• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama’s Outcome Based Jurisprudence

    Following the news that Justice Souter will be retiring this summer after the Supreme Court’s present term ends, President Obama dropped into the White House briefing room this afternoon and commented on how what he will be looking for in a replacement. Unfortunately, his remarks were in keeping with his prior statements during the campaign and when he voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts. His words should upset Americans who overwhelmingly want justices who recognize their responsibility and duty to adhere to the Constitution and to apply the laws passed by Congress – not make new law based on their own personal, political, and social beliefs.

    Obama said that he will “seek someone who understands justice and isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book.” He apparently wants someone who knows “how our laws affect the daily realities of people’s lives; whether they can make a living and care for their families; whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy and understanding and identifying what people’s hopes and struggles are as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.”

    These are code words for placing a justice on the Supreme Court who will not be impartial or objective and who will not apply the laws passed by Congress and the provisions of the Constitution framed by our Founders. Obama’s actions since he has been in office make it clear that he believes that the limits the Constitution places on the power of the government are just “some abstract legal theory.” His comments shows that Obama wants a judge who has the same political and social views he does, and who will bend, break, and ignore the Constitution to obtain the political and societal results that liberals want – especially if they cannot obtain them through the legislative process.

    Americans want an umpire on the Court who applies the rules of the Constitution and our laws in an objective, nonpartial manner; President Obama apparently wants an umpire who bends or makes up the rules to favor his team. Our constitutional system and its careful balance of power is premised on judges who carry out their roles as judges, not legislators or social activists.

    The President’s views should sound an alarm not just throughout the legal community. Citizens whose daily lives are affected more and more by the decisions made by the Supreme Court should be alarmed as well.

    Posted in Legal [slideshow_deploy]

    6 Responses to Obama’s Outcome Based Jurisprudence

    1. MAS1916 - Denver, CO says:

      So the rule of law will be extended to provide a 'legitimate' or 'intended' outcome? And who will decide such things?

      This will throw our legal system into a death spiral if the justice system will be reapplied to determining things like fairness. What then of the legislature?

      This is such a dangerous slope. The Obama types need to consider what might happen if conservatives ever got in full control of the judiciary. They would be very afraid.

    2. Thomas, Anchorage, A says:

      President Obama's wants in a judge sound like using a bingo cage full of numbers to perform a computation, rather than a calculator.

      In terms of a justice, why not have a computer equipped only with the Constitution and a search engine sitting in his place?

    3. Rick, Tennessee says:

      Outcome-based jurisprudence is antithetical to the rule of law. The modern liberal philosphy of jurisprudence is epitomized by it however.

      In their view, a jurist looks at the situation, decides what ought to be done to correct some injustice or inequity, and then retrofits their reasoning to support their pre-determined decision.

      This is rule by men – not by law. In the liberal calculus, they want to put supposedly wise men in positions of power – and then let them do whatever the hell they want, trusting to their sense of wisdom and decency to do the right thing.

      It is sad to realize that the rule of law is so widely viewed as an impediment to justice these days. It harks to mankind's primitive past where the question was not so much whether humanity should be subject to the whims of those in power as it was to hoping they would wield their power in your favor.

    4. Barb -mn says:

      He wants to break down civil law. Empathize excuses to give in…change laws.

    5. Maureen, CT says:

      Rick, Tennessee -

      "This is rule by men – not by law. In the liberal calculus, they want to put supposedly wise men in positions of power – and then let them do whatever the hell they want, trusting to their sense of wisdom and decency to do the right thing."

      Isn't that a definition of a legislature – a legislature which a judiciary, based on law, is designed to check? Why do we need another legislature to muddy the waters?

    6. Pingback: ADF Alliance Alert » Obama’s outcome based jurisprudence

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×