Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now, the paranoid rant is, [Obama] will appoint some anti-Constitution liberal who will work to destroy what remains of our Constitutional Republic"
Not far off the mark.
Obama in a Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) interview in 2001:
Quote:
"If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the Court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf"
Obama wants a Supreme Court that "breaks free from the constraints of the Constitution"* in order to force federal and state governments to redistribute wealth and impose political and economic justice in society (as he sees it).
* That, in itself, is a violation of his Presidential Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
How about R-UT Mike Lee's classy staffer Conn Carroll here? This looks like politicizing the issue to me!
I agree with you about the tweet. VERY tacky and uncalled for.
In another post by someone else on this thread, that person wrote that the rule of thumb in the past has been not to make these appointments within the Summer before the election, pegging this at approximately 6 months before inauguration....and that because it is February, that wouldn't apply to the current situation. I scratched my head re this, because it has been my understanding that it is the Summer before the YEAR of the election, which in the current case would have been the summer of 2015. Apparently, Marco Rubio is under the same impression and just told Dana Bash on CNN that this is why he thinks the next president should make the appointment...and that if the appointment was made before that, under these particular circumstances, it would be something that hasn't happened in 80 years. Dana Bash then interviewed Senator Leahy and referred to this as the Thurmond Rule. Leahy didn't answer several of Dana's questions and made his own points instead. Dana interviewed Hugh Hewitt after that and Hugh said he could point out 27 different instances that show that Leahy knows what he (Leahy) just said isn't true. I then looked up 'Thurmond Rule' on Wikipedia. Yikes, if that is an accurate reflection. Apparently, lawmakers over the years don't agree on what the Thurmond Rule is and utilize, reshape it, and dismiss it to best suit their own purposes, on both sides of the aisle. Coincidentally, if the Wikipedia article portrays any one lawmaker as talking out of both sides of his or her mouth re this, it is Senator Leahy. What a mess.
Obama in a Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) interview in 2001:
Obama wants a Supreme Court that "breaks free from the constraints of the Constitution"* in order to force federal and state governments to redistribute wealth and impose political and economic justice in society (as he sees it).
* That, in itself, is a violation of his Presidential Oath of Office.
"I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
That's not what he said, re read that statement. He was commenting that the Warren Courts activism is overstated despite the civil rights movement.
I can see how you've made it appear that way by highlighting specific pieces, but you either didn't read it correctly, or are deliberately misrepresenting the statement.
Damn, and all along I thought that the 2nd amendment freaks and Bundyites on C-D knew more about the constitution than everybody else. At least that's what they say.
Not germane to Vector's point, and you know it isn't.
Maybe. Since he was one of the most powerful people in the country and I despised him - I feel nothing but joy. Good riddance. If there is a hell - he's burning in it!!! PHTTT
There's the compassionate, tolerate progressive liberal on display. The true face of liberalism, full of hate.
Not far off the mark.
Obama in a Chicago Public Radio (WBEZ) interview in 2001:
Obama wants a Supreme Court that "breaks free from the constraints of the Constitution"* in order to force federal and state governments to redistribute wealth and impose political and economic justice in society (as he sees it).
The quote from that speech is:
Quote:
To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties
That does not imply what you claim, it is an observation on the Warren Court. Do you have a verifiable quote from Obama where he states that he advocates a court that would "break free from the essential constraints"? I didn't think so...
That does not imply what you claim, it is an observation on the Warren Court. Do you have a verifiable quote from Obama where he states that he advocates a court that would "break free from the essential constraints"? I didn't think so...
Even with the part he omitted it was clear Obama was commenting on the Warren Courts legacy not advocating.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
