leftist academics, another one for the student body.
As dean, she prevented military recruiters from coming on campus.
The reason: She opposed the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy on
homosexuals serving in the military. Her active opposition to
military recruitment took place during a time of war. American troops
were fighting -- and dying -- in Iraq and Afghanistan. They needed
every soldier and official possible. Kagan's dogmatic liberalism
The real -- and only -- reason Kagan has
been selected is that she is a partisan ideologue. She worked as a
policy aide under the Clinton administration. She is Obama's
solicitor general, arguing the administration's cases before the Supreme
Court. Abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, school prayer,
the war on terror, the constitutional legitimacy of Obamacare -- she
will vote the Obama line on every issue.
here . . .
Obama Amps Up Liberal
says that up until now, Obama’s lower court nominees up have been
fairly milquetoast -- run-of-the-mill liberals with relatively tame
political agendas. But judicial observers say that
Goodwin Liu, Obama’s nominee to the uber-liberal
Ninth Circuit court, is a horse of a different color.
Goodwin Liu’s world, the Constitution requires redistribution of
economic resources pretty much on a Marxist basis, to those according to
their need from those according to their ability," said Ilya Shapiro, a
legal analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute. "He thinks that
because there’s a social consensus, he believes people should have
things like food and health care, as a matter of policy."
Indeed, in 2006, Liu argued that the 14th Amendment should be
interpreted to include "basic employment supports such as expanded
health insurance, child care, transportation subsidies, job training,
and a robust earned income tax credit."
Liu’s record also
includes explicit support for extending these rights to illegal aliens.
In his view, the United States government is obligated to provide child
care and health insurance to everyone within our borders.
should not use the concept of citizenship to deny education to
noncitizen children, not least because the Equal Protection Clause
extends to 'persons,'" he wrote.
This assessment of the 14th
Amendment, and the Equal Protection clause, is one of the most severe
examples of liberal constitutional interpretation in recent memory, says
Shapiro. But Liu’s appointment as Associate Dean and Professor of
Law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law makes him
uniquely suited to disseminate those views from an authoritative
Liu is widely published in legal journals and has held
high-ranking positions in the American Civil Liberties Council of
California, as well as the liberal American Constitution Society of
Northern California and the National Women’s Law Center. He’s
testified in front of Congress on numerous occasions, and his opinion
frequently appears in national media outlets.
"He purports to
advocate an approach based on constitutional fidelity," said Shapiro.
"What this means to Liu is fidelity policy ideas of progressive judges
that are interpreting the Constitution."
Liu is staunchly
against a traditional view of marriage and has ruled in favor of
lawsuits protesting the mention of "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Before becoming a judge and academic, Liu practiced law for only two
There are enough Democratic Senators to make Liu’s
confirmation, slated for next month, a likely prospect. But
momentum has not yet built around this nominee, and given his record,
that might not be a good thing for him.
|Obama’s Judicial Nominee Hides Leftwing
is reporting that the ardently leftist California law school professor nominated by
Obama to become a federal appellate court judge suspiciously concealed
more than 100 of his most controversial speeches, publications and other
background materials from the U.S. Senate committee that screens
Obama’s pick to fill a vacancy on the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals, UC Berkeley Professor
Goodwin Liu, conveniently omitted a mountain of contentious material
that could hurt his confirmation process. The records shed light
on Liu’s leftist positions in areas such as "constitutional welfare
rights," affirmative action, judicial activism and immigration.
The 39-year-old scholar, who has practiced
law for only three years, hid questionable speeches on affirmative
action, his participation at events sponsored by the notoriously
leftwing Center for Social Justice and the influential Latino advocacy
group National Council of La Raza, among others, from the
Senate Judiciary Committee.
This week the committee’s ranking member,
Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions, said Liu’s nomination is in jeopardy
after the "extraordinary
omission of 117 Items from record." At best, this nominee’s
extraordinary disregard for the committee’s constitutional role
demonstrates incompetence; at worst, it creates the impression that he
knowingly attempted to hide his most controversial work from the
committee, Session says.
omissions" were reluctantly provided by Liu only after the committee
discovered them independently and are detailed in a lengthy letter from
Republican members to Chairman Patrick Leahy. Among them is Liu’s
commencement speech to UC Berkeley Law, his participation in a panel
entitled "What the 2008 Election Will Mean for the Supreme Court," and
his participation in a presentation entitled "The Fate of Affirmative
Action from the O’Connor Court to
the Roberts Court."
Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, has praised Liu as a "great American
story," and claims he has "sterling credentials." The son of
Taiwanese immigrants, Liu will bring
much-needed diversity to the federal bench, Leahy says, because
there are currently no active Asian American federal appeals court
judges in the country.
Liu should fit right in at the ridiculously
liberal 9th Circuit which has been overturned more than any
other court and covers Alaska, Arizona,
California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,
and the Northern Marianas. Among
rulings of note is that a violent felon with multiple convictions
can’t be deported because tattooed criminals like him are harassed by
gangs and police in his native
|Obama Wants Judges To Promote Agenda
says that as Obama considers his options for a Supreme Court
vacancy, Senate Republicans are preparing to use the upcoming hearings
to explore what they say is the expanded role of government under the
Obama presidency, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee
told ABC News.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said in an interview
that Republicans are planning a sharp focus on Obama's approach to
governance -- regardless of who he nominates -- to ensure that the
newest member of the high court won't be a "rubber-stamp" for the Obama
"It's pretty clear to me that President Obama sees
judges as allies in an effort to promote an agenda he thinks is best for
the country," Sessions said. "And a lot of people see it that way
-- he's just part of that movement."
|Should Conservatives Go to War over Kagan?
reports that Obama is expected to nominate Elena Kagan to the
Supreme Court today. The question for conservatives is whether they
should oppose such a nomination, and, if so, how hard. Chris Good
I asked Carrie Severino, chief counsel and
policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network (a conservative group
focused on judicial nominees) what conservatives are going to say
about Kagan, and what Kagan’s "wise Latina" moment, if there is one,
will prove to be.
"She has been much more careful than
Justice Sotomayor. She never would have said something like
that even if she thinks it. She’s been so careful for so long
that no one seems to know exactly what she does think," Severino
Severino attended Harvard Law School, where
Kagan served as dean. She asked fellow Harvard people about
Kagan’s tenure as dean. "Everyone came back with the same
perspective, which was she was careful to never say anything on the
record, or off the record, to anyone about her own opinions, so I
think she’s been carefully shepherding her image for a long time,
possibly ever since her DC circuit nomination by President Clinton,
so that’s a long time to effectively live on the short list."
This is not to say that Kagan would take an
originalist view of the Constitution or that her support for law
schools’ position on military recruiters doesn’t betray a willingness to
conflate liberal policy goals with Constitutional interpretation.
But is she as objectionable as a judge, for example, who went to great
lengths to support racial quotas and delivered the "wise Latina" speech?
Well, one can bemoan her lack of judicial experience and scant writing
record but should her nomination be opposed with a full court press?
At this point -- and more might be revealed in hearings and upon the
examination of her written work -- I would think not. She frankly
has not proven herself to be as adept a legal scholar as someone like
Diane Wood, who would wow and sway the other justices. (It is
intellectual argumentation rather than social charm that makes the
difference on the Court.) So there could be worse -- that is, more
"dangerous" picks from a conservative perspective. Kagan has not
made her life’s work the promotion of minority victimology. She
isn’t without academic qualifications. So, while she’s not a judge
conservatives would nominate, it’s hard to conceive of a reason for
rigorously blocking her nomination.
This is the price of losing
elections: the other side gets to govern and thus help shape the
direction of the courts. It’s a reminder to find adept
presidential nominees who can win and who will nominate judges at all
levels who appreciate the proper role of the courts in our democratic
|Obama Nominates Himself
says writing in the Washington Post in February, law professor
Jeffrey Rosen made the provocative suggestion that President Obama
should nominate himself to the Supreme Court. On Monday, Obama ended up
doing just that.
Well, sort of.
In Elena Kagan, who is
just one year apart from him in age, Obama has found somebody whose
biography, temperament, and values (as far as they are known) closely
resemble his own. Kagan and Obama Go Way Back. They
met at University of Chicago in the '90s.
Like Obama, Kagan
graduated Harvard Law School and taught law at the University of
Chicago. Look into the backgrounds of Obama and Kagan, and you’ll find
evidence of radicalism that was tempered by personal ambition. Obama
served as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review and Kagan
was the school’s first female dean, and they both had a reputation for
treating conservatives fairly, despite ideological disagreements. Just
as Obama ran for president on a thin public record, Kagan doesn’t offer
much of a paper trail, leaving her views on many key issues open to
In 1980, according to the Daily Princetonian, Kagan
got drunk on election night after liberal Democrat Elizabeth Holtzman
lost a Senate race in New York, and regularly wrote editorials taking
ideologically liberal positions.
"Where I grew up -- on
Manhattan’s Upper West Side -- nobody ever admitted to voting for
Republicans," Kagan wrote after that election, according to the New York
Times. As a child growing up in New York City, she wrote, those who
were elected to political office were "real Democrats -- not the closet
Republicans that one sees so often these days but men and women
committed to liberal principles and motivated by the ideal of an
affirmative and compassionate government."
As her undergraduate
thesis topic, Kagan chose to write about the demise of the American
socialist movement, a story which she called "a sad but also a
chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s
decline, still wish to change America.... In unity lies their only
She explained in the acknowledgements that her brother’s
"involvement in radical causes led me to explore the history of American
radicalism in the hope of clarifying my own political ideas."
While such statements will be repeated within conservative circles, they
are unlikely to seriously damage her confirmation chances, just as
connections to terrorist Bill Ayers, former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi,
and Rev. Jeremiah Wright didn’t prove fatal to Obama’s presidential
She has no judging experience.
little experience as a practicing lawyer.
approximately one year of experience as Solicitor General of the
She has lots of experience in academia, but
has published only a small amount of scholarly work, none of which
seems particularly noteworthy.
As the dean of Harvard Law
School, she was tolerant of conservative law professors, but not of
the United States military.
|Most Transparent Administration Ever
|The Kagan Watch blog is
reporting that in a letter to Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking
Republican on the Judiciary Committee,
Robert Bauer, counsel to
Obama, implied Obama may use executive privilege to hide some memos
Elena Kagan wrote when she served in the Clinton White House.
"President Obama does not intend to assert executive privilege over any
of the documents requested by the Committee," Bauer writes.
course, President Clinton also has an interest in these records, and his
representative is reviewing them now," he adds.
library has more than 150,000 documents related to Elena Kagan that show
Kagan to be a zealous, doctrinaire liberal.
This is one of the few sources we have to know what Kagan thinks on many
Read the letter
Related: Documents Show Kagan's Liberal
Opinion on Social Issues.
|Our New Dictator May Be In Deep trouble
|According to sources who watch the inner
workings of the federal government, a
smackdown of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be
Ever since Obama usurped the Oval Office, critics
have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues.
have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run
headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of
the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early
in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First
Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads
during the time of an election.
The tongue-lashing clearly did
not sit well with the Court, as
demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who
publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, "That's not true," when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling.
As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the
relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the
federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he
blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of
every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood
for over 200 years. Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts
as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh,
Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote
on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no
intention of retiring until "Obama is gone."
Court has had enough.
The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very
subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about
which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against
Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the
Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
here . . .
|Has The Supreme Court Rendered Itself
says it seems that history -- and literature -- are known to repeat
themselves. I refer to the short story printed in 1894 by a
certain A. C. Doyle entitled "Silver Blaze" which contains what must be
one of the better-known Sherlock Holmes comments when Holmes mused
about, "… the curious incident of the dog in the night-time …".
"The dog did nothing in the night-time." -- and Holmes responded:
"That was the curious incident."
That exchange of course
brought me to the title for this commentary. Just as in the Silver
Blaze story when the Scotland Yard detective interjected his comment, it
was abundantly clear that in the recent case of Kerchner et al v. Obama
et al that the Supreme Court Justices also did nothing. The real
question, then, becomes WHY??
If you studied the legal
submissions of Attorney Apuzzo in the case, you would see that not only
were the sham objections and legal fictions of "standing," etc. created
out of whole cloth by the Justice Department well overcome by the
submissions, but the Court even ignored the words of Chief Justice John
Marshall (called "The Great Justice" for good reason) when in Cohens v.
Virginia (1821) it was concluded in a unanimous decision that the
Supreme Court had jurisdiction to review state criminal proceedings.
Chief Justice Marshall wrote that the Court was bound to hear all cases
that involved constitutional questions, and that this jurisdiction was
not dependent on the identity of the parties in the cases.
Marshall argued that state laws and constitutions, when repugnant to the
Constitution and federal laws, were "absolutely void."
exact words on the matter in that case were:
It is most true that this Court will not
take jurisdiction if it should not; but it is equally true that it
must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as
the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the
confines of the Constitution. We cannot pass it by because it
is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties,
a case may be attended, we must decide it if it be brought before
us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of
jurisdiction which is given than to usurp that which is not given.
The one or the other would be treason to the Constitution.
Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid, but we cannot avoid
them. All we can do is to exercise our best judgment and
conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this on the
present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate
jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution and laws of
the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we
cannot insert one.
… and yet the Justices (or at least six of them)
took it upon themselves, like Holmes’ dog in the night, to remain
silent, and by doing so committed "… treason to the Constitution …" as
Marshall mentioned. Even the two Obama-appointed Justices chose to
NOT recuse themselves although they had ample financial, political, and
professional standing reasons for doing so. Most people would
recognize -- at the very least -- the appearance of partiality or bias
by Sotomayor and Kagan as being beholden to the person who appointed
them if not their multimillion-dollar financial windfall that such a
lifetime appointment entails (say, 35 years at $150,000 per year, or
about $5.25 million apiece).
All of the above makes one wonder if
the observation by Sherlock Holmes does not indeed apply here in "The
Curious Incident of the Justices That Did Not Bark!!!" when indeed they
most assuredly should have.
Then again, perhaps the Justices are
no worse that the figurehead who appointed them since he has chosen to
"not bark" about his early life records also. The oddest thing is
what Holmes had noted -- why did no one not notice and pursue the
Copyright Beckwith 2010
All right reserved