The Heritage Foundation - Leadership for America

May 1, 2009 Paul Rinderle writes:

Sounds like subjective opinion or Souters decision in Roe vs Wade ie if its not in the Constitution make it up. Whats the definition of Is? Whats the definition of Marriage? If you do not like it ignore Websters dictionary.

May 1, 2009 MAS1916 - Denver, CO writes:

Seems that the Leader is now saying that justice is something that the Judiciary will itself define. So what of law and legal intent?

This is dangerous beyond description.

May 2, 2009 infinitewisdom4u, florida writes:

Essentially there are 2 immediate worries. The first is the strategy of gaining an upper hand for progressives on the supreme court make up. There is no doubt that for liberals to attain some of the goals they desire they will need the court balance to be dramatically shifted. Do they push for extremely radical left now or only slightly left? The second immediate worry is twofold in that BHO’s statements imply that judges presently seated are doing it all wrong by looking at law and not(in his view) at social circumstances and social direction. The other scary part of his statement is that his choice should share the same respect for constitutional values that he has. Despite BHO being a constitutional “scholar”, his own value system and thought process chafes at the idea of being so limited by the constitution. His complete belief system thinks that unrestrained capitalism (government minimized by the constitution) is the cause for all of societal problems. He believes HE can operate and manipulate the government in such a manner as to “fix” the problems and to do that he must overcome some of constitutional limitations (free speech and the attack on right wing radio) and even, fix some of the errors (2nd amendment) of the forefathers.
To do that he needs an activist minded panel on the supreme court. It will be interesting to see if a conservative judge suddenly announces plans to retire in the next six months. That is when it will get really dicey.

May 2, 2009 Barb -mn writes:

But the President hasn’t shown any example or any knowledge of the founding fathers he hasn’t been spinning.
Nor has he shown any discipline in favor of the constitution as he spins this also. This is nothing but appeasement
to the law breakers. He spoke of “his” respect for the rule of law? He must of had it rewritten to his terms.

As far as empathy, that leads to bias judgment. People have to be held to the accounts of their actions no matter
what their upbringing, or the irresponsibilities thereof. Excuses show weakness, the excuse of upbringing is one anybody can use as everybody has had one! Excuses are irresponsible, irresponsibilities effecting civil liberties of others are reprimanded. Not EXCUSED due to upbringing or personal situation. It’s an invitation to augment crime. If the court has to increase time for background checks regarding personal upbringing is another inept, inefficient, idiotic, spending excuse of time and money! …and a subconscious, threatening hint for the law abiding.

Reprimand/punishment promotes law abiding, innately. Builds personal strength, (something president is in opposition of) regardless of upbringing. No excuses necessary. Keep BIAS JUSTICE OUT! Focus on the situation at hand not the upbringing or the current life style the criminal allowed themself.

May 2, 2009 Christopher Regan,New Jersey writes:

The majority in America had better wake up because Obama is fundementaly changing the American way to satisfy every group that has a problem with America.Please think about how the country that you grew up in and love is about to be changed into something that doesn’t even remotely resemble the USA that you are so proud of.America first.

May 2, 2009 Steve Morris, Salem, NH writes:

It sounds like Obama’s pick for Souter’s replacement will have to be someone who doesn’t mind violating the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment in order for Obama’s version of social justice to be realized in America through the decisions of the Supreme Court.

May 2, 2009 Nolan, Nashville writes:

I felt a great deal safer before Mr. Obama took office. This is a scary thing - the only saving grace is that Mr. Souter, who claimed to be a moderate conservative, ended up falling on the liberal side his entire tenure, so the make-up of the bench will not change drastically.

May 2, 2009 Geronimo Washington State writes:

This might not necessarily be a bad idea. The candidate Obama chooses might feel empathy with the people who are being screwed over by the vast federal bureaucracy and base his decisions on individual freedoms vs. the desire of the Washington elite to micro manage our lives. He or she might put an emphasis on the law to stress those aspects of the Constitution more conductive to individual freedoms. Like so many of the justices put in by presidents who once in showed a different judicial-political orientation than what was hoped for by the administration, Obamas choice might come back to bite him in the rear.

May 2, 2009 diana morgan writes:

This standard at “first blush” sounds like
a kind and thoughtful element in Barack Obama’s
thinking when in fact… it is a dangerous
push for a Supreme Court Judge that will in
fact “legislate from the bench”…

The goal of any “Supreme Court Judge”..
is to objectively interpret the U. S.
Constitution… and not to add their
own personal prejudices to their decisions…

Justice is supposed to be “Blind” as the
expression goes…. yet Barack Obama is
asking that the judges he appoints… ignore
the constitution and add their own biases
to their ultimate decision making…

Most of us who are keenly aware of Barack
Obama’s Radical thinking… are once again
on “High Alert”…

The uninformed will look at his words regarding
the Supreme Court Nominee as a perfectly
wonderful philosophy… never realizing that
in fact, his objective is to distort the
Constitution; the document that truly
protects us…

Furthermore, this attitude will embolden those
within the judiciary on all levels to adopt
and push forth their political agendas from
the bench…

This thinking is antithetical to the principles
of the Founding Documents…

May 2, 2009 Duane Phinney Pensacola FL writes:

The rise and fall of the great American experiment.

May 2, 2009 John Lyle, Kansas City MO writes:

Wow, That sounds pretty scary. Sounds like Algore’s interpretation of the constitution as a “Living breathing document” rather than a black and white set of standards. I guess law will become what ever we feel is right at the time.

May 2, 2009 Mike, TX writes:

Here is a suggestion Mr Obama. How about ensuring that all Americans are treated equally under our laws to ensure just decisions and outcomes vice empathy which can be subjective.

May 2, 2009 Seadon, Babylon, NY writes:

How about George Soros for SCOTUS? Would that surprise anyone? Or how about Ward Churchill? Bill Ayers?

Obama is a very dangerous infection.

May 2, 2009 Dale MN writes:

Those words used by the Pres. are very very against the Constitution and Law of America. When he admits right out that the Justice he will appoint change the laws as they see fit and how they feel about the case in front of them. “Empathy of understanding and identifying what people’s hopes and struggles are” does not belong in the court room when in America we base innocent or guilt on evidence, NOT feelings and empathy of the Judge.

Will some one please explain to Obama that the laws are what we go by in the JUSTICE SYSTEM and if he appoints “someone who understands justice and isn’t about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book” he will be making a self admitted UNCONSTITUTIONAL decision making of based on personal feelings that are also acts of TREASON. Undermining our Judicial System with someone appointed for reasons other then what the Constitution and OATH they take stands for is nothing other then TREASON. I am so tired of this daily bold and belligerent OFFICIAL activity by the President, Pelosi, Reid, Dodd, Frank, and to many to mention it makes me sick to my stomach that the people that understand how we can make this stop with protections put in place to end the lunacy.

WILL ANY ONE PLEASE START THE BALL OF AMERICAN JUSTICE ROLLING TO BRING US TO ELIMINATING CONS AND LIARS SO THEY CAN BE REPLACED. I know the solid patriotic, law bidding, hard working, honest and a Constitution, bible,gun hugging loyal American Citizen.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE LETS START NOW PLEASE.

May 3, 2009 do in michigan writes:

And this guy taught constitutional law!!!!H even spins that.
What a dangerous joke.!!!

May 3, 2009 Mark Watson, Louisville writes:

Inescapably George Orwell’s ‘1984′ and ‘Alice in Wonderland’ methods of extracting word meanings through a normative thought process is now the official lexicon for the country. No, as meant in various liberties ensconced in the constitution, will surely be redefined to mean sometimes because people should be able to prevent you from using hateful words such as patriotic, strict construction or race baiting. Surely all citizens should be able to be completely safe in their lives so it is necessary to disarm evil citizens who dare assert their entitlement to those pesky freedoms identified in a stale piece of paper written by evil white men long long ago.

While he’s at transforming the country and its language how long do you suppose it will be before Obama insists that any election result he disagrees with should be redefined so that only ‘real’ Americans’ votes, i.e., those who have never engaged in critical thinking, should be counted?

I guess words really don’t have meaning any more.

May 4, 2009 jr., Michigan writes:

is it just me, or does anyone elses stomach turn when this no-nothing speaks?

May 5, 2009 Truth Hurts, The Real World writes:

Is it possible to be taxed into slavery by a such a corrupt regime?How long will we watch on the side lines as this fool and his cohorts trample our Constitution ,our free market system and our rights and let our country be enslaved to his emotional problems and the comucrats greed and power problems disguised by the banner of ‘Fairness’ or were watching out for you poor peons?How much of the Constitution will the Supreme Court let his messiahship[False] destroy before we the people have to take action! The silence is dangerous ?Are they being held captive?