Politics and Religion

So Tusayan, is your point that Clarence T. was a judge longer
Harry5390 89 Reviews 1439 reads
posted

than liberal icon, Eisenhower appointed, SJC Chief Justice Earl Warren? Is that your point? Warren was a pol who had never spent a minute being a judge before he was named the SJC chief. In 1954 Warren insisted it was neccessary that the Court hand down a unanimous decision on Brown v. Board of Ed, a pretty big case. It was an unpopular decision but clearly the right one for the country.

To me that proves Obama's answer was pure Obama.
(Pure Obama is a term interchangeable with pure bullshit.)

RightwingUnderground2804 reads

From Rick Warren's Civil Forum on the Presidency on Saturday night.  The question, "Senator Obama, which existing Supreme Court justice would you not have nominated?"

OBAMA:  I would not have nominated, uhhh, Clarence Thomas. (applause) Uh, I don't think that he's -- uhhh... uhhh... I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- I -- uh -- I don't think that he was an exper[ienced] -- uh,  I -- I don't think that he was a -- a strong enough jurist or legal thinker, uh, at the time, uh, for that elevation.  Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the Constitution.

Obama on Clarence Thomas
August 18, 2008
Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night's Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, "with all due respect" the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy.

Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that "that's a good one," and then adding that "I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas. I don't think that he, I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution." The Democrat added that he also wouldn't have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job.

So let's see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General's office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation's second most prominent court. Since his "elevation" to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist.

Meanwhile, as he bids to be America's Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn't yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a "community organizer" and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas's judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama's Presidential résumé by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas's rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama's story look like easy street.

Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat's answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn't expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn't merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court's black conservative isn't up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are.

So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama's advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won't let slip what he really believes.





-- Modified on 8/18/2008 4:20:28 PM

This is proof Obama is a racist.

He picks the only black man on the SJC. How can he not be a racist?

(What? Obama is what? A Democrat? Oh.)

Never mind.

Tusayan1622 reads

You pretty much made Senator Obama's point regarding Justice Thomas.  He had served only one year as judge before being named to the Supreme Court and was given a split vote of "qualified/not qualifed" by the American Bar Association.  In comparison, the other eight sitting Justices all received ratings of "well qualified." So Senator Obama would not have appointed a not qualified candidate while McCain would not have appointed four well qualified judges, including two were appointed by Republican Presidents.  That really calls McCain's judgment into question and ends the charade that he is some kind of moderate who will govern in a bipartisan manner.

than liberal icon, Eisenhower appointed, SJC Chief Justice Earl Warren? Is that your point? Warren was a pol who had never spent a minute being a judge before he was named the SJC chief. In 1954 Warren insisted it was neccessary that the Court hand down a unanimous decision on Brown v. Board of Ed, a pretty big case. It was an unpopular decision but clearly the right one for the country.

To me that proves Obama's answer was pure Obama.
(Pure Obama is a term interchangeable with pure bullshit.)

Register Now!