As the national political media rightly shifts its attention to Barack Obama's choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice John Paul Stevens, a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Friday, April 16th for another controversial nominee should still garner the attention of those reporting upon the transformation of the Constitution from "a charter of negative liberties" into one that would "bring about redistributive change."(from netrightnation.com)
Those words were uttered by none other than Barack Obama, then an Illinois State Senator, in a 2001 WBEZ public radio interview. At the time, Obama regretted that the Warren Court had proven unable to "break us free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution" and had "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of the wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society."
Such is Obama’s judicial philosophy, and no other statement of his gives the American people a clearer window into how he views the role of federal courts, which would, necessarily, venture into those issues.
It also offers a window into what sorts of nominees he would seek for the bench.
Related video clips:
|'Fundamentally transforming the U.S.A.'||'The fundamental flaw of this country'|
I assume there’s a scandal brewing and that he simply jumped before he was pushed, but I’m trying to talk myself into believing that this has something to do with the Supreme Court vacancy. I know that’s insane — The One, by all accounts, is looking for a nominee who won’t spark partisan outrage and Stern is the antithesis of that — but the prospect of a Borkian confirmation carnival in the Senate is simply too glorious to let go of the thought just yet.(from hotair.com)
Even by the standards of Democratic presidents The One is a union crony par excellence, so maybe he’d give this a moment’s thought. And remember, on the day Stevens resigned, I argued that this might be his last, best chance to put a hard leftist on the Court. So how about it, huh? I want to believe. Except … I don’t. Alas, it’s just too insane. Bummer.
The pension debacle is well known, with the city's costs for all employees going from $1.4 billion eight years ago to $7.1 billion next year.
None of this would have happened had a succession of politicians not caved in to labor's demands. But mayors and governors, council members and legislators have feathered their nests by buying off the unions.
And now the bill is busting New York. Gov. Paterson proclaims himself surprised workers won't give back in the emergency.
"I am just shocked and amazed that every time you ask the special interests or the unions for some kind of sacrifice that the answer is either 'no' or 'I'm going to sue you,' " he said.
The shock is that he's shocked.