Obama and McCain on Their Least Favorite Justices

The Supreme Court, usually an also-ran as a presidential election issue, got some significant attention at Rev. Rick Warren's televised Saddleback Civil Forum on Saturday night. In successive interviews on stage at Warren's Saddleback Church in California, Warren asked both candidates the same questions. His way of getting at the Supreme Court was an interesting one, asking not whom they would appoint to the high court, but rather, which of the current justices they would not have appointed.  We've posted a document with the transcript of their remarks.

Sen. Barack Obama's unhesitating answer was Clarence Thomas, because he was not "a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time." Obama also mentioned Antonin Scalia and John Roberts Jr., praising their intellect but adding that he did not agree with their constitutional views. Roberts, Obama said, was too quick to favor expansion of executive power, which Obama said concerned him even if he becomes a President who could benefit from the expansion.

McCain was just as quick in responding, rattling off the names of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter, and John Paul Stevens — showing impressive recall of the justices' names, which not all candidates and very few average citizens could display. He did not accuse them in connection with any specific decision, but suggested they were among the federal judges who legislate from the bench.

Obama is already catching flak for his appraisal, with comments sent out to reporters by CRC Public Relations, which works for the Federalist Society and other conservative organizations, as well as corporations and other nonprofits. "It was clear last night that Obama’s criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices are fuzzy, lack intellectual coherence, and are subject to his own whims," said Wendy Long, a former Thomas clerk and counsel to the Judicial Confirmation Network.  Said former Reagan Justice Department official Chuck Cooper, "Obama's comments at the Saddleback Forum denouncing the appointment of Justices Scalia and Thomas makes even clearer that principles of judicial restraint will have no place in an Obama Administration and that he will seek to impose his liberal social agenda on the American people through the appointment of crusading activist judges."

Comments

[DOUGLAS FIELD]

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY AWAITS SENATOR OBAMA’S LEADERSHIP ON THIS US JUDICIAL INJUSTICE ???

LETS ALL HOPE OUR INTERNATIONAL MEDIA FRIENDS ALSO SHOW AN INTEREST IN REPORTING ON THIS AMERICAN HORROR FACING THESE (TENS OF THOUSANDS) FORGOTTEN AND TRAPPED POORER AMERICANS, AND HOW THIS POSSIBLE FUTURE PRESIDENTIAL CONTENDER HANDLES THIS VERY SERIOUS ISSUE FACING AMERICA’S LATINO AND BLACK AMERICAN COMMUNITIES ????

WITH 80% OF THE BLACK AMERICAN VOTERS SAYING THEY SUPPORT SENATOR OBAMA IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, IT IS ONLY FAIR FOR EVERYONE TO KNOW PRIOR BEING ELECTED OUR NEXT PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES HOW THIS DEMOCRATIC SENATOR TRULY FEELS ABOUT THIS AMERICAN JUDICIAL HORROR CONTINUING TO INFLICT GRAVE HARM ON THE BLACK AMERICAN FAMILIES AND THEIR COMMUNITIES NATIONWIDE ??????

*** WHEN GOD’S FACE BECAME VERY RED ***
THE US SUPREME COURT GAVE ENEMY COMBATANTS FEDERAL APPEAL HC RIGHTS LAWYERS AND PROPER ACCESS TO US FEDERAL COURTS,AND POORER AMERICANS (MANY EVEN ON DEATH ROW) ARE DENIED PROPER FEDERAL APPEAL LEGAL REPRESENTATION TO OUR US FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL, AND ROTTING IN AMERICAN PRISONS NATIONWIDE ?????????

**** INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH THEIR FEDERAL APPEALS !
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE $LOWLY FINDING OUT HOW EA$Y IT I$ FOR MIDDLE CLA$$ AND WORKING POOR AMERICAN$ TO FALL VICTIM TO OUR U$ MONETARY JUDICIAL $Y$TEM.

****WHEN THE US INNOCENT WERE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ****
The prison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.
Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This devious and deceptive judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This FACADE and HORROR of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT, BECOME THE GUILTY!

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.
** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com (424-247-2013)

[Stan Lubin]

Why is it that the originalists use a 21st century dictionary? After all, the meanings of words change over the decades. Therefore, if 1 were to be an originalist, the use of an 18th century dictionary should be required. That would result in more restritive rights on religious access to public buildings and the like, the right to tax church property, and much more.

A second problem would arise when the court is called upon to interpret an amendment. Do we now use a dictionary in use at the time of the amendment being ratified? One can imagine what that would mean.

Hoowever one looks at it, the use of 21st century language to define what was done in the 18th century amounts to a fraud.

[dc]

What is missed in the written transcript is that obamam nearly said that clarence thomas was not experienced enough. "I don't think that he…was a strong enough jurist" At the dots he almost said "Experienced" in the oral transcript on tv--- --ironic in that that is a charge that could be leveled against obama himself!

[Jim]

@Jeff
Couldn't agree more. It's an empty vessel, waiting to be filled with the convenient rationale du jour. At least he makes it entertaining from time to time (if no less venal).

[Jeff Spangler]

How many serious legal scholars find historic support for the transparently political "originalism" concocted by the Federalist Society in the early 1980s? Even its most ardent proponent "Nino" Scalia couldn't explain it coherently to Tim Russert in a recent interview. It is a laughable excuse for a rationally-based doctrine of constitutional interpretation.

[bARRY]

So McCain can name four justices he doesn't like, and that's a big deal? Wow? Pretty low bar, there, sin't it?

Now....WHY does he not like each of them? Name a decision from each that shows why he doesn't like that particular Justice? Iw ould have been impressed if he could have done that.

But yes,m he remembered four names. And now he is undoubtedly off to the Irak - Afghanistan border to do something or other.