Obama's Judicial Philosophy
With only 80 days left until the election, newspapers have begun polishing their feature stories on the legacy of President Obama's first term. Over at The New York Times, a new piece examining Obama's impact on the courts reaches some conclusions out of character for the paper of record. The president's judicial philosophy comes across as "ambiguous" and even possessing, gasp, "contradictions."
Unlike Mr. Bush, who cast a spotlight on his nominees and judicial philosophy, Mr. Obama has rarely discussed his views and has sometimes offered seeming contradictions. For example, he said judges should have “empathy” for people’s struggles and understand how rulings “affect the daily realities of people’s lives” — but also that they should impartially “approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda.”
Surprised? Perhaps contradiction is just the kindest word available for a constitutional law professor who makes claims like this: "Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
- Comment (4)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Re: Obama's Judicial Philosophy
For my money, there are two important take-aways from the piece. First, even the NYT concedes that the high judicial vacancy rate is due primarily to Obama's own lackluster approach to picking judges - which ought to stop liberals from whining about how the GOP is "blocking" Obama's judges (but of course, it won't stop them).
Secondly: there IS a very large number of judicial vacancies. As NYT reports: Obama "is set to end his term with dozens fewer lower-court appointments than both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush achieved in their first four years." Yet another reminder (and forgive me for being a broken record) that this election is absolutely decisive for the future course of the judiciary.
Other than that, the article does contain some classic NYT inaccuracies, particularly the "fact" that Obama "sought relatively moderate jurists who he hoped would not provoke culture wars..." Oh, like David Hamilton, who said praying to Jesus would violate the Establishment Clause but praying to Allah would not? Or Goodwin Liu, who argues that the "Living Constitution" should be read to include a right to receive welfare?
Re: Obama's Judicial Philosophy
Thank you, Adam. I was hoping you would weigh in on this.
Oct '10
Re: Obama's Judicial Philosophy
Well since Obama technically wasn't even a professor, but a lecturer, then we hold him to an unfair standard. I think he's just as ignorant, if not more so, about economics as he is about the law.
Jul '11
Re: Obama's Judicial Philosophy
If Gitmo was unconstitutional in 2008, why is it still open?
Asking questions about the president's judicial "philosophy" assumes the lecturer-in-chief has one in the first place. The courts are a means to a political end for Barry, and that's a target that's always shifting, depending on, you guessed it: politics. Which, for Barry, really just boils down to doing whatever he needs to do to get re-elected.