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."