Why Obama voted against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts? - New England Patriots Forums

***NEPatriot*** · 06-15-2009, 12:27 PM

Everybody knows why Obama wants to see a latino women to be a SC Judge. Obama used a different standard when he didn't want to see Robert IN SC. Here were his reasons:

Why Obama Voted Against Roberts - WSJ.com

Quote:

In those 5% of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country, or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions, or whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled -- in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart.

The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

ljuneau · 06-15-2009, 12:35 PM

Obama could have used far few words:

Quote:

The problem I had is that Judge Roberts' record consistently followed the rule of law and the U.S. constitution.

State · 06-15-2009, 01:19 PM

Hey, that's "latina," NEP.

godef · 06-15-2009, 01:21 PM

Quote:

The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts' record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General's Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.

Oh, I don't know... sounds like pretty good reasons to me.

godef · 06-15-2009, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ljuneau

Obama could have used far few words:

Quote:

The problem I had is that Judge Roberts' record consistently followed the rule of law the the U.S. constitution.

The "rule of law" of the U.S. constitution used to permit slavery and denied women the right to vote. Ducking behind the Constitution is not necessarily always good.

ljuneau · 06-15-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godef

The "rule of law" of the U.S. constitution used to permit slavery and denied women the right to vote. Ducking behind the Constitution is not necessarily always good.

But those laws were changed, and not by activist judges. What Obama is basically saying is that he wants judges to make law arbitrarily.

State · 06-15-2009, 01:32 PM

Yeah, I read that too. It's all about empathy. Nothing about the Constitution.

Obama doesn't want a referee, but a cheerleader for left of center causes.

But when it comes to the Second Amendment they become uber strict constructionists.

State · 06-15-2009, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godef

The "rule of law" of the U.S. constitution used to permit slavery and denied women the right to vote. Ducking behind the Constitution is not necessarily always good.

When was Dred Scott? 1857? Universal women's suffrage in the Nineteenth Amendment? 1920?

Think you can come up with examples AFTER Henry Ford Model T's were in circulation, knee jerk godef? Pathetic.

Of course the most pertinent example to prove your point would be Roe in 1973. But killing babies doesn't apparently get you provoked enough to include. But that decision, which I think was erroneous, was based on finding a right to privacy in the "penumbra" of the Constitution.

BTW, top liberal legal scholars, like Laurence Tribe at Harvard, no longer defend abortion on the grounds Roe was decided on.

sdaniels7114 · 06-15-2009, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by State

Think you can come up with examples AFTER Henry Ford Model T's were in circulation...

Sure how about construction here in liberal Massachusetts today? I can't think of how many times I've been in the middle of a dirty, grungy job when some super would come along and imply 'What are you doing? We got Brazilians and Puerto Ricans for that.' Blacks are still largely under-represented in non-union construction as far as my 20 years in the field have shown. The absence of women I can understand. Most every job in construction requires some physical strength, but race doesn't play a role in being strong enough to get the job done and believe me I've met my share of dumb white people in the trades.

I have a Bachelor's degree. After banging my head against the wall for 3 years I decided to give myself a dramatic raise (I mean 4 times as much money) and abandon the career I went to school for, for the job I did part time for my dad as a teen. Sure it sucks right now, but recessions don't last forever and when times are normal the money's good and when times are booming, its often fantastic; but it really only ever gets fantastic for us white guys.

Real World · 06-15-2009, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by godef

Oh, I don't know... sounds like pretty good reasons to me.

Except for the fact that you're not supposed to vote against a nominee because of ideology. You're supposd to vote on their qualifications.